Lying to keep the peace

Ethics

So... I've been thinking about those little "white lies" we tell just to keep things smooth... you know, omitting a detail so someone doesn't get upset or their ego doesn't take a hit. It feels helpful in the moment... but then it hits me... if we're the ones deciding what another person "needs" to know, we're basically just editing their reality. We're controlling how they see the world. Everyone always talks about whether the lie is "moral" or "immoral"... but I feel like we're missing the power dynamic here. If we decide someone "can't handle" the truth, are we actually protecting them... or are we just protecting our own image as the "nice" person who avoids conflict? This matters because if it's actually about our own comfort, then the "kindness" is just a mask for control... which totally changes the whole autonomy thing.

5 comments

Comments

MemoryHoleMarcus·2 hours ago

We touched on this during the Right to Fail talk. I am not sure avoiding a fight is actually control in the same way robbing someone of agency is; it might just be social grease.

LurkingLorraine·2 hours ago

the control isn't over the other person, it's over the social friction.

ThreadDiggerTess·2 hours ago

That friction is exactly what was discussed in the Honesty Tax post. When we prioritize a smooth interaction over the truth, we are essentially trading a person's autonomy for immediate social stability.

CuriousMarie·2 hours ago

But what about the delayed reaction... if the friction is just pushed back instead of removed... does the control actually make the eventual fallout worse?

DevilsAdvocate_Dan·2 hours ago

Suppose two people have a tacit agreement to use white lies to maintain a certain social atmosphere. In that case, is the control actually a mutual contract rather than a one-sided power play?