Honesty - what form or type do you like?

I heard someone say the words "brutal honesty" today and it got me thinking: is there really any time that honesty should be brutal? Do I really want to brutalize someone or be brutalized by it?

I find when things are brutale, people resist it. People protect themselves from things that feel like an attack so it might not work. I find it can also back-fire by causing the person to hid from the truth even more.

I generally prefer "love and logic" honest. I can deal with "radical" honesty because most people are dishonest with themselves and the world. Its "radical" to try to be honest - with some people.

So what do you think - what kind of honesty do you think is the best?
And is there a place for brutal honesty?

I don't think there is a "best" kind of honesty for all situations.

Different people need different things at different times... Maybe there is a time when somebody will only listen to brutal honesty. Is it worth it to be "nice" if it won't save their life or something?

sometimes truth hurts
the truth itself may be brutal but I try not to be.

if someone ignores the truth at the risk of their life I would consider how much respo sibility I bear for their life


ive risked mind on stupidities before and sometimes people just dont listen.

my obligation is to speak my truth so thst its understandable
brutality and sugar coating both have en element of weakness within them
the brutal give in to their desire to vent their own inner turmoil and the sugar coaters hold back so as not to offend or face ire

this is not the same as understanding who you are talking to and tailoring the message to fit the moment

in fact to be attatched either to "brutal" or to "sugar coated" honesty will get in the way of the tailoring proccess because in a way they both have their place but obviously neither will always be effective.

The art of conversation is not knowing what to say ,but rather knowing when not to say something.

If someone comes up to you and says be brutally honest it's because they respect you and your opinion, be tactful.

Otherwise sometimes it's just best to say nothing at all.

Vesha wrote: If someone comes up to you and says be brutally honest it's because they respect you and your opinion, be tactful.

Otherwise sometimes it's just best to say nothing at all.

I agree. Not everyone has tact, but it can be learned. Some people prefer to be spoken to bluntly, but in a vulnerable state even they might be unnecessarily hurt by the truth if it isn't phrased properly.

A subtle way to lead someone to the truth is to guide them so that they come to that conclusion on their own, but that can be difficult if you don't know the person well.

Mica wrote:

Vesha wrote: If someone comes up to you and says be brutally honest it's because they respect you and your opinion, be tactful.

Otherwise sometimes it's just best to say nothing at all.

I agree. Not everyone has tact, but it can be learned. Some people prefer to be spoken to bluntly, but in a vulnerable state even they might be unnecessarily hurt by the truth if it isn't phrased properly.

A subtle way to lead someone to the truth is to guide them so that they come to that conclusion on their own, but that can be difficult if you don't know the person well.

if you havent looked into it yet you would I think be interested in the "socratic method"

my apologies if this is nothing new

I'm a fan of love-and-caring honesty with people who need it, and brutal honesty with everyone else, because I can be a bit of a jerk to people who are being a bit of a jerk.

Call me radical or brutal for it but in my view limited honesty and dishonesty are not reliably distinguishable. Someone who is willing to restrict his honesty to certain areas over others or - worse yet - sacrifice honesty in favour of some other good is, though not necessarily a bad or evil person, still less than an honest one.
Contrapositively, honesty can then only be such if it is full honesty. That is not to say that all things genuine must be expressed at all times but that there never must be a time in serious expression (which eliminates identified acting or humour neither of which are typically conducted with the intent to deceive) when one is less than genuine in anything. Needless to say, lies of comission or omision are out of the question under that principle.

There is a worthwhile debate to be had over the values and virtues of being completely honest in that sense and while I myself would for now fall on the affirmative of that argument, I do acknowledge that there are considerable points against it, too. I therefore would be at least marginally understanding in some cases of those who are less than completely honest with other people and as much as I'd be tempted to condemn that as it is the choosing of somebody else's information, I would stand up for their right to make that choice for at least themselves. However, I would still maintain that the moment someone chooses to set aside one's honesty, for which ever post hoc rationale that be, one no longer has a claim on the 'honest' label.

Before we go too much further with this, let's ask ourselves the question :


This tends to be one of those pesky things, like Justice (to throw a bone to our old friend Socrates), that we all think we know something about -- until the question really comes up (like now) ...

One might be inclined to say that Honesty is "telling the Truth". But then we need to know if what we know is really the Truth. Then, even if we get lucky with that one, is telling the Truth inappropriately still Honesty ?

This was shown to me years ago by one of my old maîtres : The difference between Truth and Honesty is like the difference between 'having a hammer' and 'hammering'. As such, Honesty is an application of the Truth. Now, the Truth hammer could be anything : a hammer, a rock, a brick, a bone ... &c. One can use a hammer to break open nuts to nourish or to break open heads (or hearts) to kill (harm)- at least figuratively. Or one can use it to drive nails or spikes to build something, or it can be used in demolition.

And Truth, being a pretty slippery instrument, cannot be used perfectly ...

I've been around a while. Experience has shown me how to lie to you by telling you only Truths, just chaining them together in a way that leads you away from what is really going on. I can also lead you to Truths though metaphors - which are just cleverly crafted lies.

To my mind, the question reposes on Intention. Even if we're telling the Truth (sic), if the intention is to hurt, to vanquish, to manipulate or to "show them" ... that may be something other than Honesty. It might be appropriate in some cases to do that -- just don't mistake it for Honesty.

But then what the hell would I know ... ?

Truth or true is a label we put on propositions that have satisfied our epistemic requirements to warrant said label as opposed to the label of falsehood.

Honesty is an umbrella term referring to a set of character traits such as intellectual candour and frankness.

To speak the truth is neither required nor indicative of an honest person. There is nothing binding these two together whatsoever. An honest person is one who treats himself and his fellow people with honour and decency. Whether he speaks truths or falsehoods in the meantime is as much dependant on the beholder as it is completely beside the point. Nobody is honest for speaking what some people consider true nor dishonest for saying what some other people consider false. One is honest for actually meaning and standing by what one says, irrespective of the truth value of the proposition.

Crude illustration: A promise is an incorrigible statement. It is, therefore, depending on convention, either without truth value or - more commonly - just always true. You could make a lot of those and have said a lot of true things in so doing. Is that what makes you honest or is it your investment into keeping as many of them as possible? Would you then be any less honest if you only ever made few promises?