Eliezer, that’s not what honesty means. Honesty is a term of virtue. It represents the appropriate amount of concern for truth-telling. Here’s a thought experiment:
Let’s consider two hypothetical people, Harry and Stan. Harry and Stan are both very honest people—they do their best to never lie or otherwise deceive people.
Suppose that Anne Frank is hiding in the attic, and the Nazis come asking if she’s there. Harry doesn’t want to tell them, but Stan insists he mustn’t deceive the Nazis, regardless of his commitment to save Anne’s life.
If Harry says “I don’t know where Anne is”, then he’s lying, and thus less honest than Stan.
If Harry says “I don’t want to tell you where Anne is” then he’s not stating a falsehood, nor “deceiving” (in any sense that I can think of) the Nazis, so would probably be “comparably” if not “equally” honest as Stan.
If this seems to conflict with your intuitions of ethics, it may be because you associate “ethical goodness” with “honesty”, whereas I consider “honesty” to be merely “usually ethically good” in most cases, but in the fully general case a “ethically neutral” concept.
edit: Fixed typo where I forgot to add the word “not”.
But if Harry says “I don’t want to tell you where Anne is”, he will arouse the suspicion of the Nazis, who will search his house and find Anne.
In this thought experiment, the price Stan pays to maintain his code of honesty is one human life. What benefits accrue from his code that make such sacrifices worthwhile?
Stan isn’t a consequentialist; he considers himself to have done the right thing even though there are alternatives that would overall have better consequences, and so he won’t look for benefits to justify his decision.
I think the world needs more Harrys and fewer Stans; or at least, I think that would have better consequences, and that’s what I value.
Eliezer, that’s not what honesty means. Honesty is a term of virtue. It represents the appropriate amount of concern for truth-telling. Here’s a thought experiment:
Let’s consider two hypothetical people, Harry and Stan. Harry and Stan are both very honest people—they do their best to never lie or otherwise deceive people.
Suppose that Anne Frank is hiding in the attic, and the Nazis come asking if she’s there. Harry doesn’t want to tell them, but Stan insists he mustn’t deceive the Nazis, regardless of his commitment to save Anne’s life.
Now, is Stan therefore more honest than Harry?
Depends on what Harry says.
If Harry says “I don’t know where Anne is”, then he’s lying, and thus less honest than Stan.
If Harry says “I don’t want to tell you where Anne is” then he’s not stating a falsehood, nor “deceiving” (in any sense that I can think of) the Nazis, so would probably be “comparably” if not “equally” honest as Stan.
If this seems to conflict with your intuitions of ethics, it may be because you associate “ethical goodness” with “honesty”, whereas I consider “honesty” to be merely “usually ethically good” in most cases, but in the fully general case a “ethically neutral” concept.
edit: Fixed typo where I forgot to add the word “not”.
But if Harry says “I don’t want to tell you where Anne is”, he will arouse the suspicion of the Nazis, who will search his house and find Anne.
In this thought experiment, the price Stan pays to maintain his code of honesty is one human life. What benefits accrue from his code that make such sacrifices worthwhile?
Stan isn’t a consequentialist; he considers himself to have done the right thing even though there are alternatives that would overall have better consequences, and so he won’t look for benefits to justify his decision.
I think the world needs more Harrys and fewer Stans; or at least, I think that would have better consequences, and that’s what I value.