When is Lying Justified?

[slingblade]

This situation fascinates me:

Every morning, the first thing Jim says when he wakes up is tell his spouse, "I love you," because he really feels that love when he first sees her.

One morning, after a call from an old girlfriend the day before, he discovers he does not have any of the feeling of love for her that he usually does. The feeling is gone. When she awakens and looks him in the eyes, he says, out of habit but not at all from the heart, "I love you."

Was he justified?

"Justified" is the wrong word. To justify is to prove that an action was right, just, or valid. The hypothetical doesn't do that.

If it takes but one call from an old flame to kill your love for your wife, I'd say you've been lying about it for a long time, both to yourself and your wife.

 

[slingblade]

I think lying is justified when you are very tired and need some rest.

And again, that's the wrong word. Being tired doesn't prove your lie was right, just, or valid.

The word you want is "understandable," perhaps, but not at all "justified."

 

[Mr. Scott]

"Justified" is the wrong word. To justify is to prove that an action was right, just, or valid. The hypothetical doesn't do that.

If it takes but one call from an old flame to kill your love for your wife, I'd say you've been lying about it for a long time, both to yourself and your wife.

Oh, what an idealist you are!

 

[Mr. Scott]

I think lying is justified when you are very tired and need some rest.

That's funny, I cannot lie.

 

[Kaylee]

I think the simpler truth is incomplete. What lie is not intended to deceive? Can you give me a few examples?

Irony^WP, metaphor, hyperbole^WP and social niceties.

The first three examples you give are almost always used to convey the truth in a more dramatic way. Actually I can't think of an example of when they aren't.

Even the sources that you provide basically say that.

In the Wikipedia source for Irony^WP:

Verbal and situational irony are often used for emphasis in the assertion of a truth. The ironic form of simile, used in sarcasm, and some forms of litotes emphasize one's meaning by the deliberate use of language which states the opposite of the truth — or drastically and obviously understates a factual connection.

In dramatic irony, the author causes a character to speak or act erroneously, out of ignorance of some portion of the truth of which the audience is aware. In other words, the audience knows the character is making a mistake, even as the character is making it. This technique highlights the importance of truth by portraying a person who is strikingly unaware of it.

In certain kinds of situational or historical irony, a factual truth is highlighted by some person's complete ignorance of it or his belief in the opposite of it. However, this state of affairs does not occur by human design. In some religious contexts, such situations have been seen as the deliberate work of Divine Providence to emphasize truths and to taunt humans for not being aware of them when they could easily have been enlightened (this is similar to human use of irony). Such ironies are often more evident, or more striking, when viewed retrospectively in the light of later developments which make the truth of past situations obvious to all.

In the Wikipedia source for hyperbole^WP:

It may be used to evoke strong feelings or to create a strong impression, but is not meant to be taken literally.

Hyperboles are exaggerations to create emphasis or effect. As a literary device, hyperbole is often used in poetry, and is frequently encountered in casual speech. An example of hyperbole is: "The bag weighed a ton."[2] Hyperbole helps to make the point that the bag was very heavy, although it is not probable that it would actually weigh a ton.

But the purpose of a lie is never to convey or illuminate the truth. As per the link I gave yesterday, which summarizes Bok's book on lying:

What is a lie? A lie is a statement, believed by the liar to be false, made to another person with the intention that the person be deceived by the statement. This is the definition used by Sissela Bok and it has antecedents as far back as St. Augustine.

In regard to your post the other day that not all dictionary definitions state that deceit is integral to the meaning of the word lie --

Dictionary definitions are usually only a few words long. I don't believe that they can be considered complete. To really know what a word means and how it is used, I believe that one also needs to see or hear it being used.

I cannot think of any accurate use of the word "lie" that does not include these four components. A lie is:

* A statement, eg. a lie is verbal not a physical act (an act can be deceptive also, but I digress)
* Believed to be false by the liar
* Meant to be believed by the listener (or reader)
* Intended to have the result that the listener (or reader) be deceived and not be aware of the actual true state or reality of what is being lied about.

As for social niceties -- I assume that we are talking about this standard greeting that has very little variation, and is often exchanged between acqaintences --

"Hi, how are you, I'm fine. "

I think its understood the totality of those words have a different definition then the sum of each of those individual words taken together. As the phrase is commonly used, it means:

* We're acknowledging each other's presence
* Indicating that we intend to exchange more than just a few words in the immediate future.
* We are signaling to each other that this will be, at least physically, a peaceful exchange.

However, if one were to tell their friends and family that they are in good health when they are actually not -- that would be a lie. A white lie and I already discussed the various shortcomings of white lies upthread.

The thing to keep in mind is that words' meanings depend upon context also.
For example, the word black can mean the color, depressed or evil depending upon how its used.

Tell an acquaintence how you really feel and what is really going on with you instead of going with the actual meaning of that phrase and you'll get all the proof you need that the actual definition I just gave you is the correct one.

 

[Kaylee]

This situation fascinates me:

Every morning, the first thing Jim says when he wakes up is tell his spouse, "I love you," because he really feels that love when he first sees her.

One morning, after a call from an old girlfriend the day before, he discovers he does not have any of the feeling of love for her that he usually does. The feeling is gone. When she awakens and looks him in the eyes, he says, out of habit but not at all from the heart, "I love you."

Was he justified?

Yes, because "love" and "feelings of love" are two different things.

<snip>

If it takes but one call from an old flame to kill your love for your wife, I'd say you've been lying about it for a long time, both to yourself and your wife.

I'm going with sphenisc and slingblade on this one. I'll add my own two cents also.

IMHO, emotions are complicated. The more involved we are with a person, the more complicated it can get.

You can easily feel many different emotions, including conflicting emotions, at the same time towards the same person.

Lets add to your scenario -- since there is really not enough depth to it to know what is actually going on. Yesterday, Jim got a call from "the one that got away" just after he had an all-fuses-get-blown-to-smithereens argument with his wife.

But they been married over 20 years, Jim and his wife, Mary, trust each other and have given each other every reason to do so over the years. They like many of the same things, love their children, and their lives are interwoven in innumerable ways.

They each have their quirks and Mary's quirk is that she likes little sappy rituals, like saying "I love you" to each other first thing in the morning.

Probaby the next day when Jim wakes up, the first surface emotion that he will be aware of when he sees his wife will be love, and he knows that. Even if he's still angry and not feeling it at the moment.

 

[Mr. Scott]

I'm going with sphenisc and slingblade on this one. I'll add my own two cents also.

IMHO, emotions are complicated. The more involved we are with a person, the more complicated it can get.

You can easily feel many different emotions, including conflicting emotions, at the same time towards the same person.

Lets add to your scenario -- since there is really not enough depth to it to know what is actually going on. Yesterday, Jim got a call from "the one that got away" just after he had an all-fuses-get-blown-to-smithereens argument with his wife.

But they been married over 20 years, Jim and his wife, Mary, trust each other and have given each other every reason to do so over the years. They like many of the same things, love their children, and their lives are interwoven in innumerable ways.

They each have their quirks and Mary's quirk is that she likes little sappy rituals, like saying "I love you" to each other first thing in the morning.

Probaby the next day when Jim wakes up, the first surface emotion that he will be aware of when he sees his wife will be love, and he knows that. Even if he's still angry and not feeling it at the moment.

The thing about relationships is they often die from the inside out. I compare that with a pumpkin, that looks fresh from the outside but is rotting away on the inside, until the whole fruit collapses into a horrible stinky mess. The pumpkin "lies" about its overall state until its lie can no longer be concealed.

If you define true love as a love that can never die, then you've set up a post-hoc rationalization, where once the love dies, you can say it was never true love to begin with. Quite an invitation to cognitive dissonance. If there's no test of "true love" except after it ends, it's no different than a woo's excuses for failing the challenge.

I've often observed that when a relationship is dying from the inside, the couple sometimes cranks up the appearance of perfect love on the outside until the ruse can no longer be sustained. This can be, of course, non-verbal lying to themselves and the world.

 

[Mr. Scott]

I don't think lying must only be verbal as some dictionary definitions suggest. Non-verbal lying is pretty common. You can even "lie with your eyes." All that matters is intent.

Even though there are "little white lies" don't forget calling someone a liar can be a hugely offensive insult. Think of that representative saying "you lie" during Obama's speech.

 

[Brian-M]

The first three examples you give are almost always used to convey the truth in a more dramatic way. Actually I can't think of an example of when they aren't.

I was arguing that lies aren't always told for the purpose of deceiving. At first, I gave fiction (entertainment) as an example. Then you requested more examples.

As far as I see it language can be used for four purposes...

1. To convey deception.
2. To entertain.
3. For social bonding/interaction.
4. To convey knowledge/understanding.

Since I eliminated 1 to start with, and you eliminated 2 because I'd already mentioned it, and 3 is already being discussed in earnest, that pretty much leaves 4.

In regard to your post the other day that not all dictionary definitions state that deceit is integral to the meaning of the word lie --

Dictionary definitions are usually only a few words long. I don't believe that they can be considered complete. To really know what a word means and how it is used, I believe that one also needs to see or hear it being used.

The dictionary definition you supplied was far more than a few words long. The dictionary definition I linked to was several pages long.

But beyond that, you've missed the point entirely. Dictionaries give multiple definitions when a word can be used to mean slightly different things. Even the dictionary quote you posted gave two different definitions of the word.

The reason being that people can legitimately use the same word to mean different things. I already made it clear in a previous post which definition of lie I was using and why...

The simpler definition for lie is a deliberate untruth, which is the definition I'm using for the purpose of distinguishing a lie from a deception.

I cannot think of any accurate use of the word "lie" that does not include these four components.

In other words, you cannot accept that other people may use the word to mean something slightly different to what you use it to mean?

Brian, I will concede one point to you: Lying is justified when you are in a social setting in which some type of habitual lying is the norm, and you don't want to rock the boat.

I wasn't trying to argue that it was justified. Merely nitpicking at the way you chose to express your point, not the point itself. Sorry.

 

[fuelair]

When is Lying Justified?



When lying is very very certain to result in a better (positive) outcome than not lying.




I here use positive to denote better for all good persons affected but, where applicable, very bad for all bad persons affected.

 

[Kaylee]

I was arguing that lies aren't always told for the purpose of deceiving. At first, I gave fiction (entertainment) as an example. Then you requested more examples.

As far as I see it (ed.)language can be used for four purposes...

1. To convey deception.
2. To entertain.
3. For social bonding/interaction.
4. To convey knowledge/understanding.

Since I eliminated 1 to start with, and you eliminated 2 because I'd already mentioned it, and 3 is already being discussed in earnest, that pretty much leaves 4.

?. We are talking about lies, not language.

The dictionary definition you supplied was far more than a few words long. The dictionary definition I linked to was several pages long.

Yes and over half the content includes how the phonetic word 'lie' is defined in 5 other languages including Mandarin.

For English definitions it includes these definitions:

To be in a horizontal position.
(golf) The terrain and conditions surrounding the ball before it is struck.
(medicine) The position of a fetus in the womb.

and other usuages that are clearly off topic here. I do hope we can agree that we are not talking about the justification that a horizontal position (vs. a vertical one) is better when taking a nap? FWIW, I agree but that is really off topic.

Most of the other English definitions listed on that wiki page agreed with Bok's with this exception:

A deliberately false statement; an intentional falsehood.

Personally I think the Wiki editors left out an important component of the meaning in this particular definition. But I'm happy to be proven wrong, just show me a case where someone lies without the intent to deceive.

So far you have given the examples of: fiction, irony, hyperbole, metaphor and the social nicety of "HiHowareyouI'mfine."

I explained upthread why I don't think any of the above 5 examples apply. Do you have any other examples?

The reason being that people can legitimately use the same word to mean different things. I already made it clear in a previous post which definition of lie I was using and why...

The simpler definition for lie is a deliberate untruth, which is the definition I'm using for the purpose of distinguishing a lie from a deception.

You made clear the definition that you wanted to use -- but so far you haven't supplied an example that proves that definition is accurate.

In other words, you cannot accept that other people may use the word to mean something slightly different to what you use it to mean?

Sure I can, just give me a real example that works.

 

[Kaylee]

I don't think lying must only be verbal as some dictionary definitions suggest. Non-verbal lying is pretty common. You can even "lie with your eyes." All that matters is intent.

<snip>

I agree. Dictionaries don't always capture actual word usuage. I've also seen the word 'lie' used to include non-verbal deceitful actions, and I think most English speakers accept that use.

 

[JJM 777]

And again, that's the wrong word. Being tired doesn't prove your lie was right, just, or valid.

The word you want is "understandable," perhaps, but not at all "justified."

Just playing with the alternative English meaning of the word "lie"...

 

[slingblade]

Oh, what an idealist you are!

Not at all.

Try that again: if it takes but one call from an old flame to kill your feelings of love for your wife, then there's been a lot more going on besides that one, single phone call.

Only starry-eyed kids think that "love never dies."


But it sure as hell better take more than a single phone call from an old lover to kill it.

 

[Mr. Scott]

Not at all.

Try that again: if it takes but one call from an old flame to kill your feelings of love for your wife, then there's been a lot more going on besides that one, single phone call.

Only starry-eyed kids think that "love never dies."


But it sure as hell better take more than a single phone call from an old lover to kill it.

You underestimate the craziness of our brains and glorify this thing called love. But it's off topic to the thread and a red herring. My point stands either way re the dilemma of telling (justified?) love lies to a spouse after the love has withered.

 

[Kaylee]

Just playing with the alternative English meaning of the word "lie"...

I admit that, probably because I've been posting to this thread when tired, that I missed this the first time around. Very clever.

I'm guessing about 2/3rds said nothing because I think most grade school teachers do a horrible job explaining these irregular verbs:

lie, lay, lain
lay, laid, laid

At least a third of American students walk away with the mistaken impression that its correct to say "I'm laying down to take a nap." and not "I'm lying down down to take a nap". (You can say, "I'm laying down the cloth on the table." The other third (like me) decide to never think about it again.

And the remaining 3rd were probably too lazy to post a face palm.


Note: This post used hyperbole and possibly a touch of irony in a feeble attempt to be, well if not amusing , at least not complete dry. But this post, although not factually correct, was not a lie because there was no intent to deceive.

 

[Kaylee]

You underestimate the craziness of our brains and glorify this thing called love. But it's off topic to the thread and a red herring. My point stands either way re the dilemma of telling (justified?) love lies to a spouse after the love has withered.

Well, if you just want to discuss that dilemma vs. your earlier example -- I'll give it a try.

But I can't help but add that there are probably almost as many definitions of romantic love and marital love as there are people.

But that is also off topic, so I won't go off on that tangent.

I would guess that the pros and cons of lying to ones spouse and saying that one loves him or her are similar to the reason people tell each other white lies in social situitions of lesser magnitude.

If both spouses continue to lie, they have no hope of improving their relationship. Improving their relationship would probably, at a minimum, require honest communication.

However, if they do decide to talk frankly, they risk still not being able to "fix" their relationship and they may end up divorced. Perhaps one or both of the spouses don't want to get divorced even though they no longer love each other.

That is the only reason I can think of for continuing to pretend to one's spouse that they love them even if they don't. That their desire/fear not to get divorced is stronger than their desire/optimism to improve their relationship.

One slight variation -- if divorce isn't an option for the couple, for whatever reason, then the situation they may fear instead of divorce is that their relationship would become even worse if they start talking frankly.

So basically, I think the reason to lie to one's spouse and say that you love them when you don't is probably routed in fear and pessimism instead of hope and optimism.

There may be more reasons, but this isn't really an area I know a lot about. {shrug}.

 

[Brian-M]

?. We are talking about lies, not language.

People use language to tell lies. I don't understand what you're objecting to here.

But I'm happy to be proven wrong, just show me a case where someone lies without the intent to deceive.

It'd be pointless to try. You're refusing to accept any definition of "lie" that does not include the intent to deceive. Therefore, any example I present of a lie not intended to deceive will be dismissed as not really being a lie.

So far you have given the examples of: fiction, irony, hyperbole, metaphor and the social nicety of "HiHowareyouI'mfine."

I explained upthread why I don't think any of the above 5 examples apply. Do you have any other examples?

You've dismissed them because they don't fit with your definition of lie.

You made clear the definition that you wanted to use -- but so far you haven't supplied an example that proves that definition is accurate.

Sure I can, just give me a real example that works.

I've given multiple examples. You just refuse to accept them.

Most of the other English definitions listed on that wiki page agreed with Bok's with this exception:

A deliberately false statement; an intentional falsehood.

Personally I think the Wiki editors left out an important component of the meaning in this particular definition.

Did they? The definition is wrong?

Let's look at some definitions of (noun) lie...

1. A deliberately false statement; an intentional falsehood.2. A statement intended to deceive, even if literally true; a half-truth.

1. a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive; an intentional untruth; a falsehood.
2. something intended or serving to convey a false impression; imposture: His flashy car was a lie that deceived no one.
3. an inaccurate or false statement.4. the charge or accusation of lying: He flung the lie back at his accusers.

1. A statement that deviates from or perverts the truth2. Position or manner in which something is situated

an intentionally false statementa situation involving deception or founded on a mistaken impression

If every source I can find gives some variant of "an intentionally false statement" as one of multiple definitions for "lie", I think it safe to say that this is a generally accepted definition of the word.

Yes, the definition you're using of "an intentionally deceptive statement" is also generally accepted, but for the purpose of distinguishing lies meant to deceive from lies not meant to deceive (which was my original point), defining a lie as deceptive defeats the exercise.

 

[Aridas]

I can think of three cases where I always find lying justified.

If a woman asks me how old she looks, then I always say "You look 22.".

If a woman asks me if this dress/these pants/this outfit/etc. make me look fat, then I always say "No. Of course not.".

If a woman asks me how I like her new hair style, then I always say "It looks great!".

Sorry, but I have found the hard way that when it comes to questions of age, weight, and hair, then a lie is almost always better than the truth.

Sorry? Well... there's another layer to this, in my inexpert opinion. In my less than exhaustive experience and observation, the person is rarely actually asking those questions. Rather, they're actually asking things like... "Do you still find me attractive?" "Do you desire me?" "Do you love me?" or "Does this look like it is appropriate for the purpose that I want it to look like?"

Personally, on the occasions that people do ask me this, I usually employ hyperbole and facetiousness, with more appropriate body language and tend to end up just bringing a grin to their faces. That I'm gay and remarkably friendly, honest, and understanding may play a part in that, though. Either way, I consider the questions a lie, in and of themselves, given that they're asking them out of probably learned social customs, very possibly intended to try to hide one's vulnerability.

More to the point of this topic, though... In general, I'm idealistically in favor of a world that simply does not employ deceptive practices in any forms, given my view that nearly all deception is caused by prior deception, and that deception is only rarely, if ever, beneficial in the long term. Unfortunately, I realize that lies, intentional or not, have been taught to all of us at least since birth, if not before, and have shaped the way that each of us think, not even counting any hardwired reactions that lead to deception that we have evolved as we became the creatures that we were today. Such a world is therefore unlikely to occur either soon or remotely easily.

 

[I Ratant]

Read Cheney's book.
It's apparently an alternative history...