anotherfailure

Whatever. This is as insubstantial as it is debatable. Besides, 'western society' is hardly the exemplary model. One look at China, Russia, or tribal Africa offers much more substantial data; these indigenous people have been around for thousands of years, whereas we have been functional only a few hundred.
That's why it's an analogy, and not a direct comparison. I am comparing one specific characteristic of bricks, ie. their stability in great numbers, with that of humans.

anotherfailure

It's debatable whether this falls under the life and death category of actions and behaviors that are exempt from utilitarian honesty. Obviously you will lie if you have a gun pointed at your head; this is because survival is the most important value. Justice, obviously, needs to be upheld in order to maintain social order (don't forget that order was my goal in the first place). One could say that justice has a greater impact on social order than everyday relationships, and so justice may take precedence over utilitarian honesty in this case.

Justice (which in our society has nothing to do with whether you are actually guilty or not) being more important to social order than professional obligations, yes, it is and does.

If the seller takes this position on every sale he makes, he will run into problems. Someone will eventually know the houses he is selling are not worth that amount, and his sales or reputation will decrease in value. Even if that doesn't happen, he will have have violated a social more, and thus he will have taken part in the breakdown of order.
Neet quat blorney quando floo! That must have meaning, or I wouldn't say it, right? "Coke is it!" is a subjective truth, because Coke may be it for some, but Pepsi is obviously it for others.

There is no reason to say a kid is smart if he is smart. Let the child figure that out on his own! Who says he wants or needs your input? There is no reason for you to say anything in the first place, and therefore your argument has no basis.
If the woman then runs into someone more honest, and is told she is not pretty, then she may resent you for lying to her. This may not happen, but it has no chance of happening if you simply remain silent.
Again, it's their own fault if they interpret it that way.
This may be true, but does it mean we should stop trying?

Being that there is concrete evidence that McDonald's causes heart problems, and being that health is a goal society tries to meet for all its inhabitants, it could be said that McDonald's is inherently destructive to societal order. Lying deteriorates this same fabric of society.

beastmaster

anotherfailure,

I used to be an honesty absolutist.

I ended up hurting people through a little too much honesty, and then blamed them for not being rational. Eventually, I realized that I had to be more accountable for the feelings of others.

Over time I realized that "always honesty" wasn't even a helpful rule of thumb. It was riddled with too many everyday exceptions. Once you step out of fantasy land and into the real world, situations often arise where lying and half-truths are positive goods that improve social order and happiness.

It's kind of funny: I've had to make a point of learning to lie more often. It's hard for me.

avalanche:ix

not really, it's apparant both in psychological circles as it is in laws and general consumer behaviour.



for one, russia has become substantialy westernized and does not fit into your lineup. secondly, western societies *are* the measuring stick because they are the most highly evolved societies of our time. we see the same type of greater importance placed on individualism throughout the more advanced societies in history, ancient rome and so on. the more advanced the knowledge and complexity of a society becomes, the greater emphasis is placed on the individual. this should be fairly obvious.