When is Lying Justified?

[Kaylee]

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

I'm sure that would be an interesting exercise in the game of "How many lies can you find? What was this one's particular justification?" But I don't think I have the stomach for it.

 

[Kaylee]

Welcome to the JREF Aridas!

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?"

I agree that is probably true. I assume that often conversation is carried on multiple levels. We ask and respond on both the literal and deeper levels and perhaps that is another reason why sometimes some people feel its necc. (or justified) to respond with a white lie.

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.

I'm beginning to understand why the author, Sissela Bok, decided to include the definition of lie that she was using in her book. I can't quote it to you word for word now because I have since returned the book to the library but I have found an article that summarizes some of the ideas in her book and paraphrases her definition:

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.

(Previously linked and quoted upthread.)

I was just going to write about how I don't think that the questions that usually trigger white lies in response are lies themselves but ... I just saw what you're saying and now I'm not sure.

For example, let's take that stereotypical and often made fun of question "Do these pants make me look fat?"

Would the woman in question ask the question if she didn't really think they make her look fat? So she is uttering a statement or question that could be considered a lie because she's implying that she doesn't know, but she really does.
I agree with you, she does wants an answer that basically says -- well, its not that bad and it doesn't matter because you're so awesome anyway.

So the question is a lie and its deceitful because she wants the people she's querying to believe that she doesn't know the answer.

But when people ask those questions, do they really know what they are doing? I think awareness is a key component of what makes a statement or certain kinds of questions a lie.

So, I'm not sure if those type of questions are lies or not. It's an interesting question, but I think we can agree that outside of these stereotypical situations where people are obviously asking questions that almost demand a white lie in response, the person is definitely aware that the statement is false and they want the person they are telling it to to believe it and be deceived. They are definitely aware of what they are doing.

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.

That is a point Bok often makes in her book.

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.

What kind of lies do you believe have been taught to us since birth?

Are you referring to the stuff that use to make up the staple of 1950s and 1960s TV such as doctors and US presidents would never lie to us, and they know best?

Or do you have something else in mind?

 

[I Ratant]

I'm sure that would be an interesting exercise in the game of "How many lies can you find? What was this one's particular justification?" But I don't think I have the stomach for it.

.
I believe he believes he's rationalizing his manipulations as reasonable and proper, but due to his moral bankruptcy, is incapable of recognizing his errors.

 

[BStrong]

A lie to save someone's feelings is acceptable, and I'd go so far as to assert that in some cases it would be the correct course of action in a given situation.

A lie used to elicit information in a criminal investigation is acceptable.

A lie in the course of physical training in the military, fire or law enforcement is acceptable - "get to the big rock and we're through running...Surprise! now you ladies run back..."

In dealing with seriously injured persons - "you're going to make it" is better than "oh **** this is bad" is it a lie?

In business, "puffery" is sop - is it a lie? in some cases absolutely. Is it wrong? if use of the product could lead to injury or death, absolutely, but otherwise, it's a toss-up.

 

[Kaylee]

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

Sure people use language to tell lies. But that does not make language and lies synonymous. I agree that language is a tool used to communicate. You stated 4 ways that language is used and considered that to be proof for how lies are used.

That would only have been an actual proof IF lies and languages were synonymous -- they're not.

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.

I'm just asking for a real life example. In a definition I gave upthread I had said:

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.

After that post, Mr. Scott posted reasons why he believed that a lie is not always a verbal statement but is sometimes a physical act of deception. I agreed with him that although most dictionaries make a distinction between lies and deceptions -- IRL, many people don't.

So I've proven that I can modify my understanding as to what a lie is. Just give me a real life example of where people believe that something is a lie even though the liar does not intend to deceive.

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



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

You gave examples of fiction, irony, hyperbole, metaphor and the social nicety "HiHowareyouI'mfine."

John: "That's a lie! You're a liar!"
Mary: "Yes, John. A publisher just accepted my book of children's modern day fairy tales that uses the literary techniques of irony, hyperbole and metaphor. I should get my first check next month."

Seriously?

Mary may be a liar, but if she is, it's not because she wrote a book about children's modern day fairy tales.

 

[Kaylee]

A lie to save someone's feelings is acceptable, and I'd go so far as to assert that in some cases it would be the correct course of action in a given situation.

{shrug} White lie situation, may be the best thing to do but has its risks often underappreciated -- discussed upthread. Not as clear cut as we often think it is.

A lie used to elicit information in a criminal investigation is acceptable.

A lie in the course of physical training in the military, fire or law enforcement is acceptable - "get to the big rock and we're through running...Surprise! now you ladies run back..."

I agree, these fall under the utlitarian approach -- the good outweighs the bad. Of course the liar, even when the cause is good, always loses the people they lied to trust -- but that's not really a point of concern in those examples, right?

In dealing with seriously injured persons - "you're going to make it" is better than "oh **** this is bad" is it a lie?

I think the idea is that a person's mental mind set in those situations have a lot to do if they will make it or not. If that is really true, than I agree that it's better to lie.

But if it's not really true and if we have a case where we are dealing with a very religious person who is definitely going to die soon -- than that lie deprived that person from getting mentally ready for death by repenting, prayering or whatever they believe they need to do.

Or what if we are dealing with someone who's not religious but is very close to his or her family. That lie may have deprived him or her from making some phone calls and saying their good byes.

This may be almost as bad as Godwinning the thread, but I know people who know people who got calls from their family in the World Trade Centers shortly before they died. On one hand it was awful, but on the other hand short of going back in time and changing the entire situation -- I'm sure they are glad they got the calls.

So ... when you poke and kick the justifications around a little bit, it suddenly becomes not so simple.

Bok's whole book is like that. It's an interesting read.

In business, "puffery" is sop - is it a lie? in some cases absolutely. Is it wrong? if use of the product could lead to injury or death, absolutely, but otherwise, it's a toss-up.

If the puffery is relied upon by customers and they make a purchase based upon a lie that's not really true that they otherwise wouldn't have made -- than I believe it's a lie.

And that business practice probably does hurt businesses more than it helps.

How many people don't believe anything that a business has to say and only rely upon their own research or what certain independent 3rd parties have to say?

One could argue that when the majority of certain categories of businesses engages in lies to influence a person's purchasing decision -- they set themselves up to lose the public's trust and end up having even less of an ability to influence the average person's purchasing decision.

Which is probably not what most businesses are aiming for.

Who believes what a used car salesman has to say?

 

[BStrong]

{shrug} White lie situation, may be the best thing to do but has its risks often underappreciated -- discussed upthread. Not as clear cut as we often think it is.



I agree, these fall under the utlitarian approach -- the good outweighs the bad. Of course the liar, even when the cause is good, always loses the people they lied to trust -- but that's not really a point of concern in those examples, right?



I think the idea is that a person's mental mind set in those situations have a lot to do if they will make it or not. If that is really true, than I agree that it's better to lie.

But if it's not really true and if we have a case where we are dealing with a very religious person who is definitely going to die soon -- than that lie deprived that person from getting mentally ready for death by repenting, prayering or whatever they believe they need to do.

Or what if we are dealing with someone who's not religious but is very close to his or her family. That lie may have deprived him or her from making some phone calls and saying their good byes.

This may be almost as bad as Godwinning the thread, but I know people who know people who got calls from their family in the World Trade Centers shortly before they died. On one hand it was awful, but on the other hand short of going back in time and changing the entire situation -- I'm sure they are glad they got the calls.

So ... when you poke and kick the justifications around a little bit, it suddenly becomes not so simple.

Bok's whole book is like that. It's an interesting read.



If the puffery is relied upon by customers and they make a purchase based upon a lie that's not really true that they otherwise wouldn't have made -- than I believe it's a lie.

And that business practice probably does hurt businesses more than it helps.

How many people don't believe anything that a business has to say and only rely upon their own research or what certain independent 3rd parties have to say?

One could argue that when the majority of certain categories of businesses engages in lies to influence a person's purchasing decision -- they set themselves up to lose the public's trust and end up having even less of an ability to influence the average person's purchasing decision.

Which is probably not what most businesses are aiming for.

Who believes what a used car salesman has to say?

My experience wrt the bolded section.

When you're rendering aid to a wounded or seriously injured individual, you're only concern is their survival, not the religious aspects of the situation, and you're correct, their mental state is a serious component of their survival.

In telling the injured party "they'll make it" etc, you try to minimize the effect of shock and keep the person conscious and engaged and in the fight.

 

[Kaylee]

My experience wrt the bolded section.

When you're rendering aid to a wounded or seriously injured individual, you're only concern is their survival, not the religious aspects of the situation, and you're correct, their mental state is a serious component of their survival.

In telling the injured party "they'll make it" etc, you try to minimize the effect of shock and keep the person conscious and engaged and in the fight.

Thanks for sharing your experience -- I didn't know whether that was true or a popularly believed piece of fiction. Hope you don't mind my asking, have you worked as a paramedic?

 

[The Man]

.
If you tend to be truthful most of the time, you don't have to remember what you said.

One might like to think so, but sometimes it just doesn’t work out that way. Ironically if you were lying you probably could remember what you said exactly and not deviate. That what you say now is perhaps not exactly what you said before (because you weren’t lying or trying to remember some script or detail) can be taken as evidence you were lying. My previous girlfriend used to ask me why it took me so long to get home from work this day compared to some other. My response was usually “I don’t know, I left work on time and drove straight home”. Basically that was all I did so I had no reason to time myself or worry about what was happening different today than some other day. As there was no particular incident to remember there was nothing for me to remember. Now I could have just lied and said there was construction, an accident or traffic, but I was being honest. As it turned out she took that (I had no excuse for the time difference) as evidence I must have stopped somewhere along the way. No matter how much I tried to explain to her that if I were lying I would easily have an excuse she just couldn’t accept my travel time could vary without me noting every single reason for that variance and being able to report it precisely when queried. Eventually I stated stopping out on the way home occasionally as I was getting tied of doing the time without doing the crime.

 

[The Man]

FWIW, the closest Bok comes to discussing that though is her belief that some people want to be lied to.

So some people might be happier if they were lied to in at least some way or to some degree.

 

[slingblade]

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.

Then maybe not personalize it and call me ridiculous names, perhaps, that I then feel the need to correct.

Idealism is for suckers. Don't call me a sucker; stick to the issue.

 

[The Man]

I agree and Bok mentioned this is her book also. I find this very difficult to relate too, but I'm certain that I have met some of those people also.

You really don’t have to relate to it but just understand that increasing honesty isn’t always going to make everyone happier. Deception is (fundamentally in nature) a survival mechanism and provides survival advantages. Self deception tends often to be a coping mechanism.

Um ... OK, you lost me, esp. at the last sentence.

Why does the JREF exist?

I'm still lost.

Maybe this will help -- while looking for something else, I found a short article that claims to "explore and amplify" Bok's book on lying:

http://www.infed.org/thinkers/bok_lying.htm

Ok, well did it help you? Or are you still lost?

It's another summary of Bok's book on lying. ETA: Is there any point in that summary that you disagree with?

I don’t know I haven’t read the book, if I had I might disagree with that summary on some points.

I fail to see how any of that will help you to understand what I have written in response to what you have written.

Would you prefer I just address the writings of “Bok”?

As Bok put it, more or less, liars are free-riders (I'm interpreting as parasites) in a society that is mostly run on veracity.

Both honesty and lying have costs. If the term “free-riders” might refer to the liars not contributing to veracity upon which said sociality is run. Then whom do you think would check their fact more a liar or someone simply relying upon and feeding off of the veracity of that society?

 

[BStrong]

Thanks for sharing your experience -- I didn't know whether that was true or a popularly believed piece of fiction. Hope you don't mind my asking, have you worked as a paramedic?

You're welcome.

Military and law enforcement experience.

 

[Nogbad]

In some circumstances it is a requisite. I mean what is a CV for other than to demonstrate one's ingenuity.

 

[The Man]

Being caught is probably one of the most negative outcomes of lying to the individual -- because it gets followed by lost of trust, possibly loss of respect and maybe punishment.

At its most extreme of negative outcomes -- lying can probably cause the breakdown of society.

You might be surprised at how quickly a liar becomes accustomed to not being trusted and how little punishment is actually forthcoming. Also once known as a liar they can deceive (as a lie is expected) just by telling the truth (it basically doubles their arsenal). From my own experience, part of which related before, just telling the truth can result in punishment and the other results. One does not have to be a lair to be thought of as a liar and I have known some manipulators who never lied but used only the truth.

 

[Mr. Scott]

How's this:

Lying is justified to protect yourself from someone who would unjustly harm you.

 

[Mr. Scott]

Then maybe not personalize it and call me ridiculous names, perhaps, that I then feel the need to correct.

Idealism is for suckers. Don't call me a sucker; stick to the issue.

Wow, I called you an idealist, you said idealists are suckers, and accused me of calling you a sucker and asked me not to call you "riduculous names." Strawman tactic?

 

[I Ratant]

My experience wrt the bolded section.

When you're rendering aid to a wounded or seriously injured individual, you're only concern is their survival, not the religious aspects of the situation, and you're correct, their mental state is a serious component of their survival.

In telling the injured party "they'll make it" etc, you try to minimize the effect of shock and keep the person conscious and engaged and in the fight.

.
The last time I talked to the old lady next door, who was days from death, she asked me if her mom had died, and was she dying.
I couldn't answer directly.
She was 90 years old, this gal's mother would have been long dead.
Didn't touch that one at all.
And said I wasn't a doctor, and couldn't say if she was dying, or that all of us there at the time were dying.
Ya just don't do that.
The hospice folks there said such talk is usually heard just before death.
She passed 3 days later, quietly.

 

[I Ratant]

One might like to think so, but sometimes it just doesn’t work out that way. Ironically if you were lying you probably could remember what you said exactly and not deviate. That what you say now is perhaps not exactly what you said before (because you weren’t lying or trying to remember some script or detail) can be taken as evidence you were lying. My previous girlfriend used to ask me why it took me so long to get home from work this day compared to some other. My response was usually “I don’t know, I left work on time and drove straight home”. Basically that was all I did so I had no reason to time myself or worry about what was happening different today than some other day. As there was no particular incident to remember there was nothing for me to remember. Now I could have just lied and said there was construction, an accident or traffic, but I was being honest. As it turned out she took that (I had no excuse for the time difference) as evidence I must have stopped somewhere along the way. No matter how much I tried to explain to her that if I were lying I would easily have an excuse she just couldn’t accept my travel time could vary without me noting every single reason for that variance and being able to report it precisely when queried. Eventually I stated stopping out on the way home occasionally as I was getting tied of doing the time without doing the crime.

.
I tend to be truthful -most- of the time... ...but sometimes, truth gets it in the ass.

 

[Brian-M]

You stated 4 ways that language is used and considered that to be proof for how lies are used.

What? No. I was just explaining to you why most of my latest examples were in the "revealing truth" category. You seemed surprised about that, so I felt the need to point out that the other categories were already covered, and was identifying the possible categories in order to do that.

I wasn't trying to provide any "proof" for how lies are used with that paragraph.

So I've proven that I can modify my understanding as to what a lie is. Just give me a real life example of where people believe that something is a lie even though the liar does not intend to deceive.

Some examples?

"Yeah, that's just great." (sarcasm)
"If you just said the word, I'd pluck the stars from the sky for you." (poetic metaphor)
"If my dad finds out, he'll kill me." (hyperbole)

Of course, this is using the definition of "lie" as "an intentionally false or untrue statement". If we were to go with the definition of "a statement intended to deceive", your request for an example not intended to deceive would be nonsensical, as such a thing is logically impossible.

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.

The dictionaries give two definitions of lie....

1. An intentionally false statement.
2. A statement intended to deceive.

But you want to go with (by paraphrasing your definition above)...

3. A deliberately false statement intended to be believed, made for the purpose of deception.

Let's try it out with some examples. How about...

Mary: Where's my purse?
John: It's under your bed.
Result: Mary now believes her purse is in her bedroom, when it's actually in the basement, directly under the location of her bed.

This would count as a lie under the second dictionary definition, but not under your definition because it's believed to be true by the speaker, merely worded in a way intended to deceive the listener.

Mary: Are you the one who mowed the lawn?
John: No, the Loch Ness monster mowed lawn for me.
Result: Mary now believes that John mowed the lawn, when in fact he paid the neighbor's kid $10 to do it for him.

This would count as a lie under both dictionary definitions because it is false and intended to deceive. But it wouldn't count as a lie under your definition because the statement is not intended to be believed by the listener.

So if you "cannot think of any accurate use of the word "lie" that does not include these four components", you need a better imagination.