When is it OK to lie?
 

Yeah, I know you all lie.

SINNERS!!

*ahem* This is a discussion of the morality of lying and when and why people should be allowed to do it.

I'll define lying as:
Lies run the gamut from social lies (that dress doesn't make your butt look fat) to politicians lying about the state of the country and everything between and beyond.

Several philosophers, chiefly among them, Immanuel Kant, Thomas Aquinas and Saint Augustine all reason that all lying should be prohibited. They argue that it takes away people's right to reason when the truth is not given to them.

Virtue ethics also contends that lying is not acceptable since it devalues someone's character.

But the utilitarians disagree and say that lying is acceptable if more people are spared from being hurt from the lie. But that leaves it in the hands of the people doing the lying to judge whether people are being hurt.


So why do you lie and when is it OK?

I think the first part of this that needs to be examined is the transactory economy of lying. Information is a commodity, and as such we hold power over the truth as a form of metaphysical currency. One has more power if they have access to privileged information.

Then the second part is the problem as related by Pontius Pilate to Jesus just before he washes his hands and seals his fate. 'What is Truth?', truth can be highly subjective and one truth can supplant another. In this case, the religious truth of this Judaic heretic was irrelevant to the Roman Governor, though I've always read that bit as Pilate having sympathy for Jesus.

I'll take this on for a moment.

This is fairly easy for me, since I don't think there's an absolute Truth. Therefore, if everything we say is not absolute truth, and if that qualifies it as a lie, then I think that lying is ok all of the time. Otherwise, we'd all walk around in silence.

For me, there are shades of truth and shades of not truth and shades on either side of those shades. So, are we talking lighter grey or darker grey?

I'm a non-absolute truth teller all the time. I admit it.

The problem with the stance that Kant etc take is that it doesn't take into account the realities of people as social beings. We need to live in groups to survive well. When living in groups we cannot be brutally honest at all times or we're going to create bad feeling or conflict. It's a noble idea but not a practical one. A friend I once had maintained that she shouldn't have to lock her front door because stealing was wrong. While I do agree with her I also accept the reality that some people steal and that it is impractical to ignore that. Again, she's got a very noble view of how humanity should be but a very vague view of how we actually are.

For myself, I try not to lie. I've actually just written something that originally had a slight untruth in it. The untruth being there for humorous purposes. It took me a long time to write because I felt very uncomfortable presenting something that was not absolutely true. In the end I had to rework it so the humour was still there but so the lie wasn't actually a lie. I'm not generally comfortable in a world where people will not tell the truth. (I'm discounting things like 'Oh your hair is lovely!' because to my mind that is a social smoother which promotes good feeling in the group). I know this is because I can be very literal-minded at times so the idea that people routinely say stuff that's not true is a bit jarring when I work it out.

Here's a picture of a woman hugging a giant penis.

Doesn't look like mle. Have you been fooling around Mister? :dubious:

I can't be certain that the human is a woman, or that the action is hugging or that the object that is receiving the action is a penis. Or that it is a large object. :science:

So true. It's possible that the object wrapping itself around the penis is just very small.

Says who? You? :D

Does that make it acceptable then to not tell the truth because it gains power?

Truth is from the perspective of the person saying the thing. So if Pilate believed it to be the truth, then it was for him. If he didn't believe it, then it's a lie. In the story, the problem is that it's not possible to know what he really believed. I've heard sermons on dissecting what people think he believed by small pieces of evidence of his actions.

You might have to expand on this some. I mean the truth from your perspective. It's something you don't believe to be the truth that you say (or not say).

Why do you (or other people) do that and why is it acceptable?

The trouble with imagining the world as a perfect, idealistic model is that the world rarely lives up to it.

For instance: by lying to somebody you take away their right to reason. I don't publish my bank account number and debit PIN because I don't want people to know those things.

However, by stealing my money, thieves are taking away my property. This doesn't seem to stop them, does it? So as long as there are people who are free to take away my rights, I'll continue to pre-emptively take away theirs. It all comes down to numbers and logic.

Assume 1 in 1000 people is a scoundrel.
Assume that secrets escape; information tends to become available. Once you reveal information you have no control who obtains it.
Therefore, assume by telling 1 person the truth, 1000 people will hear it.
Therefore, assume that by telling the truth, at least 1 scoundrel will hear it.

Therefore, lying is reasonable because eventually, somebody can and will use that information to harm you. You're taking away the "right to reason" of 999 people in order to target that 1 scoundrel who doesn't respect rights.

It's not necessarily about personal power. It may be about the best gain for people as a whole. Consider someone who has the information that there is a bomb in a crowded shopping mall. The person who has that information is in a position where they literally have control over whether others live or die. But how to deal with the information? They could make an announcement giving the absolute truth. "There is a bomb in the northeast corner of the store. It will go off very soon. If you are nearby you will certainly die. If you are still within the store you will probably also die or be horribly injured as bits of the building collapse on you".

The problem with that sort of communication of the truth is that it engenders panic. A stampede of panicking people means that some could be killed in the rush to get out. They may not have been killed had the person with the information told a half-truth. "Due to a reported emergency, all customers must leave the building immediately". The second statement is calmer, has enough vagueness to not panic people yet also enough vagueness to make people attend to it and leave quietly and quickly. The end result is that by withholding the truth (at least in part) you have done greater good than by being completely honest.

To debate something philosphically often misses the realities of life. We could all kick this up and down and come to agreement that either it is always wrong to lie or it is not. But then we'd go out in the world and find occasions where life proved us wrong for that particular circumstance. For example, my view is that to lie to gain personal power is wrong. But I acknowledge that I benefit from others lying - nobody tells me explicitly that my cheap tshirt from ASDA (WalMart) was made overseas by someone in a factory working long hours for little money. By concealing the truth they gain but so do I because I don't have to think about truth. So now I cannot say that it is wrong to lie to make personal gain because I directly benefit from the lies of others. That's a really poor example but my brain is tired today and I can't think of a better one.

I play mafia.

I lie when ever someone asks me something that is none of their business and I feel the need to protect my privacy. There's not a lot of topics I feel the need to private myself about, but there are some. Most people aren't rude enough to intrude in the private areas, so it doesn't come up often.

That's an interesting thought--one that is corroborated by a writer in this article. Apparently, half of Americans in a poll voted that lying was always wrong but that 2/3 of Americans thought that is was sometimes justified. One of the philosophers interviewed noted that people who say they never lie are not taking into account the social realities.

But are the realities shaped by the lies we accept? I've noticed that my friends from Romania would easily and happily tell each other that the dress someone is wearing is ugly. And they feel that they're doing a service to them by being truthful. It seems to me that different cultures accept different degrees of honesty in different areas as social lubrication. But not all cultures are the same as what social lubrication is required in what situations.

I think of myself in roughly the same way. But I also wonder how much truth-telling is possible with ourselves. But that may be the subject of another thread.

No I don't!

Here is a picture of some truly epic cleavage.

Could you both expand a bit here? Are you saying that it's a lie from omission that if someone asks you for private information, you tell them that you won't be giving it?

Saying that you won't be giving out private information isn't a lie because you haven't said anything you don't believe.

No, I will actually lie if I feel a refusal to answer will be a tacit admission of personal information. "Did you have sex with that person last night?" "No, I've misplaced my penis." "Oh, dear. Hope that turns up soon."

It isn't always feasible to provide a non-answer such as you describe. If you think a moment, you can come up with numerous occasions where you are called upon to reveal personal information that can adversely affect you — especially if you give a non-answer.

If a police officer asks you if you've ever broken the law.
If you're applying for a job and the interviewer asks you if you're married.
If you've just met somebody, but you're also sort-of-seeing somebody else, and you're not committed to either as a relationship yet.
If you're shopping for a big-ticket item and the salesman asks what your budget is.

In all of those situations, saying the utterly true "that's personal and I'm not going to tell you" can have unwelcome consequences for you, and standing on your right not to speak won't prevent those consequences from happening.

Yes, that's the utilitarian view from the OP:
Politicians often use that view to justify their actions. And there are lots of examples that have been raised, but first, I don't think they're routinely faced by most people, and I also think that those complicated situations can be unpacked and often are in real life to guide people on what is acceptable.

That's true of any philosophical discussion. Do philosophical discussions have value?

I'm not sure about this last example. There was a thread on the SDMB a couple weeks ago where the OP asked people to see where their shirt was made. Almost everyone came up with an answer. I didn't see any people who stated that they couldn't tell. I think it's easy to tell what country a shirt is made, and it's probably not that hard to find out whether the shirt is made in a place with poor working conditions.

So the lie on the part of the shirt-seller is not that obvious. If people want to disregard the truth, that's a little different.

The first part of my OP is for you. The scourge of the earth.




_{*I play mafia too. That was a joke.}

Liar!!

Stop blatantly joking in my oh-so-serious thread!




:p

I'd disagree. I could probably tell where my shirt comes from but that wasn't what I was talking about here. I'm saying that the shirt seller chooses not to make it obvious and the buyer chooses to accept the lie. Both know that there is a lie of omission there but for convenience (personal gain) they both ignore the lie.

Right. So in those cases, you tell the truth.

Where's the part where it's necessary for someone to lie?

No, because in each case you weigh up the odds of whether the truth will harm you or aid you. To take the salesman case, I know he's just looking to get a bigger commission and the higher priced items may not be the right thing for me. So I need to dissemble a little. Ensure he knows enough about my budget to lead me to what I want but not know so much that he will lead me to what he wants.

I think I might be ovulating earlier than usual this month.

Now I'm curious. Why do you choose to tell an obvious affirmative lie when a lie of omission would work?

Is it because they're both lies, so they're equal in value?

Maybe you should tell your husband. Then perhaps he and you could do something more entertaining than posting off-topics posts in this thread.

But Roo, it's the box! Anything goes in here!

I agree. If this is the most interesting thing you can find to do, go for it!

all
work
and no
play makes
Jack a dull boy
all work and no play
makes Jack a dull boy
all work and no play makes
Jack a dull boy all work and no
play makes Jack a dull boy all work
and no play makes Jack a dull boy all
work and no play makes Jack a dull boy
all work and no play makes Jack a dull boy
all work and no play makes Jack a dull boy
all work and no play makes Jack a dull boy
all work and no play makes Jack a dull boy
all work and no play makes Jack a dull boy
all work and no play makes Jack a dull boy
all work and no play makes Jack a dull boy
all work and no play makes Jack a dull boy
all work and no play makes Jack a dull boy
all work and no play makes Jack a dull boy
no TV and no beer makes Homer go crazy
all work and no play makes Jack a dull boy
all work and no play makes Jack a dull boy
all work and no play makes Jack a dull boy
all work and no play makes Jack a dull boy
all work and no play makes Jack a dull
boy all work and no play makes Jack
a dull boy all work and no play
makes Jack a dull boy all
work and no play
makes Jack a
dull boy
.

Last night I dreamed that I was going to be beheaded. I think this means I've been watching too much of The Tudors.

Well now, these are perfectly reasonable. Necessary, even.

No way, man! That fascist-socialist pig Barak HUSSEIN Osama can have my nukes when he pries them from my cold, dead hands!

And since they're on a dead-man switch, he'd really HAVE my nukes, if you know whut I'm sayin.

WORST PRESIDENT EVER!

I disagree. You don't need to dissemble. You choose it.

You could either put your needs in a hypothetical. "What could I get in this price range?" or you could just say "Show me what you have in all prices ranges, and I'll decide for myself."

No lie necessary in that case.

Here are my five favorite kinds of pie, in no particular order:

1. Pumpkin
2. Chocolate Meringue
3. Apple
4. Strawberry-Rhubarb
5. Peach

Though I also really like Derby Pie, but it's hard to find a good one, and it's a little too sweet for my palate these days.

Here are my five favorite places to get a burger in descending order:

5. Ron's 19th Hole, Greeley CO
4. The Irish Snug, Denver CO
3. In-n-Out Burger, Various Locations in CA and NV ("Those are good burgers, Dude!")
2. The Cherry Cricket, Denver CO
1. Pearl's Gourmet Burgers, San Francisco CA

Here are my five favorite alcoholic beverages in alphabetical order:

Beer
Bourbon
Rum
Sterno
Tequila

I think I'm trying to be funny and charming, and dig back at the person who is being rude enough to ask inappropriate questions. Also I want them to not be able to determine the actual truth. To a direct question, a lie of omission is often ineffective. You've certainly experienced that in your behavior on this board.

One of these is a lie. I think it was ok to put it there. Does anybody drink Rum as a beverage? It's a component at best.

Of course there is a lie. By not disclosing the amount you omit the truth. It doesn't matter how you choose to phrase it there is a control of information there. Further to this, you may also wish to negotiate which does not work well if you have flatly refused to show trust by being open. So you hedge a little and see where it gets you. It's a lie but no more nor less of a lie than if you just refused to answer the question or answered it by ignoring it.

Ooh! Does that mean we're having sterno-and-tonics tonight?

Give me a warm summer evening, a Cuban cigar the size of a baby's arm, a comfortable chair and a bottle of this and I'll be happy as a pig in shit.

You, sirrah, have cut me to the quick. I think we may need to duel.

In other words, ignore the person's question entirely and invent your own question. That doesn't always work either.
If you do this, especially looking for a house, you'll end up wasting tremendous amounts of time — that is, if the salesman even wants to bother with you. The more of his time you waste, the less likely he's going to want to negotiate with you favorably when it comes time to make a deal. "Oh, right, this is the dingbat that made me show her every house within 14 miles. I'm gonna charge that little twat extra."

Oh, is this a poll?

Beer
Bourbon
Exy's man milk
Irish whisky
Scotch

(Is it ever ok to lie for the sake of a lame joke?)

And I gotta say, I don't get why the outpatients are out in force today, in this thread. Maybe they missed a round of medication from Nurse Ratched.

Look, you guys complain when Roo has nothing to say except "I'm just saying." When Roo actually has an interesting philosophical point to make, or a question to discuss, don't you think that kind of thing should be encouraged? Good grief. Monkeys, all.

I know. If only this board had a forum for philosophical discussions where off-topic posting is discouraged...