When is Lying Justified?

[slingblade]

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?

Gads. Strawman about what? Seriously, you're claiming I've just turned "oh, what an idealist you are!" into a strawman?

What was it an argument for, pray tell?





Rather than an argument, your comment was instead a dismissal, and I responded to it as such. No, I am not an idealist, nor do I dream of pie in the sky.

Your hypothetical did not work, because it was too simplistic. That hardly renders me an "idealist."

 

[Aridas]

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?

Thank you for the welcome, first of all. And... to answer your last second two questions, yes. To answer your first question, I'd call upon a wide range of possibilities. First and foremost, though, most of the possibilities that I was thinking of when I typed that last part of the post in were not necessarily intentional deceptions, merely incorrect information that was accepted non-critically and used to help form the bases that one's worldview is built upon. Thus, saying lies, meaning intentional deception, was perhaps not the best way to put it. Perhaps saying believing lies, in the sense of false information, would be more accurate. To name a fairly general and obvious cultural example for children in some cultures, the story that Santa Claus is real and that he delivers gifts to all children is a lie. To reference some less obvious and more general examples that likely would not be intentional lies, but are likely still incorrect, a child's belief that their parents are the best or worst parents ever, or that the culture, set of values, and various other things that they learned or were indoctrinated into are the "way things should be," "the best way of life," etc. Naturally, when these view meets other differing views formed in the same way, conflict of some kind tends to arise. There are self-deceptions that can easily be created by too much or too little praise, among other things. And... I think that that's just getting started with the sheer range of possibilities. Still, I hope that I managed to make myself reasonably understandable? If not, please, say so.

 

[Kaylee]

How's this:

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

Just add and to protect one's privacy and that is a more concise way of saying what I said in post #82.

I suppose that would work most of the time.

It wouldn't work if someone's judgement was in error or if there was a geniune legitimate conflict of interest. For example, sSomeone needed the information in order to make a decision but they are likely to make a decision not in one's interest or they are competitor's in a business.

This subject does get complicated and it does help explain why sometimes telling the truth is required by law.

 

[Kaylee]

What? No. I was just ......

Brian-M, if you only did this once or twice, I would consider it an accident. But you consistently slightly change what you said or what I said in previous posts, or both, when responding.

If you're going to do that, you don't need my participation. Have fun.

I will not pick through previous posts and point out exactly where you rephrased what has been said before and how that changes the logic of the discussion. That is an incredibly boring way to spend time and its just not going to happen.

If you do decide to actually respond to what has actually been said before -- let me know.

 

[Kaylee]

<snip>

And... to answer your last second two questions, yes.

I think Watergate took care of people believing that authority figures will always have our best interest in mind.

It is a lot of work to keep on top of everything though. For the most part, competition can help protect from many kinds of lies.

By the nature of the game, it doesn't seem to work in politics though. For example, how many presidents, at the same time, can one country have?

Of all the lies that we have to deal with, I personally consider political lies to be the most dangerous. Currently, citizens really have no recourse if a politician lies in order to win an election. How do you prove that the politician did that or that circumstances changed or s/he got better knowledge and needed to be able to legitimately change his or her mind. And even if you could prove it, the only recourse most of the time, is to wait until their term is over and vote them out of office. That particular recourse is not enough to prevent abuse of power. And it's not particular effective when it appears that most politicians running for office are inclined to lie and misrepresent what they really intend to do once in office.

To answer your first question, I'd call upon a wide range of possibilities. First and foremost, though, most of the possibilities that I was thinking of when I typed that last part of the post in were not necessarily intentional deceptions, merely incorrect information that was accepted non-critically and used to help form the bases that one's worldview is built upon. Thus, saying lies, meaning intentional deception, was perhaps not the best way to put it. Perhaps saying believing lies, in the sense of false information, would be more accurate. To name a fairly general and obvious cultural example for children in some cultures, the story that Santa Claus is real and that he delivers gifts to all children is a lie.

I personally find the myth of Santa Claus fascinating. The idea that the same people who teach their children to be honest and that lying is wrong will also lie to their kids about Santa Claus! Upthread in post #74 I hypothesized that people teach their kids about Santa Claus because they also want them to know that often people lie, even people that they personally know and love.

I was hoping to get more responses about my theory -- but I got nothing. I suppose that means that some people think that is so obviously true that its not worth talking about or that it is so obviously wrong that its not worth talking about .

To reference some less obvious and more general examples that likely would not be intentional lies, but are likely still incorrect, a child's belief that their parents are the best or worst parents ever, or that the culture, set of values, and various other things that they learned or were indoctrinated into are the "way things should be," "the best way of life," etc. Naturally, when these view meets other differing views formed in the same way, conflict of some kind tends to arise. There are self-deceptions that can easily be created by too much or too little praise, among other things. And... I think that that's just getting started with the sheer range of possibilities. Still, I hope that I managed to make myself reasonably understandable? If not, please, say so.

I think I know what you're saying. And coincidentally I was planning on posting about how I thought it was curious that in her book about lying Bok left out discussions about prejudice.

I think prejudice can be divided into at least three areas:

*Intentionally cultivated in oneself and in others to justify an unfair division of rewards and resources.

*One is sort of aware of one's prejudice in certain areas but believes that it is accurate and correct. I think some academic fields call this dysconsciousness. Its a way of viewing the world that doesn't take into account that its based on prejudice and that there may be more than one way to legitimately look at something.

* One's prejudice is so ingrained that one isn't aware of it.

The last two areas are definitely offtopic to Bok's book because of the way she decided to define the word "lie" for the purpose of discussing this topic. That is an intentional falsehood not believed by the liar, but intended to be believed by the listener and to deceive the listener.

I think the first category definitely would have made a great chapter in her book, and I do wonder why she left it out. Perhaps she never considered it, perhaps she did and thought it would be too inflametory and distract from what else she had to say. Perhaps if she read this post she would disagree that it was relevant to her topic. {shrug}

ETA: Actually, right after I finished writing this post, I think I know the reason that Bok left out the first category of prejudice from her book.

She only discussed category of lies where she also discussed the historical justifications given for them and then she discussed the shortcomings of those justifications.

Presumably she believed that there was no reason to discuss the first category of prejudice because presumably she thought it was unneccesary to discuss the shortcomings of the historical justifications for it. Good assumption, I think.

 

[Kaylee]

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.




Why does the JREF exist?







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




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”?




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?

I think I might have ruffled your feathers in some of my earlier responses. Not intentional, I tend to post here when I have time and, unfortunately, I'm often a little tired when posting. Let me put it to you this way -- posting at the JREF is not my day job -- though I wouldn't mind if it were.

I just reread your posts in this thread -- consider this response a "do-over."

In the game of liars poker doubting each other (and yourself) is the norm. A society of liars (at least in my experience) is no more of a problem than one that is predominantly truthful. People are quite flexible in that regard. So the focus and determination goes to the objective evidence, even in a game of liars poker. Just as in a predominantly truthful society a liar might cause difficulties, in a society of liars one who tells the truth might cause the same difficulties.


<snip>

Sure, for example a whiste blower can be a problem in a corrupt company. And I imagine that Sylvia Browne would be very happy if no one had ever heard of James Randi or Robert Lancaster's website "StopSylvia.com"

But even the corrupt corporate officials and Sylvia Browne get innumerable benefits from being part of the larger society that relies on veracity to function.

Yes, Sylvia Browne lies to the public and lies to her "clients." But, presumably, she has had to engage in the same day to day mundane transactions to deal with the fact that she, like all of us, needs housing, transportation and food. Unfortunately her dishonesty has paid off for her and she lives much better than most of us -- but the fact that our society is more honest than deceiptful I'm sure is working very well for her. Given the laws and customs that we all rely on I don't think the SB's bankers, car dealers, grocers, etc spend an inordinate lot of time double checking her and I don't think she spends an inordinate amount of time double checking them. The way our society is set up, there's no need. And the laws probably worked very well for SB and her business partners in publishing and television also.

So the doubt might be better placed in that people will meet your expectations of them or just doubt your expectations of them, that way your doubts might serve you better in either case.

An opinion I can not dispute, but I've known plenty of people who are quite happy lying and being lied to (in fact they may even be happier if people lied to them more often).



Not just games or professions but whole segments of our own society that are essentially societies unto themselves. That this forum and the JREF even exist is a testament to their ability to be successful.

Yes, JREF prime goal is (as I understand it) to help people realize that we need to use skeptical thinking in all areas of life, including evaluating paranormal claims.

Many frauds have done well for themselves, including Sylvia Browne but as I tried to get across in this post, they are very much a part of our larger society. I think they qualify as being parasites or "free-riders" as Bok describes them. Their lifestyles and success largely depends upon the fact that the majority of the people in our society are honest and reliable.

If everyone they had to deal with in every facet of life was as dishonest as they were in their "paranormal business", they would have a much more difficult time managing their lives.

Some details are simply irrelevant, so their truth or lack thereof, is of no consequence. Others are obviously false and require no further investigation. Remember deception is the key to lying (not just making assertions that happen to be, or are in all ways, false). Irrelevant and patently false details don't further the deception unless someone simply wants to believe it and then they are just lying to themselves.

Think about how much time and energy would be wasted double-checked and verifying each other, constantly, on every little detail (not to mention the problem of just working with each other) because most people can tell only just what they simply perceive to be the truth most the time as opposed to only what they believe will deceive.

Reductio ad absurdum cuts both ways.

So ... I don't think reductio ad absurdum cuts both ways when discussing lies and truth.

<snip>


Society needs some degree of truth to function, imagine a society where most were simply mistaken most of the time. The same (if not more) lack of truth is there but not the intent on deliberate deception.


<snip>

So even lies and liars need some truth to function.

And, given your last couple of statements above, perhaps we are not far apart in our opinions on this matter?

 

[Brian-M]

If you do decide to actually respond to what has actually been said before -- let me know.

If you ever develop effective reading comprehension skills, try rereading the thread sometime.

For a condensed version of one aspect of the conversation...

Lying does not need to be justified, it's pretty harmless by itself. If I lied and said I was the Supreme High Chancellor of Mars, who would care?

It's only when lying is used for deception that trouble begins.

Deception and lying are two very different things. Sure, you can deceive people with lies, but you can also deceive without lying and lie without decieving.

What's the difference? Dictionary.com defines lying as:

[...]

Lies are false statements intended to deceive. You say tomayto, I say tomahto.

[...]

Fiction is an imaginary piece of work intended to entertain, not deceive.

Lying and deception are synonymous.

I'm making the distinction here between deliberately making a false statement and attempting to lead someone into believing a falsehood.

The exact definition for lie will vary depending on your source, but the better dictionaries will provide several definitions. (Example.) Even the quote you gave provided two different definitions for lie, the first of which makes no mention of deception.

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.

In a conversation about lying, the distinction between lies intended to deceive and lies not intended to deceive is important, even if the distinction is not usually made in everyday conversation. That's why I brought it up, to highlight this point.

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

Pls don't include fiction. We already discussed that.

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.

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.

?. We are talking about lies, not language.

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.

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.

What? No. I was just ......

Brian-M, if you only did this once or twice, I would consider it an accident. But you consistently slightly change what you said or what I said in previous posts, or both, when responding.

If you're going to do that, you don't need my participation. Have fun.

 

[Frank Merton]

I am unsettled.

I think lying is wrong, but anyone can easily invent extreme situations where failing to lie through one's teeth would be wrong. (Picture the Gestapo asking for the whereabouts of Anne Frank).

So do I say that lying is wrong except when other factors outweigh the rule? That just doesn't work: who am I or anyone else or even any society to make such a decision? (But then who am I or anyone else or even any society to decide that something like lying is wrong?)

So do I say that the problem is in the idea of things being right or wrong? That seems to me an unacceptable and simplistic approach. Unacceptable because in the end it denies our humanity; simplistic because it strikes me as a cop-out to avoid hard thinking, and, more important, responsibility.

I don't believe in "conscience" (a culturally learned set of notions) nor do I think we can rationally deduce right and wrong, as the considerations required exceed our capabilities. We can never discern the ultimate consequences or our acts, nor can we ever discern in full all the factors underlying our own motives--a desire to do what is right can easily be self-delusion.

 

[The Man]

I think I might have ruffled your feathers in some of my earlier responses. Not intentional, I tend to post here when I have time and, unfortunately, I'm often a little tired when posting. Let me put it to you this way -- posting at the JREF is not my day job -- though I wouldn't mind if it were.

I just reread your posts in this thread -- consider this response a "do-over."

Ok, let’s see if anything has changed.

Sure, for example a whiste blower can be a problem in a corrupt company. And I imagine that Sylvia Browne would be very happy if no one had ever heard of James Randi or Robert Lancaster's website "StopSylvia.com"

But even the corrupt corporate officials and Sylvia Browne get innumerable benefits from being part of the larger society that relies on veracity to function.

Yes, Sylvia Browne lies to the public and lies to her "clients." But, presumably, she has had to engage in the same day to day mundane transactions to deal with the fact that she, like all of us, needs housing, transportation and food. Unfortunately her dishonesty has paid off for her and she lives much better than most of us -- but the fact that our society is more honest than deceiptful I'm sure is working very well for her. Given the laws and customs that we all rely on I don't think the SB's bankers, car dealers, grocers, etc spend an inordinate lot of time double checking her and I don't think she spends an inordinate amount of time double checking them. The way our society is set up, there's no need. And the laws probably worked very well for SB and her business partners in publishing and television also.

“Relies on veracity to function”? How? Simply stating what you believe to be true (not lying in this context) does not guaranty any veracity in your statements. Reliance upon veracity comes from reliance upon that “double checking”, that is where the work of maintaining veracity is done.

As I asked before, who do you think is more likely to double check facts, a liar or one who simply honestly believes something they say is true.

Yes, JREF prime goal is (as I understand it) to help people realize that we need to use skeptical thinking in all areas of life, including evaluating paranormal claims.

Now do you think that is because all those claims are based on lies or that at least some of the claims may be simply mistaken to some extent? People can be honest and simply wrong.

Many frauds have done well for themselves, including Sylvia Browne but as I tried to get across in this post, they are very much a part of our larger society. I think they qualify as being parasites or "free-riders" as Bok describes them. Their lifestyles and success largely depends upon the fact that the majority of the people in our society are honest and reliable.

If everyone they had to deal with in every facet of life was as dishonest as they were in their "paranormal business", they would have a much more difficult time managing their lives.

Not even “everyone they had to deal with” just imagine if they themselves were just as dishonest in all facets of their lives as in their "paranormal business". A single person can not function lying all or even most of the time, they can not function just being honest and wrong all or most of the time. So a society where most lie most of the time is just as patently absurd as one where most are honest and simply wrong most of the time. Society needs some degree of truth to function and liars need some degree of truth to function. So their goals are mutual in that regard.


A hunter that kills all pray will find no further advantage from hunting. A liar who removes all truths will find no further advantage in lying.

So ... I don't think reductio ad absurdum cuts both ways when discussing lies and truth.

This is where it seems to me that you are confused. It is Lies and Honesty not Truth and Falsehood; you seem to want to conflate honesty with truth. Honesty is no guaranty of truth just a lack of deliberate deception through a known falsehood. Similarly making a statement that is false does not require lying (at least by the focus on deception cited here). This is the distinction that Brian-M keeps trying to explain to you (along with the fact that deception does not require making false statements). Were your question simply about false statements and not false statements intended to deceive. Then your question would basically be “When is being wrong justified”?

I note you did not address this part..

Society needs some degree of truth to function, imagine a society where most were simply mistaken most of the time. The same (if not more) lack of truth is there but not the intent on deliberate deception.

And, given your last couple of statements above, perhaps we are not far apart in our opinions on this matter?

No, perhaps not far apart but a glaring distinction none the less and it doesn’t look like that has changed.

 

[tsig]

You mean like on your resumé/CV?

I never lied on a resume, I just told the truth selectively.

 

[Halfcentaur]

Lying is justified when the other monkeys won't allow you to eat good tasty things because you're not a dominant member of the monkey group, so when you find tasty things, you pretend to see a snake and give the warning call for everyone to hide and beware of snakes. This frees up the tasty treat for you to eat and enjoy. But be careful, monkeys come to recognize who's accurate and will soon disregard the warning cries of those who prove unreliable.

 

[Frank Merton]

Lying is justified when the other monkeys won't allow you to eat good tasty things because you're not a dominant member of the monkey group, so when you find tasty things, you pretend to see a snake and give the warning call for everyone to hide and beware of snakes. This frees up the tasty treat for you to eat and enjoy. But be careful, monkeys come to recognize who's accurate and will soon disregard the warning cries of those who prove unreliable.

I don't see where the fact that you were lucky to find the fruit justifies lying. You seem to say that it is ok to lie if it helps you gain what you want.

 

[Frank Merton]

I never lied on a resume, I just told the truth selectively.

Like you failed to mention that you caused your previous employer to go bankrupt?

 

[tsig]

Like you failed to mention that you caused your previous employer to go bankrupt?

I aided in the complete reorganization of the enterprise.

 

[Frank Merton]

I aided in the complete reorganization of the enterprise.

And in the process wiped out the stockholders.

 

[Halfcentaur]

I don't see where the fact that you were lucky to find the fruit justifies lying. You seem to say that it is ok to lie if it helps you gain what you want.

Am I supposed to be justifying lying to your satisfaction?
What I described is an actual behavior now well known and documented in monkeys. There's no such thing as concrete universal justice, it's an arbitrary concept that is shaped by individuals and societies.

 

[Frank Merton]

Am I supposed to be justifying lying to your satisfaction?

Don't be testy; I said nothing about my satisfaction. It does seem though that you are not satisfied either--that you are, say, uncomfortable.

What I described is an actual behavior now well known and documented in monkeys. There's no such thing as concrete universal justice, it's an arbitrary concept that is shaped by individuals and societies.

Your conclusion does not follow from the evidence of a few monkeys.

I don't know that justice is universal, the evidence seems otherwise, as your monkeys testify. I would nevertheless hope we can do better to construct our behavior than take the worst of monkey behaviors as our guide.

The idea of God watching all we do is not a bad one to take seriously, even though there is no God. It improves us.

 

[Darth Rotor]

Why do people use the word "passed" rather than "died" these days?

Do people prefer lying to telling the truth? I ask this in all seriousness. Euphamism IIRC comes from a Greek word related to lying.

For I Ratant: I may wait a couple of years to pick up Cheney's book for a buck or two, or get it from the library. Where you sit determines what you see, which seems to inform what one perceives as truth. And other times, particularly in politics, people just lie.

I am curious about what he has to say, since I feel he had a good chance to offer the President better advice than he did, but I am not interested in putting my money into his pocket.

Given the decent job he did as Secretary of Defense, he was to me a big disappointment as Vice President.

 

[Halfcentaur]

Don't be testy; I said nothing about my satisfaction. It does seem though that you are not satisfied either--that you are, say, uncomfortable.
Your conclusion does not follow from the evidence of a few monkeys.

I don't know that justice is universal, the evidence seems otherwise, as your monkeys testify. I would nevertheless hope we can do better to construct our behavior than take the worst of monkey behaviors as our guide.

The idea of God watching all we do is not a bad one to take seriously, even though there is no God. It improves us.

I am not being testy, don't panic and stop screaming at me as loud as you can. Imagine my voice as a softly spoken English gentlemen full of mirth and good cheer if you would.

The monkeys are not intended to justify or support my opinion, merely something of interest, namely animals purposefully practicing deception.

I happen to value the social contract and value honesty and altruism quite a bit, and am in no way attempting to excuse lying. Justice, while arbitrary, is of course involved with striving to maintain the ideally fair, something I value.
This does not stop me from recognizing things I don't agree with.

 

[Kaylee]

I am unsettled.

I think lying is wrong, but anyone can easily invent extreme situations where failing to lie through one's teeth would be wrong. (Picture the Gestapo asking for the whereabouts of Anne Frank).

A thread is not a thread until its been godwinned. I don't think that's really true, but thanks for doing the honors anyway, Frank.

So do I say that lying is wrong except when other factors outweigh the rule? That just doesn't work: who am I or anyone else or even any society to make such a decision? (But then who am I or anyone else or even any society to decide that something like lying is wrong?)

So do I say that the problem is in the idea of things being right or wrong? That seems to me an unacceptable and simplistic approach. Unacceptable because in the end it denies our humanity; simplistic because it strikes me as a cop-out to avoid hard thinking, and, more important, responsibility.

I don't believe in "conscience" (a culturally learned set of notions) nor do I think we can rationally deduce right and wrong, as the considerations required exceed our capabilities. We can never discern the ultimate consequences or our acts, nor can we ever discern in full all the factors underlying our own motives--a desire to do what is right can easily be self-delusion.

I don't usually spend a lot of time in the philosophy forum. If I can take the liberty of greatly simplifying what you said -- reality is often a lot more complicated than the rules we live by.

For example, there's been many threads where posters have explained why they don't believe in free will but in determination. Very logical, but I don't think most governments are going to change our legal system to reflect the philosophy of determination. Because, as a society, its not practical for us to do so.

After taking a few days to step back from the thread and think about what' been posted and perhaps even more importantly, what's not been posted, I think perhaps I should have taken more time to summarize what Bok had to say about lying. It seemed to me one of her goals for the book was to point out how frequently people do lie and how acceptable it is to many people, including people who are usually respected in society. Before I read her book I had not really thought about this topic and it was a surprise to me to see how prevelant lying really is in our society.

When she discusses justification of lies I don't think it's so that she can say -- see lying is really OK. I think she does it so that her readers can see more clearly what is going on in our communities and in our lives, and also so that her readers can think about how if we all lied less, we would probably be better off.

For example, as mentioned earlier up thread, she brings up the fact that it use to be common for doctors and family to lie to the dying and not tell them that their time was near. That custom has since changed and the world has not fallen apart; in fact, the dying and their families are probably better off for it.

I don't think that one of Bok's motivation was to try to justify the justification for lying or to build up the philosophy behind lying. I think it was to actually try to get her readers to see that as a society we could benefit from changing some of our social habits and lying less.

ETA: If I were to write the thread's OP today, I think I would do so with a different slant. I'd probably choose to emphasize where we (as a society) no longer lie in certain situations, such as to the sick and dying or for paternilistic reasons.

I would try to explore other areas where, as a society, we could lie less or condone lying less, and move furthur in the direction of telling the truth.

Perhaps my OP, esp. when read quickly, gives the wrong impression of what Bok's goals were in her book.