The King’s Law on Consideration
I – To consider or not to consider, that is the “?”
II – Let’s be honest about honesty…
One of the most widely accepted tenders of consideration is honesty. Why?
hon·es·ty n. pl. hon·es·ties
1. The quality or condition of being honest; integrity.
2. Truthfulness; sincerity: in all honesty.
3. Archaic Chastity.
4. A plant with flattened silvery pods which are used for indoor decoration
Let’s dissect these definitions…
1. Steadfast adherence to a strict moral or ethical code.
2. The state of being unimpaired; soundness.
3. The quality or condition of being whole or undivided; completeness
We enjoy Honesty because it implies that we are being involved in the entirety of situation. Nobody likes to be left out… especially when the situation concerns or affects them. Being considered via honesty allows a person to feel as if they are a part of the whole, and assuming that the honesty is the full truth, that they are involved with wholesome individuals.
1. The quality or condition of being sincere; genuineness, honesty, and freedom from duplicity
Honesty implies a freedom from a life of duplicity and thus confusion and deceit. We are comfortable accepting that there should be standards and morals. As a result we are comfortable with expecting that everybody live by them so that life could occur in a linear fashion; it’s easy to polarize our opinions about the world and the people in it when we have a true and honest standard for them. It also makes it easier for us to judge people… tsk, tsk.
1. The condition or quality of being pure or chaste.
Honesty is seen as a positive thing… it means that the person being honest is less tainted and thus more acceptable than the next person…
I’m partial to the last definition: Decoration…
KING’S LAW: people like honesty because it looks pretty.
Think about the premise of honesty. Honesty is the publication or distribution of thoughts, and concepts that are understood to be true. The fact that this honesty is offered is enough to qualify it as acceptable, because consideration is not always given. THIS IS WRONG… how many times have you accepted what was told to you as the truth to find out it was not so close to it? or better yet, only a portion of it?
Fact omission happens accidentally and intentionally… a friend may tell you “I want to go out tonight,” but what they mean to say is “I want to go out tonight with King” (*snicker*)… Did they lie to you? No… but because they didn’t offer the whole truth, were they honest? Not by the first definition at least because the statement lacked integrity.
Furthermore, since the two statements are NOT mutually exclusive (meaning they could or couldn’t happen simultaneously), they are susceptible to duplicity (illustrating separate ideas simultaneously), thus the idea of this seemingly “honest” statement isn’t pure, complete, or free from possible distortion.
It doesn’t make the statement a lie, but it does make it less “honest”. ONLY full disclosure of the truth can be viewed as true honesty which brings me to the following conclusion…
KING’S LAW: Honesty is NOT always the best policy.
True, unrelenting, and brutal honesty has the ability to empower, encourage, and change peoples’ thinking relative to the truths that they have just endured. Conversely, if these truths were not expected and desired they can also destroy, diminish, and distract from the fact that honesty was considered in the first place.
If I were a truly honest man, meaning I omitted nothing, I would be considered much more of an asshole today than I currently am. I’d also be viewed as cynical, pompous, overbearing, insensitive (to others), sensitive (as a person), overcritical, and basically I would be rendered undesirable company to keep. For me, honesty is not the best policy because there is too much negativity attached to the thoughts that would be honestly conveyed.
So if this is the case with others (which it is, because on top of omission, people lie), why is honesty considered to be the best alternative? I think it’s because people believe they make better choices in light of knowing the truth and what me occur as a result of their choices. (Ignorance being/acting bliss…) This also means that they are prepared to be accountable for the new knowledge they acquire via honesty, even if it’s information that will hurt their feelings, restrict their choices, and possibly diminish their confidence… the truth hurts. Do people really prefer this option?
Personally I can say I don’t like being lied to, but I can understand why people do not tell you what they are thinking (why they are not honest). In the history of the world, being honest has been detrimental far more than it has been helpful. This is due in part to the fact that we all make bad decisions that we don’t care to rehash in conversation… If we could all be flawless, we wouldn’t have problems with telling the truth… but we are not.
The truth is a reminder of our weaknesses, vices, and flaws. It is the evidence of the inadequacies we care not to share because it causes us to look like weaker/less-composed individuals.
So I guess the real question for us all (author and reader alike) to answer is: Is honesty a trait of a strong individual, or does that depend on what truths are shared?
I say… no and yes. Thus the application of the fourth definition…
KING’S LAW: Honesty is a trait we falsely adorn in order to decorate our character.
It leaves me to ask… how honest can honesty be before it’s no longer a good thing?