When is Lying Justified?
- Thread starter Kaylee
- Start date
-
- Tags
- lying morality sissela bok
I think on an unconscious level, people as a group otherwise known as society, believe that most people's welfare have a direct positive correlation to the truthfulness and honesty of others.
There will always be exceptions of course -- but the exceptions really stand out. For example, we are not obligated to tell a murderer where his next victim is because we are not obligated to help evil people be evil.
Lobbying is very difficult work that requires a great deal of organization and cooperation to be done well. I think special interests can sometimes defeat the interests of the average majority because its easier for smaller groups to organize than larger groups. To the extent that modern democracy is a sham is to the extent that some are able to operate sucessfully under the cover of secrecy and lies.
IMHO, whether it is possible to defeat special interests in a modern democracy is a topic that deserves its own thread.
But their time is over, so your example proves my point.
Post the Victorian era there is no longer open legal slavery in the Western World, women have the vote, child labor is strictly regulated and for the most part in the USA children under the age of 16 can't work (there are exceptions). There was a lot of class strife during the late 1800s resulting in a larger middle class, a smaller impoverished class, and better working hours for many (though some ground has been lost there in the states in some areas of work).
Well, anger is the usual reaction to being wronged. Often the purpose of lying is to deceive the person being lied to about the reality of the situation and what their options really are. Most of us would become angry upon learning the truth. I think that is a mentally healthy reaction.
Other times lies are given merely for the convenience of the liar so they can do what they want to do more quickly and with less interference. Even if the person that was lied to may agree later that they think the actions taken by the liar were good ones and that they retroactively agree with those actions -- the best that can be said is that the people who were lied to were treated in a patronizing way. Unless we are talking about extreme circumstances such as wartime where secrecy is important to avoid letting the enemy have access to important facts -- must people will respond to patronizing behavior with anger.
Anger can serve a useful function like pain does. Why don't we touch hot stoves or play with matches? Because we learned as children that it's painful to do so. Why will most of us we avoid confiding or trusting in people that we know will lie to us if it serves their purpose? Their behavior has made us angry and we want to make sure that we don't get treated that way again. I think anger can be a very useful emotion. However, just because we are angry doesn't mean that we have to lose self-control and behave in ways that can make a bad situation worse.
Well, our morality is based on something. Utilitarian evaluation seems to be a good basis that works out well for the majority of us. Most parts of the world have the saying "Do unto othes as you would have them do unto you", or the equivalent.
There are always going to be exceptions and I think the exceptions can often be easy to understand. Yes, normally its good to tell the truth but if telling the truth helps an evil person do something evil -- than that is a circumstance deserving of an exception and one in which we shouldn't tell the truth.
I'm comfortable with that reasoning. I'm open to hearing other theories though.
Agreed. Utilitarian basis for morality -- fits in under the saying "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."
I think we already have a workable theory.
Last edited:
I didn't realize that determinism was actually used outside of theoratical philosophy. If you wouldn't mind starting a new thread listing some of the ways its been used in real world science, I'd appreciate it!
I agree.
FWIW, one of the first things that came to mind was that the person shouldn't ask the question at that time under those circumstances.
Presumably the person is at the event because he or she has a committment and/or obligation to compete.
If they have a committment that requires their concentration within the very immediate future -- they should just focus on that.
If there is nothing that they can do for their relative, they should just focus on what they can do for the event and the people involved with the event.
If the situation is such that they will have to choose between seeing their relative in their last moments or carrying out their committment to the event and other people involved in the event -- then of course they should be told.
If I were in those circumstances, based on the limited info given in this scenario, I would go see the relative.
That particular example you gave makes me uncomfortable. It sounds like your wife's particular values were that she would not live with someone who is cheating on her.
But she didn't ask you not to cheat, instead she asked you not to tell her if you were cheating.
In a general way it seems like she is saying that I want to live by these kind of values and if I'm mistaken and I'm not actually living by those values -- don't tell me. It comes off as immature quit frankly. And I'm not comfortable with either the requestor making that request or someone fulfilling that request.
People with game don't have to.
Sometimes people without game decide to use guile to get ahead and make up all sorts of reasons why its justified. They get ahead, the people with better abilities playing by the rules lose out, and so does the larger society. /yet another summary of Bok's book about lying
Last edited:
skullerello
a force for cool
- Joined
- Apr 14, 2006
- Messages
- 765
Try explaining that to Mrs. Skull...
Aridas
Crazy Little Green Dragon
I didn't realize that determinism was actually used outside of theoratical philosophy. If you wouldn't mind starting a new thread listing some of the ways its been used in real world science, I'd appreciate it!
I would say that science, itself, is based on a deterministic approach to reality, which is the basis of my claim for investigative legitimacy. We test things, try to understand why they are the way they are, and seek to find the underlying order there, and expect things to act in consistent ways when tests are repeated. When they don't, we try to find out why and continue to form more and more powerful understandings of the way reality works, all the while assuming that the reality can be understood, potentially. That sounds like a rather deterministic approach, to me.
Frank Merton
Critical Thinker
- Joined
- Apr 26, 2010
- Messages
- 310
I don't think I do. That you see it otherwise seems, in fact, a construct originating in your own personal problems. Try sitting back and being generous as you read what others are posting, remembering that it is not possible to communicate but a tiny bit of what we are feeling.
Frank Merton
Critical Thinker
- Joined
- Apr 26, 2010
- Messages
- 310
Indeed, we are not even required to help the merely inquisitive be nosy.
Frank Merton
Critical Thinker
- Joined
- Apr 26, 2010
- Messages
- 310
Determinism is such a huge topic, and, as I have already had my hands slapped for going off topic, I need to find a way to respond within the topic of this thread.
When we lie we break a chain connected to reality -- we portray things not as they are but as we say. Obviously we have the ability to do this because in some situations it serves us. If our behavior is determined (by subconscious factors I would presume), then it is kinda pointless to say that liars, even those who do great harm with their lies, are "wrong" in some way. So in a determinist world lying is always "justified" as there was only the appearance of a choice to lie, not a real choice.
This is sterile. We may as well assume that the world is not deterministic (at least in this way) so that we can have the fun and stimulation of talking about it.
Frank Merton
Critical Thinker
- Joined
- Apr 26, 2010
- Messages
- 310
One of the pleasures of being a grandfather is to give the grand kids (and now great-grand kids too) small amounts of money every now and then, without worrying about spoiling them (a spoilt kid is the parents' problem, not the grandparents').
When I do this I hold my finger in front of my lips in the "shhh" gesture, to tell them they shouldn't tell their folks (as in that case it will get "saved" for them and they won't be able to waste it).
It occurs to me that this is a form of telling the kid to lie, or, at least, not volunteer the truth.
When I do this I hold my finger in front of my lips in the "shhh" gesture, to tell them they shouldn't tell their folks (as in that case it will get "saved" for them and they won't be able to waste it).
It occurs to me that this is a form of telling the kid to lie, or, at least, not volunteer the truth.
Ethan Thane Athen
Illuminator
- Joined
- Mar 1, 2007
- Messages
- 3,033
This is going to sound insufferably smug (it's honestly not meant to be) so apologies in advance but...
I manage to get through my life pretty easily without lying. I really haven't found it that hard (it's something I'm pretty determined about but, as I say, it hasn't been that bad doing it). Yes even the 'Do I look fat in this?' questions or 'What do you think of my new hairstyle?'.*
Interestingly, once you get a 'reputation' for always telling the truth, people actually seem to be more interested in your opinion - or you get the 'Well I won't bother asking you 'cos I know you won't like it'!
Plus of course, having developed the reputation, if I ever need to tell a really big lie I'm far more likely to get away with it!
*I also answer the children truthfully when they ask about Santa or the tooth fairy - though so many others lie to them about it they choose not to believe me.
I manage to get through my life pretty easily without lying. I really haven't found it that hard (it's something I'm pretty determined about but, as I say, it hasn't been that bad doing it). Yes even the 'Do I look fat in this?' questions or 'What do you think of my new hairstyle?'.*
Interestingly, once you get a 'reputation' for always telling the truth, people actually seem to be more interested in your opinion - or you get the 'Well I won't bother asking you 'cos I know you won't like it'!
Plus of course, having developed the reputation, if I ever need to tell a really big lie I'm far more likely to get away with it!
*I also answer the children truthfully when they ask about Santa or the tooth fairy - though so many others lie to them about it they choose not to believe me.
Frank Merton
Critical Thinker
- Joined
- Apr 26, 2010
- Messages
- 310
You know, I think this is the case for most people. As we age we find that the truth makes life more pleasant, less complicated, easier to get through.
There are times, however, when we are tempted. As we burn our fingers over an over, the temptations get less tempting. Too bad we don't live forever. Each generation has to start this process all over.
This brings me back, however, to the question of whether or not lies are ethical. I must admit to a bit of mysticism in my view here; the fact that a lie breaks reality is asking for the "powers that be" to notice one adversely -- it generates a bit of negativity -- bad karma I guess -- that has bad consequences. Maybe good consequences of the lie sometimes outweigh this, but not usually. (Please don't take this too literally -- there aren't "liar demons" out there -- but just that circumstances in existence seem to work that way).
Aridas
Crazy Little Green Dragon
You know, I'm just going to answer this by restating a prior post of mine.
If reality is deterministic, it does put an interesting spin on the concept of morality, however, I would argue that it does not and should never excuse actions that we consider immoral or as morality's general trend is (when the systems of morality are not being specifically skewed to support a specific person, group, or concept's legitimacy), more harmful than helpful. To sidetrack into theistic territory, if an Omniscient God created everything, the logic followup to that is that reality is deterministic. In that case, in an absolute sense, all moral responsibility for everything and anything falls on that God. Even in this case, though, as I referenced in my post, our collective daily lives, the interactions inside, between our social constructs, including governments and justice systems, and with the general populations, as well as interactions on a personal level and one's understanding of oneself, tends to be filled with uncertainties, to our knowledge and perspective, hence, the illusion of Free Will. Just as Free Will can be considered an unavoidable illusion, so to can the illusion of moral responsibility, for much the same reasons. If there is no such creator and ultimate responsibility does not rest on it, matters get more complex, of course. I would argue that the concept of morality does not rest on choice, though, rather on the intent and effects of one's actions, and thus, negating Free Will does not nullify this. I do apologize if this isn't perfectly clear, though, so I'll try to restate it more simply.
The state of being unchangeable, but unknown, is no different, to our perspective, than the state of being changeable, but unknown. Given that there is no difference to our perspective, it should not be used to change how we deal with reality, except in a theoretical manner. A lie that was both intended to and that does cause harm, whether or not it was done with Free Will, can be considered an immoral action.
Human culture, thus far, seems to be immortal but it is not. I think our culture has malignant features in it that must be removed with surgical precision before we destroy ourselves and our culture to the point of having to start all over.
Last edited:
Oh, I see. I read more into your earlier post, but I see what you're saying now.