(A note in advance: This article starts with ~400 words worth of contextual information that I believe are necessary in order to support my main point at the end. If you can be patient during the first half, it will pay off. Thanks!)

Since committing to uncompromising honesty, I’ve had dozens of conversations with people, practically all of which involve being asked to navigate – using complete honesty – some scenario in which lying would appear difficult to avoid. While many of these are quotidian, involving common white lies to friends, family members, or children, many of the scenarios people challenge me with are characterized by a high degree of absurdity and improbability. These scenarios almost always seem to involve a gun to one of my loved one’s head, as well as the promise that, unless I tell some highly specific lie in response to the kidnapper’s demand, he will surely take their life. (The people I know must love action movies… or hate my loved ones.)

Now to be fair, many of these inquiries are – as far as I can tell – motivated by entirely harmless reasons (e.g. genuine curiosity). In these cases, the conversations that take place are often welcome, in particular because they have a way of keeping this pursuit lighthearted and fun (something that has been surprisingly difficult at times). However, there are many other inquiries of this nature that appear to be strongly motivated by… less than constructive reasons (to put it mildly). In these cases, the person presenting me with a scenario seems to do so not out of curiosity or a need for intellectual rigor, but rather out of a desire for confrontation. Whatever the motivation for these particular conversations (more on this later), they can fortunately be identified fairly easily (opinions motivated by agenda and tinged with vitriol are often conspicuously obvious). Unfortunately, though, they occur with surprising frequency.

The reason challenges of this nature are so common is simple: If one can find any scenario whatsoever in which lying is the preferred course of action, they immediately introduce – as a general maxim of life – that lying has at least some potentially necessary place in our existence. The logical next step, then, is to question whether other scenarios also merit lying, and soon enough lying apologists are off and running with their growing list of exceptions. Discovering even one pro-lying scenario, regardless of how improbable and ridiculous it is, calls into question the grander claim I’ve made regarding the societal need for uncompromising honesty (i.e. that everyone should commit to honesty in all situations), and by doing so, weakens the expectations to which I believe we should all hold one another. Obviously, this is a significant consequence.

As such, I feel obligated to partake in these conversations, despite the fact that many of them feel like deviously planted traps, and all of them feel like distractions (even if sometimes both welcome and enjoyable). Fortunately, I find these “lies in extremis” to be fairly easy to counter.

The first move is to deny the value of what – in political philosophy – is often referred to as ‘ideal theory’. While the academic definition of this is outside of the scope of this article, essentially the response is this: If the only way to call into question the validity of radical honesty is to concoct a fairly impossible (or at least highly unlikely) scenario – essentially to use as the backdrop of your argument a world that doesn’t exist – it’s unclear that there’s much value in it. Put more simply, how good is your criticism if it has arguably no practical implication for real life? Because let’s be clear: Very few of us will ever be held hostage and informed that our freedom is contingent on some highly specific lie. All of us will be asked how a loved one looks in a certain ensemble. Why use the former to prove the value of lying in the latter? As a justification for lying, this seems desperate.

The truth is, I have yet to hear of any real or likely situation in which a lie could achieve an outcome that some truth could not. (Of course, I welcome any suggestions to the contrary.) Yet, again, all of this (i.e. arguing for or defending against lying in extreme situations) feels like a complete distraction away from the real question we should be asking ourselves. That is: Rather than being motivated to discover that it is something we should and can do away with entirely, why does is seem that everyone wants to find a reason to hold onto lying?

Over the past few weeks, I’ve heard all manner of reasonable (although still erroneous) and absurd justifications for lying, from ‘it’s necessary to get ahead professionally’ to ‘lying was an early evolutionary adaptation that was needed for survival’ (an interesting – although unsuccessful – argument that may be deserving of a future article). I’ve even had a profoundly intelligent and successful person I know suggest that “brutal honesty” in some significant way laid the foundation for Adam Lanza, the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooter. And while I can’t help but feel the compulsion to spend time responding to each of these shallow, reductionist, or even irresponsible defenses of lying, I simply cannot comprehend why so few people are willing to agree with a defense of absolute honesty. Worse, why so many will go to such great lengths to maintain lying’s privileged position.

Why are we so protective of lying? Why do we tend to put the burden of proof on the honest person in terms of arguing against lying? Why do we resort to absurdity when defenses of lying in common scenarios prove unfounded? Only by being honest with ourselves can we ever hope to be honest with one another.

So in the future, do me a favor and really think about what’s going on when you consider the role honesty plays in your life. If you find yourself starting to argue in favor of lying, ask yourself why – why it is so important that you continue to lie to strangers, acquaintances, friends, and loved ones. If you can at least bring yourself to apply internal radical honesty, there is a chance for us to one day be able to discuss openly what is really going on below the surface when we defend the existence of lying.

Keith F.

Chief Experience Officer & award-winning speaker. Host, CreativeMornings Boston. Creator of ProofOfHope.us and AdventuresInHonesty.com. Formerly: Creative Director at HubSpot (IPO) & Producer at MTV. Follow me on Twitter: @theKeithF

read more

4 Comments

  • Reply

    Bob Giangrasso

    January 12, 2016 at 9:12 am

    You have raised an interesting thought process. Maintaining lying’s privileged position is really saying that lying has morphed into its own language. For if people can’t utter a word without lying, they are therefore speaking in a lying dialect. Is English that limited? Perhaps this was invented by Richard Nixon who not only lied at the drop of a hat; he lied while the hat was still in the air. And thus in a single-handed swoop destroyed the notion of honesty in government. You are right, honesty should be the backbone of our relationships and the heart of our businesses. We’ve all noticed how disarming an honest reply at a business meeting can turn the tables in your favor. How refreshing! I can trust this guy! I want to do business with someone I can trust. Is this radical? It shouldn’t be, but I guess it is.

  • Reply

    Fernando Fiorentino

    January 18, 2016 at 1:15 pm

    This may be a gross oversimplification of my argument, but for the sake of brevity, here it goes:

    People defend lying because they don’t want to even entertain the notion that there is something “wrong with them”. Lying is so rampant in our society that by arguing how detrimental it is, you are, whether you mean to or not, claiming that everyone is flawed. People take this personally and, rather than reflect and think about the true utility of lying in their lives, they’d rather cut down your argument and preserve the idea that they are a wholly good person.

    Self-reflection is uncomfortable. The deeper you go, the more you uncover. The more you uncover, the more flaws you tend to find. Your own personal journey causes others to have a moment of self-reflection and, as the proprietor of this discomfort, people are lashing out at you and your argument in the hopes of invalidating you and returning their own emotional equilibrium.

    • Reply

      Keith F.

      January 19, 2016 at 9:25 pm

      My suspicion is that your reading isn’t an oversimplification at all; this is exactly what I believe is going on, and I’ve had a few people close to me admit this openly. For example, a friend told me recently that he rolls his eyes each time he sees that I’ve posted a new article. Now, he told me this as a way of honestly acknowledging his own internal difficulty with the project. However, even since telling me this, I have still noticed that he is, at times, actively trying to catch me in a lie. The motivation behind this behavior doesn’t seem to be positive or constructive in nature; in fact, it feels fairly malicious. This upsets me each time I consider it, but it appears that something about the project (perhaps the self-questioning nature of it, or maybe my public documentation of it) is causing quite a bit of negative sentiment. I can’t help but wonder what is going on below the surface when a good friend seems intent on weakening an undertaking as well-intentioned as I believe this one to be.

  • Reply

    nearest self storage

    April 10, 2016 at 8:21 am

    Hello There. I found your blog using msn. This is an extremely well written article.
    I’ll make sure to bookmark it and return to read more of your usful
    information. Thanks for the post. I will certrainly
    return.

Leave a Reply to Bob Giangrasso Cancel reply