Skip to content
Carmelics
TopicsThinkersChangesContributorsLoading account…

    Carmelics

    A reasoning platform. Break down any belief into clear reasons, explore both sides, and weigh the evidence honestly.

    Navigate

    • Topics
    • Search
    • Recent Changes
    • Contribute
    • How It Works
    • Glossary
    • Thinkers
    • Contributors
    • About
    • Statistics
    • Terms
    • Privacy

    Database

    Statements
    —
    Perspectives
    —
    Topics
    —

    Press ? for keyboard shortcuts

    LoyalLoyalJusticeJustice
    Made withinDC&Austin
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Home/Original/inverse
    See Original
    Inverse View

    It is not the case that Honesty may require accuracy in inquiry without requiring full disclosure in speech, making the claim's conjunction of thought and speech overly strong.

    ?Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Strategic omission in speech constitutes a form of deception when listeners reasonably expect access to information you possess.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Honesty as a virtue requires alignment between inner conviction and outer expression; separating them undermines integrity itself.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Selective disclosure without signaling what's omitted gives audiences false confidence in incomplete information they receive.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Rigorous inquiry requires considering all available evidence, but communication ethics permits strategic silence about irrelevant or harmful details.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Full disclosure often violates other moral duties like privacy, confidentiality, and protection from unnecessary harm to innocent parties.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Confusing epistemic standards (what we must believe) with communicative standards (what we must say) conflates distinct ethical domains.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Strongest counterpoint
    Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.