The question of whether not telling the whole truth can ever be justified is a complex and subjective one. While honesty is generally considered a virtue, there are certain situations in which withholding information may be deemed acceptable.
One justification for not telling the whole truth is to protect someone from harm or to prevent unnecessary panic or distress. For example, a doctor may choose to withhold certain medical information from a patient if disclosing it could worsen their condition or cause extreme anxiety. In this case, the intention behind not telling the whole truth is to prioritize the well-being of the individual.
Similarly, in cases involving national security or public safety, governments may sometimes choose to withhold information from the public to prevent the dissemination of sensitive information that could endanger citizens or compromise ongoing operations. This involves balancing the need for transparency and the potential risks associated with full disclosure.
In certain interpersonal relationships, individuals may also choose not to disclose certain truths in order to protect themselves or others from unnecessary harm or pain. For example, a person may choose not to reveal a hurtful opinion to spare the feelings of a loved one, or they may keep a secret about a friend's personal struggles to maintain their privacy and trust.
However, the justification for not telling the whole truth is highly subjective and can vary depending on cultural norms, personal values, and the specific context of the situation. What one person considers acceptable or justifiable may be seen differently by another. Additionally, the consequences and potential harm caused by withholding information should be carefully considered before deciding not to disclose the whole truth.
Ultimately, whether not telling the whole truth can be justified is a complex question that requires thoughtful consideration of the ethical implications and potential consequences in each specific circumstance.