Talk:Honesty

Neutrality

Goodness me, this article seems to have an axe to grind! What a bunch of blather! Can we please take another shot at it, this time from NPOV? (see the author's response below)

I completely agree.

I have tried to make the introduction NPOV and have moved the Confucius material to a separate section. I have also removed the NPOV-tag. Please feel free to improve on the article, or put the tag back, if you think that it is still a bunch of blatter. Sietse 20:31, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Steve Sexauer wrote: I wrote the Western section as has read for the last few years, aside from a few edits(and its now july of 2008), (so that would be me that you saying has put in a "bunch of blather"). I am researching and writing a book on honesty and I wholeheartedly agree with the need for being neutral (i.e. NPOV) which is why I stress the point that honesty requires that we be unbiased in our search and recognition of the truth--something that ideologies (often overtly) see as bad, unfaithful, unpatriotic, blasphemous, blatherous, disrespectful or any of the many negative words used. The whole point of honesty is that the search for truth is neutral, otherwise you always come to the conclusion that you wanted or a compromised version instead of a larger, more accurate truth. So it's ironic that anyone says the article isnt a NPOV, unless you try to define NPOV to finding a truth that everyone finds likeable. Aside from being impossible, that's not being neutral, truthful or honorable, that's called compromising. Ideologically minded people find it difficult to welcome the idea that in order to qualify as honest, they would need to be unbiased by giving adequate weight to opposing views, because their ideals so important they have become part of their identity and therefore they are unable to be neutral. I always welcome challenges, comments and debates to this argument to those who are so inclined at imaginetruth@live.com. In regards to being neutral, I address ideologies in general-- rather than fingering what I would see as the worst or most common perpetrators.

" Partially because of incomplete understanding of these deeper notions of honesty among Westerners, in Asian countries it is common to refer to those who do not have them as barbarians. While sometimes Asian cultures sanction an almost intolerable degree of delay and ambiguity for Western tastes, it is very often to avoid lying, or giving a positive impression where doubt exists. These would be thought dishonest by Asians. Thus pressing for a decision on a matter where it is not yet possible to give an honest commitment or answer is seen as extremely rude - in effect, forcing someone to choose to be either rude or dishonest. Both being unthinkable in traditional culture, one thus delays."

I am in favor of this paragraph being completely removed, for it cites nothing and seems entirely biased. While it may be based in fact, it seems nearly entirely independent research for the time of being; the largest concern is that Asia possesses so many countries guided by differing principles, that it seems too broad, too vague, and far from being neutral. I am in favor of this paragraph being re-worked, if not entirely removed – since there was no real ambiguity that this was clearing initially.

Without Honesty there is no Dignity

i think honesty is the best policy —Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.134.207.204 (talk) 21:18, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Not All Religion is Dishonest

You could say that the churches you speak of actually beleive what they say and what they preach and so to them their not being lied to because they beleive it. You could also say that your position that churches are dishonest is a falicy because you don't know that what they beleive isn't true. If Someone is lied to, and they believe it whole heartedly then to them that person is being honest. Also (and this is my final uneducated thought) Being dishonest deals with deciept and the churches are not tricking people into a false beleif, they truly beleive that what they say is honest and true. I don't disagree with you on your position that churches could be wrong, but that doesnt make them dishonest.

There's more than one level of honesty involved. A person can be honest in a kind of literal way, by saying what they believe. But why do they believe it in the first place? If they maintain their belief by deceiving themselves, they're practicing a deeper kind of dishonesty.

Western religion hides behind the word "interpretation." If your scriptures say something your values don't agree with, just interpret it differently. Religion (at least Western religion) is inherently dishonest because its proponents begin with the assumption of religious truth, and everything else they come across is based on that assumption. They never are willing to challenge the assumption itself, and to refuse to challenge it is dishonest: it's believing what you wish to believe or what you've been taught. The only way to be honest about religion is to begin with an agnostic stand (I know nothing) and analyse the facts without bending too much to emotional need for religion or preference for what you were taught. But this is impossible for most people. They need their religion too much to be emotionally honest about it.

For example: problem of hell The interpretation that hell is the "absense of God" chosen by the individual is an attempt to get around the scriptures that say God will torment people, because it's not nice to believe God will torment people. It's not an invalid interpretation per se, but it's the process of choosing an interpretation convenient to your belief system rather than questioning the religion itself that is inwardly dishonest. Of course, lots of people really do believe in hell, and that you're only saved if you believe in Christ, but then why do they believe that in the first place? Because it's what they were taught, not because there's any factual basis for it. It's amazing, most Europeans are Christian, Arabs are Muslim, Indians are Hindu/Sikh, etc. -- we believe what we are taught, an ethnocentric bias - and bias is dishonest if we don't try to overcome it.

The same is true for most political perspectives, they tend to have a strong degree of emotional attachment, so that people believe what they wish to (both right and left wing). Education can help, but educators, too, teach dishonesty. People are inherently inwardly dishonest when it comes to emotion. Besides religion and politics, inward dishonesty shows up in conflicts, addictions, money, and ego, ego, ego. -- from an agnostic individual making some gradual attempts at more honesty 24.64.223.203 07:36, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Sourcing

How can we address sourcing, at least the first section even? Without sources, or references to publications that contain similar discussions in the global context, how do we validate this article?

Opinions?

CobaltBlueTony 04:17, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Quote moved from article

The following quote was moved from the article (from edit by 142.240.200.10). --Zigger «º» 14:25, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

==A variation on honesty being the best policy== * "Honesty is the best poetry." — Gregory Alan Elliott, Canadian Artist/Designer

I believe that there is a big difference between honesty, altruism and being honorable, and Confucius, binds these together to being honest. I believe that this is wrong.I am honest!!!!

see below for the rebuttle on this opinion about Confucius' honesty policy

Rebuttal, you mean. Unfree (talk) 22:03, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Western Views on Honesty

While i was looking for a different definition of the views on honesty i came across this website. http://www.answers.com/topic/honesty. It shows that the documentation for the Western views is infact valid. Sometimes the information on Wikipedia is correct and can be used as a cite, but sometimes it can be misconstrued because of the free reign to change specific information.

Brittany's Response:

These websites validate the information given in the section “Western Views on Honesty”: http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761573200/Socrates.html http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9106294/ideology http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9108679/idealism http://www.answers.com/topic/morality http://www.answers.com/topic/honorableness

144.126.223.12 01:27, 7 November 2006 (UTC)Brittany

The Studies of Confucius about Honesty

This portion of Wikipedia is also valid. On the site == http://www.experiencefestival.com/a/Honesty_-_The_studies_of_Confucius_about_honesty/id/601095 == The information i found about Confucius solidified that there is more to honesty than to just being honest. There is a whole other world in the philosophical sense about honesty that we should take the time to notice. In the Confucian teaching, it relates to the people for example: The deepest level of honesty was Ren, out of which flowed Yi and thus Li. Confucius' morality was based upon empathy and understanding others, which required understanding one's own moral core first, rather than on divinely ordained rules, which could simply be obeyed. The Confucian version of the Golden Rule was to treat your inferiors as you would want your superiors to treat you. From commiting an offense such as honesty one needs to recognize that we not only hurt ourselves but others.

Brittany's Response:

These websites confirm the information given in the section “The Studies of Confucius about Honesty”:

http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-25456/Confucianism

http://www.friesian.com/confuci.htm

http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-25455/Confucianism

Confucius said, "Courtesy, generosity, honesty, persistence, and kindness. If you are courteous, you will not be disrespected; if you are generous, you will gain everything. If you are honest, people will rely on you. If you are persistent you will get results. If you are kind, you can employ people." (http://www.hm.tyg.jp/~acmuller/contao/analects.html#div-1) In "The Analects", Confucius discuses Li, Yi, and Ren which all are directly related to honesty. Li has to do the relationship between people (filial piety, rightness, respect). Yi is acting ones own way in following Li. Lastly, Ren is following the rule "What you do not want done to yourself, do not do to others."

144.126.223.12 01:13, 7 November 2006 (UTC)Brittany

The golden rule (referred to on Wikipedia as the silver rule) is often attributed to Hillel the Great, who came later than Confucius, who discussed Ren. I wonder where he (and Hillel?) got the idea. Unfree (talk) 22:20, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

A Buddhist teaching on Honesty

Thanissaro Bhikkhu taught: "Real honesty is being honest about what your possibilities are, what your potentials are. That's where true honesty lies. It stretches us. It's not simply admitting where we are - that's a beginning step, it's not the end step. So be honest about where you are but also be honest about what your possibilities are. That keeps the challenge of the path always before us." From "True Honesty"...

This conviction on the buddhist study is also correct and can be validated at [[1]] In this teaching,it focuses more on the positive aspect of being honest rather than the negative connotation such as commiting and offense. It is true that being honest with our selves broadens our ability to communicate with not only others but ourselves within.

For More information on Honesty: see also

http://www.queendom.com/tests/minitests/fx/honesty.html

http://www.radicalhonesty.com/

http://aolsvc.merriam-webster.aol.com/dictionary/honesty

http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/w_k_clifford/ethics_of_belief.html

What does honesty mean to you?

To me, honesty is the quality of obtaining integrity. To be straight forward without being worried of the selfish aspect of what consequences might be. From my own personal experience i believe that being honest is the only right choice to be made. We as students have a particular code to abide by and if they code is violated, consequences are at hand. I believe that everyone should be given benefit of the doubt because not always does an offender deserve to be penalized. At this particular time i hope that everyone is honest and does their best to show true integrity.

Brittany's Response:

Honesty is something that really cannot be defined in a simple definition. Honesty by definition is being honorable, but what does that really mean? One must be honorable to others and also to themselves. An honorable person is someone you can respect and who has respect for themselves. They are truthful, trustworthy and fair. To be fair, one must be reasonable and unbiased and do things properly and by the rules. One feels guilty if they have a feeling of responsibility for having done something wrong. Therefore an honorable person never feels ashamed or guilty of their actions. If the rules are not followed, then there will be consequences whether they be given to you from someone else or it will be emotional like something such a feeling guilty or ashamed. Making the right decision can be difficult because of the self gain. Sometimes the right thing isn't always the easiest but in the long run being honest will pay off in one way or another.

144.126.223.12 01:40, 7 November 2006 (UTC)Brittany

Removed link

Removed a link to bible passages as it doesn't add much and is too simplistic to the article.

Procedural Question

I started to formalise (make more encyclopedia-ish) the language in this article, as I saw the tag asking for this. Half-way through, though, as I got more and more skeptical about the quality of the article, I started wondering about this.

I often judge the factual quality of material by the quality of the writing. Well, more the opposite - the less well-written something is, the more likely it is to be POV, or OR (in my experience). Just as the more all-caps words equates to the crankiness, and certain misspellings (Amerika, Micro$oft, evilutionist) are a dead give-away to the writer's POV, and to the level of debate. Anyway, so, I wouldn't go and fix a rant of this type anywhere else on the internet, so why am I doing it here?

The question is: should I leave material I find "iffy" as is, as a clue to the casual reader as per the above, or should I fix it, to improve Wiki? Opinions welcome.Kitty Davis (talk) 11:27, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

If you believe the information is accurate then you should fix it. If you don't then you should discuss or change it, but I don't see either option as an excuse not to fix the spelling or voice errors something you know that you can improve. 72.42.134.253 (talk) 04:55, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Diogenes

Shouldn't Diogenes of Sinope be mentioned in this article? Unfree (talk) 22:01, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

After three years of careful consideration, no. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:09, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Does not compute

"A statement can be strictly true and still be dishonest if the intention of the statement is to deceive its audience." How, exactly, can a statement with the intention of deceiving its audience be "strictly true"? If the statement is true, it cannot deceive. It may not conform to the morals of the persons being spoken to, and they may make irrational decisions based on the information, but truth is truth. Truth that is deceptive is a contradiction in terms. Does anyone else feel this section should be removed?--NMChico24 (talk) 06:10, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Here's an example of a strict truth being employed in a dishonest manner: a male friend of a woman who is engaged to another man wishes to prevent her from marrying because he is infatuated with her (but crucially has not revealed this motive to her), so he relates to her the (objectively, strictly true) high rates of divorce and spousal abuse in their state. He cites statistics on lower quality of life of long-married women vs. their single sisters of same age, and various other (again, strictly true) statistics that make marriage look bad for the woman. Let's change this story and have the person relating these facts be her sister who has clearly expressed her dislike for the groom. I would argue that the sister is not lying, but the man is. This tells us two things: in the case of this story dishonesty requires an intent to deceive, and does not hinge on whether the argument is supported by true facts. Tarheelcoxn (talk) 02:00, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Speech

Speech is neither necessary nor sufficient for Honesty. From the online OED:

d. Uprightness of disposition and conduct; integrity, truthfulness, straightforwardness: the quality opposed to lying, cheating, or stealing. (The prevailing modern sense.)

I'm drafting a rewording of the opening paragraph to reflect that. If you have strong objections to the idea of removing speech from the intro, please state your rationale here. Tarheelcoxn (talk) 02:00, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

@Luizpuodzius:

Caso queira traduzir, att 2804:14C:5BB3:A319:D5A:E612:7FD3:CCEC (talk) 21:29, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Done. Dr. Loo^{Talk to me} 00:54, 20 July 2020 (UTC)