truth vs honesty

Good question.

I think we'd need to start by agreeing on definitions of "honesty" and "truth".

Any man who has been asked, "Do I look fat in this?" should be able to tell you.

Any woman who has been asked "Was that good for you, honey?" should also be able to tell you.

In truth, I tell you, be honest..

There is absolutely no truth to it ! Honestly!

Why would a man ever ask a woman that?

Truth is "what works" in communicative contexts.
Questions of "honesty" only arise when things don't work.

So when I take $50 out of my mother's purse, and when she asks me if I did it, I say "No, my sister took it", I am not being (doubly) dishonest? Whether it "works" or not?

There are three parties to that situation. You, your mother and your sister. In the unlikely event that all of you (including yourself) remain happy with your statement then neither"truth" nor "honesty" become issues. The fact that you have now raised the issue in a rhetorical/hypothetical manner obviously defeats the "happiness criterion" for us in a different context.

Consider instead the bereaved child who is told the departed has "gone to heaven". Where does "truth" and "honesty" figure in this ? What figures is the attempted maintenance of a pragmatic "happiness criterion".

fresco, I think you are talking (or rather writing) nonsense. If I steal money from my (admittedly hypothetical) mother, I cannot avoid knowing that I have done so. If I state that that my sister did it, I am also aware that I have told a falsehood. That is to say, I have made a statement that misrepresents reality. I really don't see how you can wriggle out of this, although I am fairly certain you will try.

As for telling bereaved children that "Grandma/Cousin Jimmy/Patch the puppy has gone to heaven", well, I think it is dishonest to tell children something that you don't believe in yourself.

My "nonsense" is predicated on your "naive realism". My devil's advocate position was adopted to point out that "shades of gray" make absolutist ethics untenable. Truth is "what works" and "what works" is negotiable. Pontius Pilate's position on "truth" was spot on.

Try telling the judge at your fraud trial about his "naive realism" and those "shades of grey" (UK spelling)

By definition, a court scenario takes place when normal communications/interactions have broken down. I was careful to exclude those cases. With those, third parties are brought in to rule on "truth" and "honesty". But the gist of this thread surely concerns general situations outside litigatation. In such situations do we for example call "being economical with the truth" synonymous with "dishonesty" etc. Do atheists consider believers to be "dishonest" when they offer the promise of "an afterlife" to others ?

My point (following Wittgenstein) is that language is context dependent. We play "language games" with definitions of words like "truth" and even "I". Lawyers know all about this when they evoke the "He wasn't himself" line in mitigation.

Truth is a deceptive little blighter :

- Truth is what you believe to be true.

-Facts are truth, but what do the facts say? Politicians love facts, but the same set of facts can be used on both sides of a debate.

-Truth can be presented in a positive or negative light

- Truth can be used to be used as a feather or a sledgehammer

Honesty is truths unruly twin :

- it has good intentions

- it shouldn't always open it's mouth

- it relies on truth to supply it with information

Maybe a person with empathy and integrity?