In primary school, we were taught the importance of having good virtues, to live with honesty, integrity and compassion, among others. We were told the examples of George Washington, Mother Theresa and Martin Luther King, of how one can gain huge respect and leave behind a legacy by being doing what was taught. Of course the point was not to become famous; rather it was that we should always do things in good conscience, to be a good person.
Growing up, it gradually became apparent that a strict adherence to positive characteristics would be almost impossible. People tend to believe in good virtues only as far as it is accepted by their clique, their social circle, their culture. It is a fool who stands steadfast to his belief in honesty and integrity and reports all the dirty little secrets that he knows of. Unless they are criminal secrets, he stands to lose all his friends, as no one would dare to confide in someone fully aware that the information may not be confidential.
It can be such a dilemma at times: Do you stick to your beliefs to be a person of integrity when you are aware that your good friend is not doing things in his best conscience and risk the friendship, or close one eye and let the matter rest (Of course the assumption here is that the other party believes he/she is doing no wrong)? When the matter of concern is not serious (eg. not a criminal offence), most people will choose to side with their friend. Nonetheless, a wrong is a wrong, regardless of the gravity of it.
Conclusion: It is wise to act dumb at times and be suitably ignorant. Afterall, while you may be right in exposing a friend's misdeeds, you have also breached his trust in you. So how do you determine who's right, who's wrong; what's right, what's wrong?
