At least to me, your health and safety obviously override honesty, so long as that breach of honesty is not endangering other's health and safety.

It is especially not required to be honest to people who are actively working against your own health and safety. You are not required to let your captors know you are planning an escape.

The sentence does not claim "always". It just says that it's generally true, and personally, I agree. It feels weird even to have to say that. It doesn't seem to me to be dogmatic in the slightest. It seems quite obvious that you're allowed to do a lot of things that aren't done in polite company for the sake of protecting your health and safety. It's a little hard to know how to elaborate on this.

> You're allowed to tell lies to protect your health and safety

That's like a basic survival instinct. It transcends morality. I'd tell people that Jesus really was the son of a god if it meant living to see another day. I'd tell people other lies in order to guarantee I receive life saving drugs.

If you say that survival instincts transcend morality you're also saying that self-sacrifice is never a moral requirement, which at the very least is a controversial statement, not a given.

The suggestion that self-sacrifice is ever a moral requirement is a pretty controversial statement. Self-sacrifice for a moral reason is almost always seen as laudable, but necessary?

I feel like the weighting of your statement is off (wrt being controversial); not sacrificing yourself is the norm, and not immoral, while taking the option to sacrifice yourself is noble. As opposed to "Yeah, that guy ran back into the building to try to save the last kid from the fire. It's a shame he died, but he was just doing what was morally required so doesn't deserve any adulation".

It is actually a requirement for some religious sects e.g. concealing your religious beliefs to avoid being killed is a requirement to some

My thought is the truth requires two people, one to tell and one to listen. If a teenager has to lie to protect their health and safety the guilt isn't on them. The guilt is on those that won't deal with the truth.

Different moral considerations sometimes come in conflict forcing you to choose between different compromises.

Avoiding harm is a moral principle I'm sure many share and there are cases where this conflicts with being honest. If you go down this “you should never lie” you are effectively choosing to do the harm because you prioritise honesty. Maybe that's right in that situation, but you are doing a compromise between ethical principles in either case.

Personally I used to be never-ever-lie dogmatic, but as I've lived my thinking as evolved and I definitely think there exists cases where lying is the more ethical option. However, it's important to me that it's strongly ethically justified and not just something you do because it's the most easy or whatever.

>If you go down this “you should never lie” you are effectively choosing to do the harm because you prioritise honesty.

The framing of morality as between prioritizing certain morals over others is only a particular way of viewing it - the consequentialist way. For deontological metaethics, you have something like a categorical imperative.

"allowed" is not the same as "must". I don't think it's dogmatic at all to point out that lying to save yourself from harm is not forbidden. Restricting the set of available actions would, however, indeed be dogmatic.

I think it's very reasonable. You can choose death before compromising your honesty, but you shouldn't force that decision upon others. Life and morals don't have absolute values.