For instance, someone could be involved in something illegal, and, when asked about it, could tell the truth up to a point. The person in question would be consistently telling the truth, but it would not be the whole truth. Honesty is a somewhat more complex idea that covers a broader range of requirements. Honesty is truthful, reliable, trustworthy, and open. It encompasses the virtues of truthfulness without the gaps.
Instead of telling the truth, and hurting her fragile feelings, you would rather say a little lie, telling her that you love it. If you are lying to keep someone you care about from getting their feelings hurt, or their pride wounded, then what is the harm? In conclusion, there is nothing wrong with telling small lies, if you are doing it with someone’s best interest in mind. Secondly, it is okay to be untruthful if you are trying to protect people. In certain situations, it is safer, and more practical for you to tell a lie rather than putting a loved one in jeopardy.
Yes, we have an obligation to avoid doxastic errors by reflecting on our belief-forming processes and by adjusting them in pursuit of reliability, but we also need to make a reasonable link between reality and truth to the extent that a proposition becomes senseless to doubt. So, although Gettier problems may be inescapable, this does not mean we are starved of knowledge completely.
Imagine a scenario where I am asked a certain question and I answer that question to the best of my knowledge. I genuinely wanted to provide a right answer to the question, however the answer that I thought was true is actually false. From a consequentialist’s view, the results from the above scenario and lying are the same and therefore will hold same moral weight. However, even though the end consequence may be the same in that the listener is misled in both cases, it is hard to see that a case where one genuinely attempts to help a listener with a mistaken information and a case that one purposely tries to misled the listener with a knowingly false information should be subjected to identical moral guilt. If it is not the end consequence that determines the permissibility of lying, then it follows that what differentiates lying from other instances of misleading the listener is the intention behind the act.
Blaise Pascal’s argument was fairly simple: you are better off believing in God because if he does exist, you will go to heaven, but if you do not believe and he happens to exist, you are likely to be punished with hell. There are several things wrong with his argument because he is insinuating that if people go about living a morally correct life, but do not believe in God, they are not welcome in heaven, if God is proven real. With that being said, Pascal rules out all the people that do well in the world and basically live by God’s biblical rules, but do not believe in his existence for a matter of reasons, whether it is lack of evidence or perhaps they believe in another God. A fallacious point made in Pascal’s argument for making people prefer to believe in God, is that he does not mention what God to believe in. If a person is to believe in another God that Pascal is referring to, that person will not benefit from heaven because they do not believe in that exact
Doubt is the middle ground between blind acceptance and outright refusal to believe. Doubt lends itself to a certain uncomfortable feeling of questioning but is a necessary tool to reach perceived truth and knowledge. Without doubt, one would believe anything he or she is told; it is a natural filter for the information thrust upon us. Doubt is in some ways the opposite of faith. Faith insinuates an acceptance so powerful that one does not need evidence to back up one’s claim.
If someone’s faith is real and honest. If someone is telling the truth. Or even if someone is lying, are they doing it to save someone else or themselves. Miller also shows this in his play. That just because you may tell a lie does not mean you don’t have faith.
Emerson wanted us to believe that "truth and sincerity unsullied by ulterior motives" constituted good use. The only problem in that is even though you may be telling the truth, does it actually make it "good"? As in the exercise we did for class that showed how using different words we could make the same place sound attractive and then not so attractive. In both cases, we were telling the truth, but can we consider one description "better" than the other. The truth of one person may not be the same as the truth for another person depending on their perspective.
When we believe these lies, we're only deceiving ourself (Leviticus 19: 16-17). In James 3: 1-12, it is pointed out that you can not tell the truth and lie at the same time. The Bible points out that a half-truth is a lie. A lie is slow to heal. When we lie and somebody finds out,... ... middle of paper ... ...were wrong, others would hate and despise you for the lies you told.
You can be honest about believing in something but if you adhere to that moral belief then you are showing integrity. American professor Stephen L. Carter wrote in his essay “The Insufficiency of Honesty” that “The first point to understand about the difference between honesty and integrity is that a person may be entirely honest without ever engaging in the hard work of discernment that integrity requires: she may tell us quite truthfully what she believes without ever taking the time to figure out whether what she believes is good and right and true.” (Carter) This shows that a person can tell the truth about what they believe but if do not follow it consistently, it means that they are not showing integrity. American writer Isaac Asimov said in his book How to Enjoy Writing: A Book of Aid and Comfort when he said “Integrity, is, to me, a somewhat stronger word than “honesty.” “Honesty” often implies truth-telling and little more, but “integrity” implies wholeness, soundness, a complex philosophy of life.” (Asimov) This further explains the difference between integrity and honesty. Integrity and honesty are not the same but are both very important to have based on personal