Why are most people so opposed to shooting the messenger?
– I don’t know that most people are, and certainly don’t know why they all are, if they are.
If fact, when someone tells you gossip that upsets or hurts you to no good end, isn’t shooting the messenger actually the most productive course?
– No. I don’t have enough ammo for that, and if I miss, or their friends find out, it could lead to costly action sequences, the police may get involved, and the whole thing could get out of hand. The most productive course for me, is to notice that I am upset, and figure out what that upset is about, and process that.
If someone has to swear you to absolute secrecy before telling you something upsetting that involves you or a close friend/family member, where is the positive?
– That is a good warning sign, to consider and lay out boundaries, to avoid problems. I think it’s a problem to agree to unconditional secrecy when you don’t know the content. It potentially sets up the confidant for problems. However to answer your question, while it depends on the situation, there could be positives. It is often very valuable to have confidential listening, especially from trained listeners, though it is often best/easiest/cleanest if they are not your close friends. (Hence, the profession of counselor/therapist, or the practice of peer counseling.) For close friends and family though, it is often better to talk about important things than to avoid, hide, or lie, as that can lead to worse problems, especially if there is an ongoing problem. Sometimes the core problem is actually that there is an ongoing major problem that is not being talked about, that can’t be stopped and/or healed until enough people do know about it. But if a secret is shared on condition of silence, that can cause problems. But sometimes that’s a first and necessary step. If someone makes that condition and then drops a bomb, then further discussion may be needed about what to do about it and who else to tell, etc. Or even possibly, violating the privacy agreement. If someone says, “Promise not to tell? Ok, Bob is molesting Babs.” then the privacy agreement probably needs to be overpowered by Babs’ need to not get molested any more. Bob’s original and continued violations need to be taken care of, even if that means the family is going to have a lot to deal with, and Bob may go to jail etc.
So now you know something that, in all good conscious, you should take steps to verify and correct. Yet your hands were tied, leaving the choice of either scoundrel [no action] or liar [break your promise of silence].
– So that’s why it’s important not to just make completely unconditional oaths to keep silent no matter what, when you don’t even know what’s about to be said. There should be a Latin term for that type of blackmail, but I don’t know what it is. A responsible way to deal with it is to not agree to such oaths, and/or to make clear that there are limits to what you can stay quiet about.
Why not just shoot the messenger so you don’t face this again in the future?
– Depends. Maybe you or someone else actually likes the messenger for other reasons? Lack of ammo? In general, instead of shooting them, just correct the awful contract they are trying to set you up with, and don’t agree to it.