I am looking for an alternative phrase to replace "what you don't know can't hurt you."
- Anybody can ask a question
- Anybody can answer
- The best answers are voted up and rise to the top
closed as primarily opinion-based by FumbleFingers, MrHen, Benyamin Hamidekhoo, Matt E. Эллен♦, choster Oct 23 '13 at 20:16
Many good questions generate some degree of opinion based on expert experience, but answers to this question will tend to be almost entirely based on opinions, rather than facts, references, or specific expertise.If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.
The expression is most often used, in my experience, to justify not giving information to a superior. Usually this is to avoid potential damage if it subsequently becomes known that he/she was in possession of the full facts before a particular course was followed.
One infamous occasion when it was used was at the time of the Iran-Contra hearings by former US Vice-Admiral John Poindexter. He said that he did not inform President Ronald Reagan of certain facts, 'in order to allow the President a level of "plausible deniability"'. The term 'plausible deniability' did, however, go back to the Kennedy Administration and related to the CIA not passing on facts to the White House about covert activities in which they were engaged.
So my suggestion for an alternative phrase to 'what you don't know can't hurt you' is that you should say you are reserving to the other party the opportunity for 'PLAUSIBLE DENIABILITY'.