I don't split hairs about the delivery method of untruthful information or omissions. By that I mean if I deem you not worthy of knowing the truth, I see no difference between a bold lie, omission via changing the subject, and a joke masking a lie or omission. They all serve the same purpose to me and none of them are unacceptable to me since I am not morally compelled to be truthful in all situations. My belief in privacy over-rides any belief I have in 100% honesty.

KJS

Privacy doesn't require dishonesty. You could just refuse to answer thus maintaining privacy while also avoiding the need to lie.

By implying that avoiding lies is important, you are proscribing some negative connotations to lying that I don't abide to. I have no qualms about lying to protect privacy. It is identical to refusing to me. Neither is morally or ethically wrong, IMO.

To take it a step further, I think lying in preferable in some situations. Imagine someone I work with asks me if I am into S&M and I am. Refusing to answer could make them think I am, since I explicitly did not say I was not. So in that case I would just so "No". I would not feel bad about this.

KJS

So I assume then that you must also find it morally acceptable to be lied to by others if they feel it is necessary to protect their own privacy?

Yes. I do not think people are compelled to be truthful with me in all cases. Actually, there are probably plenty of things about other people I don't want to know. Colloquially we say "TMI" when people violate this social convention.

KJS

yeah i know kant could you explain how the categorial imperative and orignal position are applied in this case for you

okay good post point taken

okay you lose me a little here what are you referring to when you say "you are proscribing some negative connotations to lying that i don't abide to."? also to adress your second paragraph, in a situation like that if i did like S&M i might just say yes and then use a stone face or a laugh or whatever to trick them into thinking whatever, or say "i don't want to answer" and people almost never think i am into S&M they normally think i am weird.

My recent experience has been showing me that doing what other people desire is important at least in the sense that dogmatically saying "its not your responsibility to do what other people want" cannot possibly be useful. That is, there are definitely some situations where one needs to place the desires of others above one's own, and given that this category exists, we're trying to see how broadly it does - and should - apply.

It also seems important (given certain imperfections that exist now) to do what other people desire to at least gain their trust so I can do better things that they don't desire and not have it mean that they'll never listen to me again.

This is all based on the supposition that I know generally what's best for other people (for themselves, not for me) better than they do, but given that I think I'm living a lot better than most, I think it makes sense.

And to anyone that wants to talk about certain controversies in this post that will detract from the attention of the topic of honesty and what it means, please take it up with me via PM so we don't pollute this thread more than I just did .

Well if you know Kant then you know the problem of the inquiring murder so I'm confused as to what needs explaining?

Good thing you're so much smarter than everyone else that this should be easy to pull off.

I was responding to Henry's statement: "You could just refuse to answer thus maintaining privacy while also avoiding the need to lie."

He seems to me to imply avoiding lies is somehow paramount and using other methods of deflection are preferrable. You do too to an extent by saying you might choose other approaches to the S&M inquiry. As I said above these are all the same to me. lies are fine in these cases IMO.

KJS