The paper examines the ethics of truth telling and free speech in Jonathan Rauch’s "The Humanitarian Threat". The central question is this: “Should we suspend the truth to prevent harm?”. Both humanitarians and the anti-humanitarians supply different responses to this question. While the humanitarians supplied a positive answer, Rauch argues that the anti-humanitarian posture of the exponents of liberalism supplied a negative answer. The paper considers the humanitarian argument that puts the welfare of the people above the truth or anything (...) else. Meanwhile, for the anti-humanitarians, the right to speak the truth must be guaranteed at all time. This paper argues that, in practice, the morality of truth telling is not only context bound, it also depends on what the truth is meant to achieve. Thus, the suspension of the truth may be consistent with morality in some medical and sensitive security situations due to the tendency to cause harm. The paper does not argue that the truth be suspended arbitrarily or for mischievous reasons. It only concludes by identifying some practical situations under which suspension of the truth may not be inconsistent with morality. (shrink)

This article is based on a philosophical analysis of moral language in academic journal articles that concern child death cases. The analysis shows that research of child protection is a value-committed practice, and the language use reflects this in various ways. Direct moral language is relatively rare, and moral values are often implicitly referred to. Values in social work research bear resemblance to moral philosophical stances.