"Honesty is not an absolute but a continuum. Our position thereon depends on the consequences of the truth we are telling and on how much we trust the person who is listening." - Dion Le Roux

So here's the thing. All humans lie, even the so-called good ones.

Yes, everyone has told a lie, continues to tell lies and will continue to lie into the future. Even you will. And as provocative and controversial as that may sound, this is no lie. (pun intended).

Lies are intricate threads woven into the fabric of our very existence and surface even subconsciously in our interactions with one another.

So why do we, as a species, feel compelled to deceive?

Even the so-called good human beings adorned with virtue and empathy are not exempt. The complexity of human interactions and the subjective nature of morality make it nearly impossible to navigate life entirely without a fib or two.

Why do we do this?

Picture this: you're sitting across from your friend, trying to figure out whether or not to tell them the truth about something bugging you. You know that honesty is the best policy, but is it always? Is honesty an absolute, or does it depend on the circumstances?

The above quote challenges the traditional view of honesty as a one-size-fits-all principle, showing that the truth we share exists on a spectrum influenced by variables that extend beyond the mere act of revealing facts. It's a dynamic space where consequences and trust shape truth-telling boundaries.

The consequences of truth play a critical role in determining where one falls on this continuum of honesty.

For example, one common motive for lying is self-preservation, the instinct to shield ourselves from judgment or punishment. Picture a child with chocolate smeared across their face, denying involvement with the missing cookie jar. It's a primitive survival mechanism etched into our DNA to avoid consequences and safeguard our interests.

Beyond self-preservation, lies can also be wielded as social lubricants, smoothing the rough edges of relationships. Consider the classic scenario of responding "I'm fine" when asked how one is doing, even when the world inside might be crumbling. These lies, often called white lies, are deployed to maintain harmony, spare feelings, or avoid unnecessary conflict.

Then, we have the concept of lies of omission — the deliberate choice to withhold information. In some instances, this omission stems from a desire to protect others from harm or preserve a relationship's sanctity. While the intention might be noble, it still departs from the unadulterated truth.

Lies can also be a form of self-deception, where individuals convince themselves of a falsehood to cope with guilt, shame, or insecurity. A person may construct an alternative reality, not necessarily to deceive others but to shield themselves from the harsh truths they find difficult to confront.

In the grand tapestry of lies, the altruistic lie is spun intending to benefit others. Imagine telling a friend their new haircut looks fabulous when, in reality, you're not entirely sold on it. It's a lie forged from kindness, an attempt to uplift and support rather than diminish.

So, it is clear then that our perception of the consequences of what we say weighs heavily on the extent to which we are honest.

Given our propensity to lie as human beings as a means to mitigate our perception of consequences, it becomes understandable why trust is another crucial element of the quote, functioning as the proverbial bedrock upon which the spectrum of honesty rests.

In relationships characterised by deep trust, there may be a greater willingness to embrace vulnerability, allowing for more candid and open communication. Conversely, in relationships where trust is fragile or absent, individuals may tread more cautiously on the spectrum, revealing only those aspects they believe the relationship can bear.

The quote, therefore, challenges the simplistic notion of honesty as an absolute virtue, urging individuals to recognise its dynamic nature. It's like a dance where individuals must carefully weigh the impact of their truth-telling based on the context of their relationships.

Ultimately, the propensity to lie is embedded in the human experience, and the spectrum of deceit ranges from seemingly innocuous white lies to more complex and morally charged falsehoods.

Despite their virtues, the so-called good human beings are not immune to the subtle dance of deception dictated by circumstance, social dynamics, or personal motives.

Lying is an intricate facet of the human condition, driven by various motives, from self-preservation to social cohesion.

While all humans may not be habitual liars, the truth is often subjected to the complexities of human interaction, making lying an almost inevitable part of the human experience.

The challenge lies not in eradicating lies altogether but in understanding their motives and navigating the delicate balance between truth and deception.

The quote prompts individuals to consider their intentions, motivations, and the ethical dimensions of honesty. Is the truth being shared for transparency and understanding, or is it wielded as a weapon, causing harm without regard for consequences?

It also invites a thoughtful exploration of the shades within honesty, acknowledging that the spectrum is not a rigid line but a flexible and nuanced space where the complexities of human connections unfold.

So, how honest do you think you are?

Until next time, may you walk in relative truth.

Dion Le Roux