Ethics

Should you always expose the truth to the ones you love, even when it may do them harm by knowing?

Comments

The following are really just very rough sketches, but I hope they will give you some indication of how your question would be answered by different philosophers.

Some philosophers conceive of the morality of an action in terms of whether we are willing to universalize the action in question over all agents and all examples of the relevant sorts of actions, so the answer to your question in this view would be given by whether we should universalize as: "Always reveal the truth!" or "Always refrain from revealing the truth!" I think if we take this approach, the former is plainly the preferable maxim. I know that if the question concerned telling the truth versus telling lies, this sort of approach might seem more plausible. But your question is about exposing truths--in which the failure to expose some truth may involve no dishonesty or manipulation of any kind. Imagine a case in which you know that a friend's husband commited a minor crime. It may be one thing to lie, if your friend asks you point blank if you know anything about this, and quite another to decide not to tell her what you happen to know (that she does not know). Even if we are willing to universalize against telling lies (which I actually doubt), I think we are less likely to be comfortable with the idea that we should universalize telling everything we know to others.

So, another way to frame your question is whether exposing the truth is always or only sometimes the right thing to do. If we are willing to entertain the latter, it is not clear that a universalizing strategy will help much.

Other philosophers count the morality of an action (or a rule to follow) in terms of whether that action or rule will maximize benefits to those affected by the action or rule-following, and minimize harms to them. If we take this approach (called "consequentialism"), then we would have to balance the benefit of knowing the truth (and as a general rule, I think we would call that a benefit) against the harm that such knowledge might bring about. (Suppose the minor crime your friend's husband committed was littering, but you know that your friend is likely to divorce her husband if he commits any crime whatsoever, which will then, you foresee, lead to a terrible custody fight over the children, who will also suffer as a result of the conflict, and so on.) Even if there is always some benefit to knowing the truth, it might be reasonable to judge that the bad consequences of exposing what you know to your friend in this case outweigh the value of her knowing the truth. If so (and surely we can make up a case of this sort, even if you don't find the one I have imagined here compelling), then in a consequentialist approach, it will prove sometimes to be better not to expose the truth--in cases in which the net harms will be greater than the net benefits.

Still other philosophers (virtue theorists) might say that we need first of all to be concerned about what sort of person is making this decision in a given case--and what sort of motivations he or she has for making whatever decision he or she will make. In the case you have in mind, surely it would matter, in this sort of view, if the person deciding was exercising appropriate concern and care for the one he or she loves. He or she might approach the question by wondering, "What is best for him (or her) in this case--exposing the painful truth, or not?" What would make the relevant decision a correct one, in this approach, will be the result of many factors--is the person deciding acting on the basis of good motives or bad ones? Is he or she in a good position to judge what is best for all concerned? Is the person making the judgment generally a good (reliable) judge of such matters, or not? What are the other important features of the particular case in question, which should influence a good judge's judgment, and is the judge in this case aware of these? This approach, notice, does not issue a clear "yes" or "no" answer to your question, because the contexts given by factors such as those raised by the above questions can be indefinitely variable. But I think you can see how the different variations we can imagine will produce the answer to the question you asked that it is sometimes appropriate not to expose the truth to others (loved or not), and not just because they may be harmed by what we tell them, but also because of other factors that may influence how we judge the case, and whether or not we are in the right position to make this judgment in this case at all!

I hope you find this helpful!

No, I think there are times when it's better to conceal the truth. Part of wisdom in ethics involves not just being truthful but knowing when and how the truth should be told. Mind you, there are good reasons for being maximally truthful; but they do not count in every case.

Read another response by Nicholas D. Smith, Peter S. Fosl

Read another response about Ethics