Why “Kind Lying” Is Often Judged More Moral Than Radical Honesty

Monday, February 2, 2026.

Better Off Being a “Kind Liar”? Why Honesty Isn’t Always the Moral Flex People Think It Is

Kind lying refers to the selective softening or withholding of truthful feedback in order to protect a recipient whose emotional capacity would otherwise be overwhelmed.

There’s a certain personality type that treats honesty like a virtue sport.

They announce it. They endure it. They insist everyone else should, too. Feelings are optional. Truth is the brand.

The problem is that moral judgment doesn’t work that way.

Recent research in the British Journal of Social Psychology shows that people routinely judge kind liars as more moral than rigid truth-tellers—especially when the person receiving feedback is emotionally vulnerable.

Honesty, it turns out, does not automatically confer virtue. Fit does.

The Dinner-Party Test (or: Who Can Actually Use the Truth)

Participants were given a simple scenario involving bad cooking and four feedback styles:

• Kate: who handles criticism well and improves.

• Amy: who takes criticism personally and may give up.

Feedback styles:

• Always honest.

• Always positive (the prosocial liar).

• Adaptive—honest with Kate, gentle with Amy.

• Backwards—lying to Kate, harsh with Amy.

Two research results matter:

• First, the prosocial liar scored high on moral character.

• Second—and more interesting—the adaptive communicator was judged as moral as, and sometimes more moral than, the always-honest truth-teller.

• The study subjects did not punish inconsistency. They punished miscalibration.

What People Want for Themselves vs. What They Choose for Others

When choosing feedback for themselves, most people preferred honesty.

Accuracy feels empowering when you trust your own capacity to metabolize it.

But when choosing feedback for someone else—especially someone explicitly described as emotionally fragile—preferences shifted.

Kindness edged ahead of accuracy. Protection mattered more than information.

The pattern is simple and stable:
Accuracy for me. Compassion for you.

A Polite Stress Test of Radical Honesty

Advocates of Radical Honesty—such as Brad Blanton—argue that relentless truth-telling produces authenticity and freedom.

Earlier data was mixed. This data suggests a narrower truth.

Radical honesty may function as a self-discipline among high-capacity adults in consensual contexts.

As I suspected in my earlier critique of Radical Honesty, blunt truth telling lacks utility as a general moral rule. Once individual vulnerability enters the picture, honesty without calibration stops being virtuous and starts becoming sloppy, potentially cruel, and careless.

Honesty that ignores impact isn’t integrity. It’s abdication.

The Only Strategy Everyone Rejected

Across every measure, one approach failed decisively: being harsh with the vulnerable while coddling the resilient.

Participants weren’t offended by inconsistency. They were offended by social illiteracy.

Someone who can handle honesty but receives platitudes feels patronized.
Someone who needs gentleness but receives blunt criticism feels crushed.

The moral violation isn’t lying.
It’s using the wrong truth on the wrong nervous system.

Why Moral Judgment Works This Way

Two predictors dominated moral evaluations:

• Trustworthiness.

• Situational appropriateness.

Always telling the truth scores high on trust.
So does adapting honesty to vulnerability.

What fails is honesty delivered without regard for capacity.

When feedback overwhelms a recipient’s ability to process it, accuracy loses its corrective function and becomes pure stress.

At that point, the truth simply stops helping.

The Honesty Paradox

Here’s a compelling finding. Folks don’t hold a single value called “honesty.” They hold several at once: accuracy, empathy, predictability, and harm reduction. Which value leads depends on context.

• For yourself, truth feels useful.

• For a vulnerable other, protection often comes first.

• In low-stakes moments, restraint can be the ethical move.

Moral communication is not defined by truth alone.
It is defined by the responsible calibration of truth to human capacity.

FAQ

Is lying ever more moral than telling the truth?
In low-stakes situations, research suggests that softening or withholding truth can be judged as more moral when full honesty would overwhelm the recipient and serve no corrective purpose.

Does this mean honesty doesn’t matter?
No. Honesty remains highly valued—especially when the recipient can use it. The findings show that honesty loses moral force when it exceeds a listener’s capacity to process it.

What matters more than consistency?
Fit. People care less about rigid principles and more about whether the feedback strategy matches the person and the moment.

Therapist’s Note

If this piece landed uncomfortably, it often means you’ve been on one side of this mismatch—either told a truth you couldn’t absorb or withheld honesty long after it was needed. Learning to calibrate honesty is a relational skill, not a personality trait. If you want help building it—individually or as a couple—I invite you to reach out.

Final Thoughts

The fantasy that honesty is always the bravest option collapses under even mild psychological research scrutiny.

Sometimes the bravest move is restraint.

Sometimes the truth can wait.

Sometimes preserving someone’s willingness to keep trying matters more than delivering the full picture on schedule.

That isn’t lying.
That’s adulthood.

Be Well, Stay Kind, and Godspeed.

REFERENCES:

Cantarero, K., & Białek, M. (2026). Selective (dis)honesty: Choosing overly positive feedback only when the truth hurts. British Journal of Social Psychology, 65(1). https://doi.org/10.1111/bjso.70020