Just because you can say something that isn't true and still be honest doesn't mean that individuals are absolved of the ethical responsibility to try to convey accurate information whenever possible. When you are conveying information to another person, you must either be reasonably sure that you're relaying the most accurate information available to you, or you must admit that there's a gap in your knowledge which prevents you from telling the information in a completely accurate way.
In the example about weather-related conversations with my grandmother from a previous post, I had checked the weather forecast prior to talking to her, and could be reasonably sure that the information I was giving her was the most accurate information available to me at the time, without going to extraordinary measures such as contacting expert meteorologists directly. This was an honest statement on my part about what I knew, even if I couldn't be absolutely sure that it was 100% accurate.
When You Just Don't Know
In the hypothetical example where I made something up about tomorrow's weather, we saw that it's possible to say something true with the dishonest intent to mislead a person. In this case, the lie isn't the weather fact. The lie is that I know what I'm talking about. If you don't know what you're talking about, and you want to deal with someone honestly about the issue, then you must express that you just don't know, or you must take reasonable steps to inform yourself about the subject enough to speak with confidence that you're relaying accurate information. If you don't, you're misrepresenting how much you know. Essentially, you're lying about your own expertise.
Think about how this works in your own relationships. If you ask a friend, relative or co-worker for information and he admits he just doesn't know, this may make you think he's less knowledgeable than you previously thought, but it doesn't damage your faith in his honesty and trustworthiness. Likewise, if he tells you something that you know he believes to be as true as it can be and you know he's made reasonable efforts to inform himself about the subject, but he later turns out to be wrong, you still won't come away from that situation believing him a liar.
If, however, you later find out that he spoke authoritatively without knowing what he's talking about, it will damage your trust in his future statements. You will never know if he's speaking with undeserved authority in a subject about which he knows little or nothing. He hasn't been honest about what he knows, so this will damage your trust in his statements - even when he's making true fact-claims. You won't trust his expertise, because he's misrepresented it in the past.
The Parental "I Don't Know"
Many parents avoid telling their children "I don't know" for fear of looking weak or unreliable, but the reverse is true. If a child asks you a question and you don't know the answer, the child will, in the long run, trust that you will only reply when you honestly know the answer - it will make you more, not less, trustworthy. As an added bonus, it's an opportunity for you to find out the information together, which is an opportunity for you to model to your child what honest intellectual exploration looks like, and why they shouldn't be afraid to say "I don't know," either. This same model can be applied to bosses and co-workers, teachers and students and clergy and congregation.
A reliable authority figure isn't one that's omniscient and infallible - we all figure out sooner or later that no one really is - it's an authority that you can trust gives you accurate, honest information whenever possible.
Read All the Posts in the Intentional Honesty Series:
"A reliable authority figure isn't one that's omniscient and infallible"
ReplyDeleteThat statement is so very true. No harm is done admitting you are not perfect and you don't know everything. Pretending otherwise is what can potentially cause damage.