top of page

Should We Always Tell the Truth, the Whole Truth, and Nothing But the Truth?

Updated: Apr 10, 2023

Telling the truth, perhaps even the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, can be helpful. Elizabeth Holmes seems headed to prison for failure to do this concerning the blood-analysis system sold by her company Theranos. Like Al Capone, former President Trump may be in trouble for misstatements on tax returns. Former President Clinton was found in contempt of court as well as impeached for lying about his relationship with Monica Lewinsky.


But do we think that complete honesty is always the best policy? I don’t generally advocate fake news or alternative facts. But if you had lived in the Netherlands during World War Two and a Nazi investigator asked you if you knew of any Jews hidden in the vicinity, do you think that honesty would have required you to divulge information, if you had any, about Ann Frank’s location? Probably not. In this case, even lying would be justified.


In the Talmud, an encyclopedia of Jewish wisdom concerning laws and their interpretation, Rabbi Hillel argued that you should dance and sing “What a beautiful and graceful bride” even if the bride is ugly. Rabbi Shammai’s contrary view that honesty requires accuracy concerning the bride’s actual appearance was rejected (Ketubot 17A). Not many of us want a wedding tribute to note that the bride is lame or blind.


Most often, it’s not lying, but “the whole truth” that’s at issue for lawyers, press agents, political candidates, job applicants, advertisements, company brochures, dating websites, and marriage. Consider marriage first. I think “the whole truth” is, as doctors say, “contraindicated” in marriage. If there’s some aspect of your spouse that you view negatively but it doesn’t bother you greatly, don’t bring it up. Of course, I have no examples of this in my marriage. (My wife can read.)


We make exceptions to requiring the whole truth in law, because complete information sometimes jeopardizes other values. This is why spouses needn’t testify against one another in most criminal matters. We want to promote marital bonding. Priests aren’t supposed to reveal the contents of confessions; doctors are supposed to protect the privacy of their patients; and in most cases lawyers are supposed to maintain the confidentiality of their clients. We thereby promote spiritual healing, physical health, and strong adversarial protection at the criminal bar at the expense of knowing “the whole truth.”


There’s a movement today to eliminate the box on most job application forms where people are supposed to indicate prior convictions for felonies. The goal of eliminating to box is to reduce prejudice against former felons so they’re more likely to become working, taxpaying citizens who won’t return to crime.


In the cases above, withholding information promotes the attainment of goods that are often deemed more important than “the whole truth” – Jews who survive the Holocaust, happy brides, happy marriages, spiritual health, physical health, criminal justice, and crime control. In other cases, however, the countervailing goods aren’t so compelling.


Consider people withholding the fact that the photograph they use on a dating website is 20 years and 50 pounds out of date. Here, the countervailing value is just the gratification of those who withhold relevant information, and the likely result is other people’s disappointment when they discover the truth. In such cases, more truth, if not the whole truth, is appropriate.


Besides confidentiality, which is mandated by law, it would often be wrong for attorneys to reveal the whole truth about their clients. They’re advocates; their job is to make the best case for their clients in both criminal and civil law cases. It’s generally up to the other side to bring up facts that count against the claims made by a lawyer’s client. Press agents, job applicants, and advertisers are in a similar position. They, too, are advocates. Press agents and advertisers shouldn’t lie, but they aren’t expected to divulge every possible flaw in their clients or products.


Coaches, dance instructors, and motivational speakers are similarly exempt from telling the whole truth. Their job is to get people to improve their performance, and this often requires exaggerating the positive and gliding over the negative to some extent.


However, concealing the whole truth is socially harmful in many contexts. Non-disclosure agreements in the settlement of civil law suits probably does a great deal of damage in society. It protects from general exposure the bad behavior of people and companies that caused so much harm as to justify compensation.


Lack of exposure facilitates continued predatory behavior. Outlawing non-disclosure agreements will likely reduce harm in society by forewarning the innocent so they can protect themselves. What’s more, without the possibility of saving their reputation through non-disclosure agreements, unscrupulous people and organizations may be deterred from cheating others in the first place. Sometimes, morality and good public policy require the whole truth.


You can reply to my e-mail at wenz.peter@uis.edu.


Comments


bottom of page