Resolving Conflict vs. Pursuing the Truth: A Moral Dilemma?

Perhaps you have been in a situation I am about to describe before at one point in your life. It is one of a dilemma between resolving conflict as quickly as possible by lying to the wrongdoer who inflected injustice upon you, the injustice of which the wrongdoer is wholly responsible of causing, and pursuing the truth by having the wrongdoer recognize the fact that he is wholly responsible for the wrong and correct the situation through proper remedy. Here, I do not include situations where the injustices arise through faulty actions of both.

     Perhaps the situation arose in conflicts between your spouse or other type of intimate partner, your friends, your family members, or other sort of loved ones. The benefit of lying when the conflict is wholly the other's fault is that you do not risk for the time being deteriorating the relationship, creating further conflict. In many cases, demanding the wrongdoer to recognize one's own wrongs will often sprout dormant arrogance out of the wrongdoer. The arrogance then would turn into anger toward you and distance oneself from you. The con, however, is that you are lying, a principally wrongful act. Another con is that you are enabling the wrongful acts of your loved one by not sifting through the warped perceptions and the sophistic arguments of the wrongdoer. If you truly care about the loved one at hand, it should displease you that the moral character of the wrongdoer will not be fixed for that person will not properly repent.

     Pursuing the truth, on the other hand, is one of the moral imperatives as human beings. Further, pursuing the truth in conflicts will help the wrongdoer recognize the wrongs, repent, and fix the wrongful disposition. In turn, you can grant sincere forgiveness. However, the result is uncertain for there is a risk of losing the relationship by triggering prideful actions, refusing to admit the wrongs.

     In between risking losing a valuable relationship and pursuing the inherent good that is the truth, there is thus a moral dilemma. Which of the two should one choose? I personally cannot balance the two through arithmetic means. Thus I, from a personal perspective, decided in recent years to pursue the truth in all cases and put my faith that a moral resolution will occur. So far, my faith in it has yet to be proven to be misplaced, all the ones involved in conflicts with me ultimately being resolved with me. In such cases, I strike two birds with one stone in that I do the principally correct act and the conflict becomes resolved. I do hope that my faith will never be proven to be displaced.