Most people would recoil, utterly indignant that I would have to open a discussion on this topic. They would most rather think lies to be an evil in the world and that the truth is always superior- of course, this is taking the so-called “white lies” out of the occasion. However, this is precisely where the discussion takes place: what constitutes a white lie? If we come to the famous scenario where a Nazi comes knocking on your door to asks if you’re harboring your Jewish neighbor, nobody would hesitate to agree that to lie would be the only moral option.
However, what is it about this scenario that drives us to conclude that lying is moral as opposed to the norm that states otherwise? What is it about lies that immediately repels us? What is it about truth that demands such an esteemed value? In ‘Beyond Good and Evil’, the German Philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche asked us,
“What in us really wants “truth”? … We asked about the value of this will [to truth]. Suppose we want truth: why not rather untruth? And uncertainty? Even ignorance?” [1]
In the scenario I gave above, what is it about that lie that justified its use? Does it even have anything to do with truth and untruth? Is it a deeper image; a wider purpose that determines its so-called morality? Later on his first chapter, ‘On The Prejudices of Philosophers’ he goes on to say,
“The falseness of a judgement is to us not necessarily an objection to a judgement… The question is to what extent it is life-promoting, life-preserving, species-preserving, perhaps even species-cultivating… To recognise untruth as a condition of life- that certainly means resisting accustomed value feelings in a dangerous way; and a philosophy that risks this would, by that token alone, place itself beyond good and evil.”
Is the morality of saving the jew not in the virtue of the lie, but through its life-preservation? Is the virtue of weaving a narrative for an ailing friend or denying her any guilt over something she was responsible, but not accountable for, not dependent on its truth or falsity, but in its ability to cultivate life- to deny them of unnecessary burden? to allow them the very self-overcoming that would bring about a life-promoting future?
They say that sometimes it’s easier to live with a false judgement rather than the brutal honesty? Is it not possible that, in some occasions, living with that false judgement promotes life while the truth may destroy it? However, does this mean that the lie will stay that way forever? Will it not come to a point, or will we not advance to a point where that lie will become more of an obstacle- a life-destroying hazard- and should thus be eradicated? If we must accept truth as a condition of life -something that we must accept in order to move on- doesn’t that mean that we also have to accept untruth as being just another one of those conditions? If we must accept the existence of white lies, should we not do the same for black truths?
Then, does this not mean that we are doomed to an eternal shuffle and re-examination of our judgements; not to determine their truth or untruth, but their value as life-promoting or life-destroying agents?
I have to agree that untruth is as part of our lives as truth may be for just like light cannot exist without darkness neither can truth without untruth. Yet, would it not be better if we learned to deal with the brutality of honesty learn to hear it, know it and just deal with it? We are just acostumed to hearing what we want to hear but what if we were raised to hear the real truth and just accept it for what it its.