From: margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis)
Subject: Re: Honesty, Your word, and Trust -- a crisis?
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1993 18:44:27 GMT
News-Software: IBM OS/2 PM RN (NR/2) v0.16f by O. Vishnepolsky and R. Rogers
Reply-To: margoli@watson.IBM.com
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: The Village Waterbed

In <JMD.93Jan22123711@lion.bear.com> jmd@bear.com (Josh Diamond) writes:
>
>Basically, it seems that as a society, our concepts of honesty and
>trust are all screwed up.
>
>Most people, when asked whether they consider themselves to be honest
>say yes.  And yet, when it comes down to brass tacks, most people are
>_not_ particularly honest. In fact, they are absolutely lousy at
>keeping their word.
>
>An example: How many of you out there have said that you would meet
>someone at a particular place at a particular time, but then been
>late?  If you have, then you have broken your word -- you have been
>_dishonest_.  I don't mean to attach any moral judgement here -- it is
>not good or bad, but merely a fact.

I think it's your understanding of "honesty" that's screwed up.  First,
"dishonest" *is* a moral judgement.  Second, "DISHONEST implies a willful
perversion of truth in order to deceive, cheat, or defraud" (G. & C. Merriam).
If you intended to do what you said you would, at the time you said it,
then you have not been dishonest.  Third, any time you talk about what
you will do in the future, I think there's an implicit disclaimer "if at
all humanly possible".  If I say I'll meet someone at noon, but I have a
flat tire and I'm a few minutes late, I don't think any reasonable person
would say I've broken my word.

>How many times have you broken your word in the last year?  Be honest
>with yourself -- count everything from being late for a meeting, to
>not showing up at that party you said you be at, to cheating on your SO.

Hopefully you can distinguish between these.  Some things you can control,
and some things you can't.

>In my opinion, the problem lies here: Most of the time when we break
>our word, we do not acknowledge the broken agreement.

Speak for yourself.

>Usually, we merely give an excuse.  And usually, the person to whom we
>gave our word says something like "Oh, that's OK" -- making it _acceptable_ to
>be dishonest in this way.

Why do you feel that the excuse is not an acknowledgement?  Most of the
time, in *my* experience, the person will say something like, "Sorry - I got
stuck in traffic", with the "sorry" being understood to mean "I'm sorry
that I wasn't here on time."  And unless the person to whom this is said
is an anal-retentive git, they'll say "that's OK", meaning that they
understand that the first person made the attempt to do what they said they
would, but events beyond their control conspired to foil their best effort.

>It seems to me that this can only lead to a breakdown in trust.  If
>our relationship with our word is like it is, how can we trust each
>other?  How can we expect others to trust us when our word does not
>matter to us?

Again, speak for yourself.

>I think that the way to do something about this is to just go ahead
>and break with precedent -- create a present which is completely
>different from the past.  Go ahead and trust -- creating an
>environment where the people you meet understand that their word means
>something -- and that you will not stand for broken agreements.

So the next time my girlfriend tells me "Sorry I'm late; the train got
stuck between stations", I'll tell her "Not good enough - I won't stand
for that sort of dishonesty; we're through!"  I'll let you know how it
works out...
--
Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)