I think we all are basically on the same page (despite apparent disagreement). We want the recording to come out as good as possible. The dishonesty argument is a very grey area.
We like to tune only to the extent that it is an improvement, in the same way that we like to another take (of any instrument) if it is an improvement. The best would be an extraordinary band who have great chemistry and deliver "the take" one day where it is beautifully captured with just the right vibe on the best gear for recording that vibe with. Apart from this everything is a compromise. Good band chemistry but crappy drummer? Get a session guy, gain some timing and groove but lose some chemistry. Singer doing well but out of tune? Tune them up and keep the vibe but lose a little natural error, or else do some patching and gain the tuning (perhaps) but lose some spontaneity of the take. These are decisions people have to make all the time to get a good result. There is always compromise.
Usually time and budget is a factor, e.g. I did a session where we had 45 minutes to do 6 tracks of BVs. Just had to stick them down as best we could.
@Dean - I understand the frustration and disappointment you express at the lifeless and shoddy vocals that you hear regularly. And I totally agree about Nashville records. I've heard very over the top pitch correction on singers who undoubtedly can pitch well (eg Shania Twain) and it smacks of laziness and lack of care to me which is always depressing when music is something you value. I think the key (as in all aspects of music production and creation) is the care, attention to detail and love you put in. I think tuning a vocal can definitely improve a vocal if done with care and feeling. Unfortunately it sometimes isn't and on the pop end it usually isn't.
My 2 pence.
Haven't thought of a good line yet.