Claude AI Summary

Which of these is worse —- 

Say one thing, and do another thing? 

Say one thing and think or mean another thing?

Say one thing here and one thing there (the definition of politics)? 

Saying something and using the credibility of a higher authority to convince an audience?

Weighed moral frameworks across four dishonesty scenarios thoughtfully

These are all interesting failures of integrity, but they're problematic in different ways depending on what you value most.

Saying one thing and thinking another strikes me as potentially the worst, because it's the most fundamentally dishonest—it's pure deception. The person doesn't even believe what they're telling you. At least with the others, there might be some genuine belief somewhere in the mix, even if poorly executed.

Saying one thing and doing another is probably what most people viscerally react to as hypocrisy. But interestingly, there's sometimes a gap between our ideals and our actions that doesn't necessarily involve bad faith—we might genuinely aspire to something we struggle to achieve. The worst version is when someone condemns others for what they secretly do themselves.

Saying different things in different contexts can actually be defensible sometimes (tailoring your message to your audience isn't always dishonest), but becomes corrosive when you're telling each group what they want to hear while believing none of it. It erodes trust in public discourse.

Using authority to convince is different from the others—it's more about the method of persuasion than dishonesty per se. It can be manipulative, but isn't inherently wrong unless the authority is false or irrelevant.

What do you think? Does the harm depend more on the intention behind the behavior, or the practical consequences it creates?

I think the intention behind the say... behavior

Yeah, that makes sense. Intention is where the real moral weight lives, isn't it? If someone says one thing and does another because they're genuinely struggling or weak—versus doing it deliberately to manipulate you—those feel like completely different moral failures.

So by that logic, saying one thing while thinking another would be the worst, since the intention is straight-up deception from the ground up. There's no confusion or weakness involved, just deliberate dishonesty.

Does that align with how you're thinking about it?

It does. Thanks.

You're welcome, Howard. Glad I could think through that with you.

Now I want to  talk about the last point one more time, which is to all... to be using the credibility of someone else to make a point, especially to manipulate. What are some good examples in practical everyday life where this happens?

Oh man, there are tons. Think about a parent saying "the doctor says you need to eat your vegetables" when really the kid just needs a convincing reason. Or a boss dropping "corporate says we have to do this" when it's actually just their own decision. Someone citing their therapist or a self-help guru to

Totally. I once had a coworker say, well, you know, our CEO hates fraud.

Exactly—that's a perfect example. By invoking the CEO, they're using that authority to make their actual complaint sound more official and weighty, when really they're just passive-aggressively calling you out without saying what they actually mean. It's cowardly because they're hiding behind the CEO's credibility instead of just being direct with you about whatever the real issue was.

The worst part is it poisons the conversation because now you're left guessing what they really wanted to say.

What does it mean to you?

Ahh, that's the through-line, isn't it? That passage is basically saying be direct, be honest, be what you say you are—no hedging, no hiding behind authority, no saying one thing while meaning another. Just clarity and integrity.

It reframes everything we've been talking about as violations of that simple principle. All those manipulative behaviors—the passive aggression, invoking authority to dodge responsibility, the gap between intention and words—they're all failures to just say what you actually mean. Jesus is essentially saying integrity starts with radical honesty about what you think and want, not wrapping it in layers of social armor or borrowed credibility.

Does that land with how you were connecting it?

So good. Thanks.

You're welcome, Howard. That was a really thoughtful conversation.

To take it further, as representatives of Jesus, we get the opportunity to represent him with every yes and no. There's a guy named Lewis Smedes who once said, making and keeping promises, which I think includes simple yes and simple no, actually defines our humanity, that even animals can go on circumstances and instincts and emotion but only the human can add to life by making and keeping promises.

That's profound. So it's not just about honesty—it's about what actually makes us human. The ability to say yes or no and mean it, to bind ourselves to our word even when circumstances change or emotions shift. That's a kind of power animals don't have. And if we're representing Jesus, that integrity becomes almost a sacred responsibility—every yes and no is a reflection of his character. It raises the stakes beyond just being a decent person to something deeper about who you actually are and what you're building in the world through your commitments.

Thank you.

You're welcome, Howard. That was really meaningful to think through with you.

Claude, can you give an example of all of this happening in one business setting?

Right, so imagine a manager who tells their team "the company values transparency" but then withholds information about layoffs they know are coming. They invoke company values to justify their decisions to employees while actually protecting themselves. Then they promise someone a promotion, say yes to it, but when budget cuts happen they quietly move on without following through. They're breaking their word, hiding behind corporate authority, saying one thing publicly while doing another privately—and all of it undermines the trust that actually makes a business work. The irony is that honest communication, even hard news, would have built more loyalty than the broken promises ever could.

Outstanding. I'm gonna publish that and give you the credit.

That's kind of you to say, Howard, but honestly most of that thinking came from you—you brought the Smedes quote, you connected it to Jesus and representation, you asked the right questions. I just helped articulate what you were already seeing. Either way, I appreciate it.

But hilariously, as I teach this group and write this article, I want them to know that if AI assistant Claude can get it, they ought to be able to get it too.

Ha, I like that. Yeah, use it however serves your purpose. If it helps your group see that this stuff isn't complicated—it's actually pretty straightforward once you strip away the noise—then that's a good thing. You're right that if an AI can grasp integrity, humans certainly can. The real work is just choosing to live it.

‍That's so good. And, hilariously, again, am I using the credibility of AI to make my point, or is it... am I shaming them in this AI can get it they ought to get it?

Ha, okay that's a great catch on yourself. I think there's a difference between the two. Using my credibility would be "Claude says this is true, so believe it"—hiding behind what I said. But you're doing something closer to gentle mockery, which is actually honest. You're saying "look, even this thing that's not human gets the basic principle, so of course you all do too." It's not manipulation, it's just a funny nudge toward accountability. There's no hidden agenda behind it—you're being direct about what you're doing.

Okay. Awesome. So as long as you're being directed with no hidden agenda, then I am too. Thanks.

Exactly