the Bible F. Paulsen, System of Ethics, book iii, Chap.  XI, sec. 10.] In what directions are our standards of truthfulness low?  Truthfulness in private affairs averages fairly high in our times.  Many people will, indeed, lie about the age of a child for the sake of paying the half- fare rate, use the return half of a round-trip ticket sold only for the original purchaser’s use, or look unconcernedly out of the window if they think the conductor will pass them by without collecting fare.  Certain forms of such oral or tacit lying are so common that people of looser standards adopt them with the excuse that “every one does it,” or that “the company can afford to lose it.”  But in more public matters the prevalence of untruthfulness is much more shocking.  Standards are low or unformulated, and it is often extremely difficult for the honorable man to know what to do; strict truthfulness would deprive him of his position.  We may barely hint at some of these situations.

(1) In business, misstatement is generally expected of a salesman.  Advertisements of bargains, for example, have to be discounted by the wary shopper. “$10 value, reduced to $3.98,” may mean something worth really $3.  “Finest quality” may mean average quality; goods passed off as first-class may be shoddy or adulterated.  Labels on foodstuffs and drugs are, happily, controlled to some degree by the national government; there ought to be a similar control over all advertising.  Much is being done by the better magazines in investigating goods and refusing untruthful advertising; and many houses have built up a deserved reputation for reliability.  But still the economical householder has to spend much time in comparing prices and studying values, that he may be sure he is not being cheated.

(2) In politics, frank truth telling is almost rare.  It is deemed necessary to suppress what sounds unfavorable to a candidate’s chances, to make unfair insinuations against opponents, to juggle statistics, emphasize half-truths, and work generally for the party by fair means or foul.  Too great candor in admitting the truth in opponents’ arguments or the worth of their candidates would be sharply reprimanded by party leaders.  Especially in international diplomacy is truthfulness far to seek.  Secretary Hay, indeed, stated in the following words:  “The principles which have guided us have been of limpid simplicity.  We have set no traps; we have wasted no time in evading the imaginary traps of others.  There might be worse reputations for a country to acquire than that of always speaking the truth, and always expecting it from others.  In bargaining we have tried not to get the worst of the deal, alway remembering, however, that the best bargains are those that satisfy both sides.  Let us hope we may never be big enough to outgrow our conscience.”  Other American diplomats have followed the same ideal.  But American diplomacy has been labeled abroad as “crude,” and is perpetually in danger of lapsing from this moral level.