I grew up hearing "If you can't say anything nice, don't say anything at all." Though the results are similar, in practice, I believe that "If you can't say anything truthful AND productive, don't say anything at all" more accurately reflects my thought process. But even from this angle, I do not completely agree. I don't even mostly agree. And I believe this helps to explain why I am sometimes (or often?) construed as surly.

To look at this question in terms of morality, is it more virtuous to be nice, or to be truthful AND productive? One can break it down further by asking, is it more virtuous to be truthful or productive? And then, does nice trump truthful? Does productive trump nice?

It is often more difficult to define morality in black and white terms, than one would like to think.

Morality is typically defined by adherence to certain virtues. But as illustrated above, when two or more virtues collide, morality becomes muddled. And when morality becomes muddled, one is inclined to argue the relative and applicable merits of one virtue over another; and suddenly morality is subjective. Though I am not completely certain (yet) what my ultimate intent (for this week's written thought) is, I am quite certain that it is not to argue over virtues and circumstance. Additionally, I do not want to argue for relativism (as it may apply to subjective morality) and against (a degree of) absolutism (as it applies to the moral maxim "Minimize Harm and Maximize Good"). I know; "a degree of absolutism" is a bit relativistic (and therefore a bit contradictory), but I will always believe that indiscriminate, random killing is immoral, so I must believe in (at least) a degree of absolutism thus refuting complete relativism. Yet even in this example, one could argue the definition of indiscriminate. Regardless, from this atrocity, we could list other evils and many of us will likely agree on the immorality of many; but there will come a point when we will disagree and morality will again become muddled---and subjective.

So, now that we're past all that, where am I going?

Perhaps the next consideration would be further analysis of the two methods (suggested above) for determining individual morality. These are: 

1. considering two or more agreed-upon virtues that due to circumstance have collided or are on a collision course; and
2. without considering circumstance, make a complete and objective list of virtues and vices, that may be identified as such by any significant number of individuals (in a group or otherwise); and then individually, subjectively rank the virtues (from the top down) and the vices (from the bottom up) and identify the middle range of overlapping virtues and vices that (for you) do not constitute morality or immorality, but are (again, for you) neutral or harmless.

I have already stated that I do not want to argue virtues and circumstance as described in #1 above.

So, depending on the yardstick, (Do No Harm, Minimize Harm/Maximize Good, Political Values and Beliefs, Religious Values and Beliefs, Cultural Custom and Mores, and/or a combination of these and others), the middle range as found in #2 above, will differ (sometimes drastically) between individuals, bringing us back to muddled, subjective morality. Morality is subjective; but one who insists otherwise and defines morality in objective, black and white terms will be recognized (in #2 above) by the solid, single line drawn across their list, definitively dividing virtue from vice, with no middle range at all. It is with these individuals that I most often practice "If you can't say anything truthful AND productive, don't say anything at all." But how do I know truthfulness will be ineffective, until I put forth the effort. Perhaps an example (such as being nice vs. being truthful) would be a starting point. Perhaps I don't give some individuals enough credit. Perhaps I should not give up so easily. Perhaps I should work harder.

But why should I work harder? Why is it important to realize the individual subjectivity of morality?

The first answer that comes to mind is, that by doing so I recognize and validate another's values and thus, in a reflective manner, I also validate my own values. And going one level deeper, this validation in turn nourishes empathy for another's (potentially differing) values that not only allows me to respectfully question their values, but also demands that I question my own values. True that these realizations do not at all ensure reciprocal validation, respect, and empathy, but one must start with oneself and actively hope for and work toward mutual beneficence. As always, much easier said than done...

This individual movement from validation to respect and empathy to skepticism, if done with sincerity, will periodically lead to modification; and this potential for progress additionally justifies the realization of the individual subjectivity of morality by avoiding the alternative of stagnant quiescence, and by aiding one to find a sweet spot (fleeting though it may be) between the relativistic absurdity and the absolute certainty of Life. Even when the result is a  revalidation of previously held values, sincere movement with respect and empathy, is in itself, moral.

...though some may disagree...