Mark Twain advises us in The Decay of the Art of Lying, “diligently to train ourselves to lie thoughtfully, judiciously, charitably, humanely, not cruelly, hurtfully, maliciously; to lie firmly, frankly, squarely, with head erect, not haltingly, tortuously, with pusillanimous mien, as being ashamed of our high calling.”
Immanuel Kant advises us in his essay On a Supposed Right to Lie Because of Philanthropic Concerns, “To be truthful (honest) in all declarations is a sacred command of reason…not to be constricted by any conveniences.”
This is the essay in which Kant said you have to tell the axe-man where his victim is hiding if he asks you.
Which side are you on?
Source: review by Jeremy Waldron of “The Virtues of Mendacity: On Lying in Politics” by Martin Jay in The London Review of Books, January 6
Recently posted on YouTube: 1958–1959: Two Years of Trouble at the CBC
Eric Koch’s book, The Weimar Triangle, is available at Indigo-Chapters and in your local bookstore. 
Immanuel Kant lie, ever. But Samuel Clemens thinks lying is a fine art, a skill to be judiciously and humanely applied. Clearly, never the Twain shall meet.
It seems to me that in real life, to always tell the absolute truth and to never lie under any circumstances would lead to situations where higher ethical principles (Do no harm; Do unto others as you would have them do unto you) would be shattered. For example, to lie to save the life of an innocent person (or even one’s own life) seems not only permissable but obligatory.
I’d be very interested to read the thoughts of the Honourable Horace Krever on this ethical dilemma.
While I find both ideas interesting, I tend to best identify with this quote about truth (much closer to Twain)….
In a world which really is topsy-turvy, the true is a moment of the false. – Guy Debord
Of course you have to lie. How on earth would anyone stay married otherwise?
I tend to avoid lying as I find it difficult to remember all my lies at one time. Hence I tell always the truth remembering only what I hope to hear.
So the consensus is you Kant lie, unless it’s for Clemency?
Does it matter whether or not one is under oath or its equivalent? Samuel Johnson said, “In lapidary inscriptions a man is not upon oath”, or something very close to it. In what percentage of funerals do eulogists tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth? The London Review’s review, referred to above, gives a few illustrations of the harm that can result from strict enforcement of an obligation to tell the truth. The exemption, however, does not, as a general rule, apply in medical practice.
Many religious leaders believe that the oath should be abolished in our court system, because adherents of their faiths are under a moral obligation to tell the truth without swearing to do so.
There is clearly a difference between telling the truth and telling the whole truth. De mortuis nil nisi bonum is not a prescription for lying.
There is no escape from situational ethics … some of the time!
In Chapter XL of his “The Discourses”, Niccolo Machiavelli said, “Although deceit is detestable in all other things, yet in the conduct of war it is laudable and honorable; …” The second part of the statement has been honoured by all nations but what does it imply for honesty in a war that appears to be endless?
To Horace’s stimulating question –
You can make “war” endless: (1) Choose to define the enemy as an undefeatable abstraction, e.g. lack of freedom, or as a method, e.g. terrorism (by excluded people, not state terrorism), and (2) Choose to use organized physical violence often, as a calculated instrument of policy and diplomacy in the unending competitive quest for a greater share of ability to control resources and make independent decisions. These choices serve some people better than others.
I can barely remember that Wikileaks hero/villain now – Assange? – or how his case is going.
However, I think he’d say that honesty (i.e. openness about what’s actually been said and done or is intended) is a way to stymie effective conspiracies among the already powerful against the efforts and hopes of those less powerful.
So, for an individual, honesty is a practice for personal ease and strength. Within cooperative social groups, it’s an essential factor in sustained trust. We also live with ongoing rivalry for limited resources and free decision spaces. (Calling the rivalry “war” lets you use and profit from physical force more often.) In this theatre, maybe honesty is a tactical attack weapon in the hands of the less powerful, and a weapon for occasional defensive distraction in the hands of the more powerful. And when unresolved rivalry becomes too expensive, honesty may be a tool to arrive at some new cooperation in the face of shared limits.
At the risk of unduly prolonging the discussion of a subject that has engaged humankind since the beginning of philosophical time, I introduce an other dimension. The premiss of the discussion seems to me to be that truth is a desideratum the departure from which is ethically unacceptable. There are, however, circumstances under which truth must yield to other valued interests. For example, in our part of the world, a true confession obtained by torture is inadmissible against the tortured person even if the result is that a guilty person goes unpunished, if, that is the confession is the basis of the prosecution. ( It is well known that confessions extracted under duress are as often as not are false but that is for another time. ) There is, of course a way of circumventing this salutary rule, adopted even by democratic nations, and that is the creation of special tribunals which need not apply the normal rules of evidence.
Now I promise to shut up.
See above.