AGREED! But often personal honesty, conflicts with a genuine ethical disposition? i.e. Schindler wasn't technically honest, but arguably the most ethical Nazi in the Nazi party.

And in running arguably the biggest scam in history, saved hundreds from the horrors of the Nazi prison camps and the, final solution, gas chambers.

And in essence, truthful where it really counts, i.e., to your own human values and personal integrity!

One also needs to be honest with oneself and one's own moral compass, easily thrown away in the interest of some nebulous short-term gain or outcome? Particularly in the heat of armed conflict!

Moreover, If you asked to give fearless and frank advice? And paid to do so, then that is the literal job description!

No ifs, buts or maybes!

Further, the most important opinion in the room all too often the very one that disagrees with you and then obliges you to defend a position with honest integrity, then no bad thing.

After all, if the boss and the employee are of one mind an in lockstep so to speak, then one of them is clearly redundant!

Unto thine own self be true.
Alan B.

It depends on the circumstances.

I'd take it on a case by case basis.

Personally, if I was diagnosed as being
terminally ill - I'd not want to know.
But that's just me. Many people would
disagree.

If my husband had an affair - I wouldn't want
to know (unless he'd keep on having them).

If someone could tell my future - that I was
going to get hit by a bus and die - I wouldn't
want to know that either.

I guess what I'm trying to say is - I'd prefer
no to have to deal with bad news. Unless I
absolutely have to. Bad news that only concerns
me that is. Regarding my family - I'm a tigress
and I would definitely want to know whatever
is going to happen to them. And how I could
help. I'm just a coward when it comes to me.

The author believes in "peace" and "truth"! Despite these personal failings one should not condemn him - well not yet.

Successful politicians and Cardinals only succeed by being economical with the "truth".

Take the Ministry of Truth and "What have the Romans ever done for us?" http://youtu.be/uvPbj9NX0zc?t=50s

Truth is merely a point of view to be argued in Courts and Parliaments.

"Is telling the truth in the public interest?"

Not if you're selling the nation out to promote a globalist agenda.

Agreed as well.

The only two alternatives to telling the truth is to 1) say nothing, or 2) lie.

There are several situtions both publically and privetely where saying nothing is the best choice to make. There are only a few reasons when lying is worth doing, and all of those reasons are when the person or the company/organization/government is doing wrong. There are no good reasons to lie or to continue in a lie.

Therefore, if you can't tell the truth, say nothing, or say that you can't say.

If on the other hand if you have to answer then tell the truth (and face those consquences) or face the consquences of saying nothing.

Being truthful, sincere, and honest is the better option on all matters we have in life.

I remember a saying, 'If your going to lie, you'd better have a good memory'.
I am somewhat in the dark on this thread because as humans we are faced with many conflicts of many differing emotions and situations.
In my case it is clear, I believe in the truth, it's just how I'm wired.
Part of it probably stems from my growing up and getting lied to and conned, once too often, so these days I am super sensitive to comments and the risk of them being untrue.
PC was created for the very reason of making it appear they are saying one thing, but in reality, they are in fact saying something else.
This is a perfect example of making it appear one is telling the truth, when in fact they are not.
A recent example of PC in action; An American congressman was being interviewed on TV.
A question about the separation of the savings arm and the speculation arm of the bank was asked.
This function is called the 'Glass-Stegall' act.
A very deceptive topic world wide, involving the banks.
Because the President had said he would re-instate, Glass-Steagall, the interviewer sought confirmation of this fact, on live TV.
She asked, 'is the President going to re-instate, Glass-Steagall'?
He answered,'Yes, we are going to introduce a 21st century Glass-Steagall'.
The interviewer, knowing full well he did not answer the question, asked it again and again, five times, before she shut down the interview, quite visibly disgusted and annoyed.
Now on the face of it, it would seem he answered in the affirmative.
But the devil was in the detail.
He should have stopped at 'YES', but he went on to describe something which 'sounded like what she said, but in fact it was something else, in other words, NOT what she said.
This is PC at it's best.