Posts
Comments
Woop woop!
I think about this alot with regards to sexuality. I've always found the expectations of closet gays with whom I've had encounters to keep the encounter secret to be unfair, theres a cost to me in conversation with friends, and like everyone I talk about my relationships with friends for advice and I think this important for my mental health. When I share this secret, its in the vein that I'm confiding knowledge X with you, and you can share it (with your circle of trusted confidants) provided it doesn't get back to the person its about or someone whom may act differently towards that person because of now knowing X. This is my default. But if I'm telling a 'super secret' I'll emphasise to my friends that it really can't go outside the room, or the consequences if it does, getting the mutual understanding this post advocates for. I think that usually I leave it to the other person to make their own risk evaluation on further spreading X: but they know if caught spreading X willfully with insufficient effort to not spread X, that they will have 'broken my trust' and henceforth loose access to my secrets. In effect, they evaluate the risk to loosing my close friendship. But when they trust another to not further spread X, they build trust which is foundational for friendship. Thus secrets and gossip are both useful and risky regarding friendships.
This is an example of the more-maximum fallacy. Actually utilitarianism suggests the maximum happiness, not more happiness. This presents a false dichotomy between two non-utilitarian worlds, the actual utilitarian world is the unwritten third option - one in which the greater number of people is happy. Notice this third utilitarian world is also more palatable for other moral theory followers.