Honesty is for kids

Do you tell a lie?

Sometimes. Is that bad?

It depends. There are all sorts of lies, better-than-truth ones, immoral ones ...

What do you think is a good lie?

Something like the one in the movie, "Good Bye Lenin!'' by Wolfgang Becker. The protagonist tells his mother that it is the East Germany which won the ideological war. She is an ardent supporter of the Socialist government and was in coma when the Berlin Wall fell. According to the doctor, she cannot bear any psychological shock.

After the fall of the wall, the son makes everything look GDRish for her.

A bad lie is when you take money from your mother's wallet without permission and plead innocence afterwards.

I assure you, all lies that I tell are good.

What if you disagree with your boss?

I don't lie by telling my boss that I agree with his/her opinion. I may make some dissenting remarks without making a big fuss about it.

What if your boss is talking with his rival and you know that it is your boss who is plain wrong?

I will try to take him/her aside and confer privately.

What if a conclusion has to be drawn without doing that?

I'm not sure where this is leading to.

My question is, would you defend your superior just because of the relationship with you?

I don't know...

My latest discovery is that loyalty and honesty cannot co-exist.

Your boss is lying or hiding a grave mistake and you know it. Would you expose that in front of your boss to his/her rival for the sake of honesty and justice, or would you go along with your boss to honor your loyalty to him/her? I suppose this is the question.

Yes, and I tend to go for the former, especially when there are boot-lickers around.

Oh, oh!

I know! It doesn't have to be that dramatic, though. When your boss learns that you stick to your principles, he/she can deduce that you are not going to be a reliable lieutenant in difficult situations.

We all pretend to value honesty, but not the variety that inconveniences us.

Exactly. If someone tells to your face everything that is wrong with you, you wouldn't be friends with that person, however true that assessment may be.

Again, it depends. I may react negatively at first, but appreciate it later.

I bet that could be the case if the unfavorable assessment came from your good friend. That means, he/she had to tell you all the nice things earlier. Otherwise, he/she wouldn't be your good friend.

How and when you say it matters, too.

We are so sensitive to negative evaluation of ourselves, but put together two people and it's a matter of seconds before they start bad-mouthing about someone they both know.

Often, that is the way they become good friends.

As a grown-up, I am having difficulty with all this. When I was a child, I was drummed into be honest and scrupulous. Bad-mouthing was also a no-no. I couldn't say anything negative about, let's say, my grandfather's favorite painter. Because it is something close to his heart and I was supposed to love my grandfather. I was expected to extend this principle to people whom I saw frequently or who were family members or friends.

Sounds tough.

It has become so. If you stick to your principles, it could cost your career. If you don't gossip with your co-workers about others who are not present, you are branded a bore. Or worse, they may think you are plotting something against them.

What can I say, except that everything should be in moderation?

Tell me, how can you be moderately scrupulous?

You let it go, here and there. Stop thinking on your own, and nod to whatever would save your skin.

My parents disciplined me too well. I can't think of any culture that teaches children to be dishonest. And yet, the majority of people learn to be selectively honest. Moreover, these people tell their kids to be honest without qualifications. I don't understand!

Let's me be honest and say you were unusually impressionable, naive, even stupid.

Or, terribly inflexible and devoid of political skills for survival.

Your choice!

Wait a minute... I think it is very much in parents' interest to keep children free of cheating and lying. It's a lot easier to deal with them when they are honest, and the parents have the power to dictate how they should behave.

Sounds Machiavellian.

Then we know it must be true.

The importance of the second syllable

Forgive, but not forget.

We hear that in connection with tragic events caused by fellow human beings.

You know, it's a lot easier to forget than to forgive. Even when we can no longer recall the details of traumatic or unpleasant happenings, the feelings of agony, anger, torment, and so forth are often still there.

Your pessimism again!

I'm sure you have one of those memories that involve your parents; you don't remember what kind of wrongdoing you committed, but you remember the pain of punishment.

Like inserting a garden hose into the exhaust pipe of the family car and... well, I got locked up.

Most of us have some friends with whom we broke up long time ago. We know what kind of feelings we have for them, but not all that took place.

Sometimes we only remember the worst thing that happened, which is usually the last dealing with that friend. But I think the potential for a break-up usually builds up as small negative experiences accumulate. It is the last one that tips the scale.

Let's say the last experience before the break-up is of magnitude -100. But positive experience of magnitude +100 usually does not tip the scale back. Forgiving does not come that easily.

Why do you think that is?

When you are put under distress, whether corporal or carnal, it's natural to signal that you do not want that to happen again. You can do so by making the "aggressor" uncomfortable.

I think it is also about getting even, or revenge.

My question is why we cannot pretend as if it were trivial. That could be a sign of strength and a deterrent against similar incidents in the future.

The "aggressor" would not be thinking, "Hey, this guy thinks what I did to him is nothing. He must be really tough. I'd better stay away." Instead, it would be, "Ha, he still has not gotten the message. I am going to finish him off by taking a tougher approach."

I guess fending off is always considered weaker than going out and attacking.

That must be how violence is propagated.

It is miraculous that Mahatma Gandhi's non-violence movement succeeded at all. Besides, if you were a victim of a genocide, you can't say "Genocide? Oh, that was nothing."

You may be too dead to utter a word...

That means the guilty party of the most thorough massacre gets off the easiest, because there is nobody left to speak of the tragedy from the victims' side.

What about the so-called unintentional damage? In many cases, the "aggressor" claims that he did not know what he was doing.

Considering that we constantly rewrite history and can easily believe in the version that is most convenient to us, lack of intention is an extremely weak defense.

If we truly do not know what damage we are causing, we continue to engage in that action, too.

In case it is up to the "victim" to make the "aggressor" aware of what he is doing, that is also problematic. The "aggressor" may just tell the "victim" that he needs character building.

That could be genuine lack of compassion and understanding or refusal to acknowledge one's fault.

On a more mundane level, we tend to fault the "victims" who remain angry and vengeful. In my mind, we are asking too much. They had to suffer in the first place, and then, we are asking them to act as if the suffering did not take place.

I think that is simply because it is unpleasant to be with a person who is bitter and angry.

That means, when we urge others to forgive, there is a self-serving element in it.

I wouldn't deny that. But it is also true that anger takes up a lot of energy. Unless the target is not shifted, the energy is wasted.

Sports and arts could be outlets for intense emotions.

Yes, sublimation is what I have in mind. More generally, negative feelings can be transformed into a propeller for achieving difficult goals. If the "victim" does not make that transformation, he may end up wasting his whole life.

How lopsided! We are asking the "victims" to take care of the trauma by themselves.

Is there anything in life that is fair?