The Unbearable Lightness of Being Too Nice

Brenda Cook4 said:So, when we take the concept of "fairness" and push it to these absurd extremes, it becomes impossible to maintain. At that point, the distinction between being fair and being unfair just becomes completely meaningless... it all just turns into nothing.

No. If honesty comes from a person’s internal moral compass, then regardless of how crazy or absurd a situation gets, that integrity shows through in how they act. In my specific example, an honest person wouldn't be able to go against their own nature—they’d step up and tell the soldier he made a mistake.
But if "honesty" is just some social contract based on external relationships, then in the extreme scenario I described, it can't—and shouldn't—be called honesty. If a person steps forward to tell the soldier he's wrong in that moment, they aren't being "honest" to society; they're just agreeing with the insane, irrational logic of shooting someone. At that point, you're not talking about a man of integrity anymore; you're talking about a lunatic.

Mark Torres14, when was the last time there was any honor in war? Or maybe we’re heading toward some futuristic conflict against nature itself—where the earth just collects its debt.

steelridge58 said:But here's my take: acting in a way that's socially acceptable doesn't necessarily mean you're being honest; it just means you're following social norms, which can certainly be a learned skill, but true honesty itself isn't just a skill.

Honesty is something deeper entirely, and it doesn't even need to be validated by social standards to be genuine; at its core, it comes down to the individual—their integrity, their conscience, their empathy, and that deep-seated sense of self and others... it's an intrinsic part of who they are, a fundamental quality.

A person with a truly developed sense of honesty might find themselves sidelined by society and end up bearing all sorts of heavy consequences, whether they're emotional or material, but that doesn't make them a loser. So, there's that... if we're talking about what's "worth it."

I actually went down a bit of a rabbit hole looking into the etymology of the word "honesty," and I found that some linguists suggest the roots point back to terms meaning "to read" or "to learn," implying it's tied to being instructed or educated.

So, circling back to that idea of "socially acceptable behavior," I think it's important to make a distinction: we shouldn't focus on teaching people how to follow social codes, because that's just teaching them how to adapt to a specific social climate or set of rules, but instead, we should be teaching fundamental values and inspiring a desire for knowledge, so that honesty can grow from a solid foundation.

I honestly hadn't considered the etymological side of things before—I never really gave much thought to the root of the word itself—but if we accept that "reading/learning" connection, then honesty becomes inextricably linked to culture, nobility, and intellect. This creates an interesting potential contradiction with the idea that honesty isn't a "skill" or a mere achievement, but perhaps something that exists prior to all formal education.

It seems to me that early parental guidance acts as a sort of extension of one's own biology—almost as much as genetic inheritance—and this upbringing is absolutely formative during those fragile, fleeting moments of childhood. It happens so quickly, almost like a dream, that it’s nearly impossible to tell whether honesty (absorbed from parents during that window) is something truly learned or if it simply flows from the core of the person.

That said—honesty *is* learned, because one must eventually confront the consequences of their own actions and the actions of others; it is only through these consequences that deeds, and subsequently the people behind them, can truly be characterized. When there is a lack of parental support, this learning process can be far more grueling, often carrying heavier consequences... and without a mentor to guide them, one might even walk away with entirely mistaken conclusions.

🙂

Yeah, I actually left that out yesterday because I thought I might get a chance to circle back later, but if we’re being honest—and at least it feels honest to me—I think honesty is probably the closest thing we have to respect. They feel almost inseparable, maybe even sharing the same roots deep down.

When you look at this through the lens of reading, learning, and actual knowledge, I think it does a great job of explaining that distinction I was trying to make between just following social etiquette—you know, just acting in a way that’s socially acceptable to fit in—and behaving based on deeply held values that stem from fundamental human principles, where what's right or wrong comes from the very core of who a person is, depending on the situation.

That said, I really do believe there are certain inherent predispositions we're born with... and I wonder if all humans enter this world with the same baseline character traits, especially when you consider how much our genetics shape us. To me, honesty seems inextricably linked to sincerity as a personality trait, and to conscience—that inner voice, that quiet realization within ourselves, knowing better than we often do...

steelridge58 said:🙂

Yeah, I actually left that out yesterday because I thought I might get a chance to circle back later, but if we’re being honest—and at least it feels honest to me—I think honesty is probably the closest thing we have to respect. They feel almost inseparable, maybe even sharing the same roots deep down.

When you look at this through the lens of reading, learning, and actual knowledge, I think it does a great job of explaining that distinction I was trying to make between just following social etiquette—you know, just acting in a way that’s socially acceptable to fit in—and behaving based on deeply held values that stem from fundamental human principles, where what's right or wrong comes from the very core of who a person is, depending on the situation.

That said, I really do believe there are certain inherent predispositions we're born with... and I wonder if all humans enter this world with the same baseline character traits, especially when you consider how much our genetics shape us. To me, honesty seems inextricably linked to sincerity as a personality trait, and to conscience—that inner voice, that quiet realization within ourselves, knowing better than we often do...

Personally, I don't see much overlap between our genes and our actual character. To me, it’s upbringing and the immediate environment that really shape who we become.

And when it comes to honesty and respect... well, self-respect is its own form of honesty!

Mark Torres14 said:No. If honesty comes from a person’s internal moral compass, then regardless of how crazy or absurd a situation gets, that integrity shows through in how they act. In my specific example, an honest person wouldn't be able to go against their own nature—they’d step up and tell the soldier he made a mistake.
But if "honesty" is just some social contract based on external relationships, then in the extreme scenario I described, it can't—and shouldn't—be called honesty. If a person steps forward to tell the soldier he's wrong in that moment, they aren't being "honest" to society; they're just agreeing with the insane, irrational logic of shooting someone. At that point, you're not talking about a man of integrity anymore; you're talking about a lunatic.

I don't think your example really hit the mark... it feels a bit over the top to me (not to mention the whole survival instinct factor in your scenario). The way it's framed makes it seem like "honesty" itself is somehow flawed. Like I said before, we shouldn't overthink this or talk about honesty as if it’s some divine law written in the stars. It’s all just evolution—first biological, then social, and so on...

Edward Flores4 said:Personally, I don't see much overlap between our genes and our actual character. To me, it’s upbringing and the immediate environment that really shape who we become.

And when it comes to honesty and respect... well, self-respect is its own form of honesty!

That’s a really solid point right there!

steelridge58 said:🙂

Yeah, I actually left that out yesterday because I thought I might get a chance to circle back later, but if we’re being honest—and at least it feels honest to me—I think honesty is probably the closest thing we have to respect. They feel almost inseparable, maybe even sharing the same roots deep down.

When you look at this through the lens of reading, learning, and actual knowledge, I think it does a great job of explaining that distinction I was trying to make between just following social etiquette—you know, just acting in a way that’s socially acceptable to fit in—and behaving based on deeply held values that stem from fundamental human principles, where what's right or wrong comes from the very core of who a person is, depending on the situation.

That said, I really do believe there are certain inherent predispositions we're born with... and I wonder if all humans enter this world with the same baseline character traits, especially when you consider how much our genetics shape us. To me, honesty seems inextricably linked to sincerity as a personality trait, and to conscience—that inner voice, that quiet realization within ourselves, knowing better than we often do...

So, what would you say constitutes the "essence of being" when it comes to patterns of behavior?

steelridge58 said:That’s a really solid point right there!

Think about it this way—when someone follows the rules and stays within the lines of their job just because they’re getting a paycheck, we might respect their work ethic, but we don't necessarily have to respect who they are as a person. It's only when someone is working on their own terms—driven by their own will, their own crazy ideas, and pure creativity during their free time—that we can truly admire both the craft and the individual behind it.

I think Bertrand Russell put it something like that once, and if you look closely at that sentiment, there's actually a really functional way to describe what "integrity" actually looks like.

Brenda Cook4 said:So, what would you say constitutes the "essence of being" when it comes to patterns of behavior?

I suppose it would be that core part of us that isn't just a collection of forced behaviors—or at least, it's the version where those imposed habits take a backseat to everything we actually build within ourselves as we grow up and navigate life. It’s about what we develop through genuine learning, much like that hiker mentioned earlier; if you don't have the right support system along the way, trying to learn things can become such an uphill battle, leading to painful mistakes or even totally wrong conclusions simply because you were left to figure it out without any real guidance or mentors.

And I honestly think that as we get older, we basically start the process of raising ourselves, which makes sense because I remember reading somewhere that philosophy is essentially just our way of correcting the upbringing we were handed in the first place.

steelridge58 said:I suppose it would be that core part of us that isn't just a collection of forced behaviors—or at least, it's the version where those imposed habits take a backseat to everything we actually build within ourselves as we grow up and navigate life. It’s about what we develop through genuine learning, much like that hiker mentioned earlier; if you don't have the right support system along the way, trying to learn things can become such an uphill battle, leading to painful mistakes or even totally wrong conclusions simply because you were left to figure it out without any real guidance or mentors.

And I honestly think that as we get older, we basically start the process of raising ourselves, which makes sense because I remember reading somewhere that philosophy is essentially just our way of correcting the upbringing we were handed in the first place.

Oh, I am completely with you on that.

Brenda Cook4 said:Oh, I am completely with you on that.

Alright. 🙂

Edward Flores4 said:Think about it this way—when someone follows the rules and stays within the lines of their job just because they’re getting a paycheck, we might respect their work ethic, but we don't necessarily have to respect who they are as a person. It's only when someone is working on their own terms—driven by their own will, their own crazy ideas, and pure creativity during their free time—that we can truly admire both the craft and the individual behind it.

I think Bertrand Russell put it something like that once, and if you look closely at that sentiment, there's actually a really functional way to describe what "integrity" actually looks like.

This might not be the perfect response to this specific thread... but it's more of a follow-up to what you were saying earlier.

I honestly think self-respect is a massive factor when we talk about being honest, because if we actually value our own integrity, then anything we might do to someone else that clashes with our internal moral compass—that nagging feeling that something just isn't right—would ultimately hurt us more than anyone else, even if we aren't entirely sure how much damage we're doing to the other person. At the end of the day, we don't necessarily have to hold someone in high regard to be honest with them, as long as we respect ourselves enough to live according to who we actually are.

steelridge58 said:Alright. 🙂

This might not be the perfect response to this specific thread... but it's more of a follow-up to what you were saying earlier.

I honestly think self-respect is a massive factor when we talk about being honest, because if we actually value our own integrity, then anything we might do to someone else that clashes with our internal moral compass—that nagging feeling that something just isn't right—would ultimately hurt us more than anyone else, even if we aren't entirely sure how much damage we're doing to the other person. At the end of the day, we don't necessarily have to hold someone in high regard to be honest with them, as long as we respect ourselves enough to live according to who we actually are.

Exactly. By respecting ourselves, we end up respecting others by extension, and that’s really the only way to truly embody what it means to be an honest person.

What Bertrand Russell is subtly pointing out here is that being honest just because of "the law," or some set of rules we follow, or because of any kind of pressure or incentive—whether it's legal consequences or just chasing a paycheck—simply CANNOT be true honesty.

In fact, sometimes the law actually incentivizes dishonesty!

Edward Flores4 said:Personally, I don't see much overlap between our genes and our actual character. To me, it’s upbringing and the immediate environment that really shape who we become.

And when it comes to honesty and respect... well, self-respect is its own form of honesty!

Respect and honesty are two completely different things.
If they were the same thing, you wouldn't even be able to ask:
Can a dishonest person still show respect?

Brenda Cook4 said:I don't think your example really hit the mark... it feels a bit over the top to me (not to mention the whole survival instinct factor in your scenario). The way it's framed makes it seem like "honesty" itself is somehow flawed. Like I said before, we shouldn't overthink this or talk about honesty as if it’s some divine law written in the stars. It’s all just evolution—first biological, then social, and so on...

If honesty is just some byproduct of culture and civilization, then yeah, your example is overkill. In those scenarios, primal instincts take over and we're basically powerless. Talking about "honesty" in that context would be absurd.
But, if we agree with steelridge58 that honesty isn't just cultural baggage—that there's also this deep, transcendent spark we're born with or have a predisposition toward—then your example is actually spot on for defining what honesty really is.
My take? Honesty doesn't start with the individual. It’s a learned way of valuing ourselves and everyone else. It's a product of our society and civilization.
If there were even a shred of truth to what steelridge58 and Edward Flores4 are claiming, we should see the seeds of honesty in nature. We should see more complex animals acting in ways that align with our basic idea of being honest. But they don't. Every single time you could potentially spot a hint of honesty in the wild, it's just pure instinct taking over.

Mark Torres14 said:Respect and honesty are two completely different things.
If they were the same thing, you wouldn't even be able to ask:
Can a dishonest person still show respect?

It's like saying water and iron are the same thing...

... which brings me back to my point .. I could just as easily ask, "does water respect iron?"

See, grammar lets you construct all sorts of questions, even ones that make zero sense from a semantic standpoint—kind of like what you just did here.

Look, regardless of the angle we take, once we label someone as dishonest, they’ve essentially failed to respect the rights of others by default, which is how they gained whatever they have. On the flip side, if someone gains something while respecting everyone's rights, we call that being honest.

I get it... you might try to pull a mental gymnastics move and argue that the same person could be dishonest toward me, yet perfectly honorable toward you. But honestly, if someone is being dishonest with one person, it's safe to assume they aren't respecting anyone else—unless, of course, they're just playing both sides to serve their own interests.

You surely realize that being "partially honest" is really just a fancy way of being dishonest, right?

Mark Torres14 said:If honesty is just some byproduct of culture and civilization, then yeah, your example is overkill. In those scenarios, primal instincts take over and we're basically powerless. Talking about "honesty" in that context would be absurd.
But, if we agree with steelridge58 that honesty isn't just cultural baggage—that there's also this deep, transcendent spark we're born with or have a predisposition toward—then your example is actually spot on for defining what honesty really is.
My take? Honesty doesn't start with the individual. It’s a learned way of valuing ourselves and everyone else. It's a product of our society and civilization.
If there were even a shred of truth to what steelridge58 and Edward Flores4 are claiming, we should see the seeds of honesty in nature. We should see more complex animals acting in ways that align with our basic idea of being honest. But they don't. Every single time you could potentially spot a hint of honesty in the wild, it's just pure instinct taking over.

So, you and I are actually on the same page here... and if you look closely at what steelridge58 said (which is exactly what I asked her to clarify), you'll see she's making the same point. That's why the example fails. We aren't gods; we're human beings. We have to speak in human terms.

Edward Flores4 said:It's like saying water and iron are the same thing...

... which brings me back to my point .. I could just as easily ask, "does water respect iron?"

See, grammar lets you construct all sorts of questions, even ones that make zero sense from a semantic standpoint—kind of like what you just did here.

Look, regardless of the angle we take, once we label someone as dishonest, they’ve essentially failed to respect the rights of others by default, which is how they gained whatever they have. On the flip side, if someone gains something while respecting everyone's rights, we call that being honest.

I get it... you might try to pull a mental gymnastics move and argue that the same person could be dishonest toward me, yet perfectly honorable toward you. But honestly, if someone is being dishonest with one person, it's safe to assume they aren't respecting anyone else—unless, of course, they're just playing both sides to serve their own interests.

You surely realize that being "partially honest" is really just a fancy way of being dishonest, right?

I agree regarding language. It’s so flexible that you can give the exact same thing totally different meanings.

No matter what we're talking about, once we decide someone is dishonest, they have—by definition—failed to respect the rights of others, and thus gained something dishonestly. And anyone who gains something while respecting the rights of others—that’s what we consider honestly earned.

But respect is a much broader term than honesty. You can respect strength, injustice, stupidity... whatever you want. Honesty is way more narrow.

Sure... you could try to pull a complete 180 and say the same person can be dishonest toward me, but at the same time respect you, and thus be honest toward you. But being dishonest to just one person is enough to conclude you don't respect others, unless you're doing it for some selfish reason.

I'm not doing any mental gymnastics here. What you said is true. I'm just saying the terms respect and honesty are clearly distinct.

So you get that being 'partially honest' is the same as being dishonest?

Absolutely. Otherwise, I'd have to treat those words as opposites of universals, and if that were the case, they wouldn't mean anything when used. Just like you can't be partially honest, you can't be relatively honest either.🙂

Honesty isn't just some social rule—it’s a psychological framework that manifests through actions that simply don't harm others. It stems from deep within a person's core. On the flip side, a lack of honesty is really just a byproduct of one's persona—that ego shaped by upbringing and societal pressure. If you were raised in an environment where cutting corners was the norm, or if you were born into a culture that rewards deceit, there's a high probability you'll end up being dishonest yourself; it becomes your version of "normal" because you haven't been taught any other way. Still, even then, there's usually that nagging voice of conscience—that internal compass—warning you that you're off track and that this state of being feels unnatural. Trying to correct that course is a massive, uphill battle. Conversely, if someone is raised with a genuine sense of integrity, their outward personality aligns with that inner core. Even if they slip up occasionally, that inner voice is quick to pull them back toward the right path.

Mark Torres14 said:I agree regarding language. It’s so flexible that you can give the exact same thing totally different meanings.

No matter what we're talking about, once we decide someone is dishonest, they have—by definition—failed to respect the rights of others, and thus gained something dishonestly. And anyone who gains something while respecting the rights of others—that’s what we consider honestly earned.

But respect is a much broader term than honesty. You can respect strength, injustice, stupidity... whatever you want. Honesty is way more narrow.

Sure... you could try to pull a complete 180 and say the same person can be dishonest toward me, but at the same time respect you, and thus be honest toward you. But being dishonest to just one person is enough to conclude you don't respect others, unless you're doing it for some selfish reason.

I'm not doing any mental gymnastics here. What you said is true. I'm just saying the terms respect and honesty are clearly distinct.

So you get that being 'partially honest' is the same as being dishonest?

Absolutely. Otherwise, I'd have to treat those words as opposites of universals, and if that were the case, they wouldn't mean anything when used. Just like you can't be partially honest, you can't be relatively honest either.🙂

Exactly—that’s precisely the point we were making. We're saying that "integrity" essentially branches off from that much larger idea of "respect," but that doesn't mean "respect" loses its wider range of connotations just because integrity exists within it.

I can't exactly pull a complete 180 here. What you said is true. All I can really add is that the terms "respect" and "integrity" are clearly distinct from one another.

Think of one as an expression of the other... which is why they manifest themselves so differently in practice.