When is Lying Justified?

[Kaylee]

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.

In a related vein, I think some people will lie to protect their income. More people will probably have a difficult time seeing a situation clearly if it affects their income. Sales, paychecks and bonuses can be large blinders.

 

[Kaylee]

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.

Justifications aren't always just. There are often conflicts between what benefits individuals and what benefits the group (whether that group be family, neighborhood, city, state, country or the world).

I think that is the reason for many of our laws -- to align individual interests with the group.

Most of the time, what people define as just is that which is beneficial to the group.

 

[Frank Merton]

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.

Nazis do make such a good example of evil it becomes a cliche. Still, I will cliche myself out my ears to make a point clearly.

That people lie a lot and that we would probably all be better off if they didn't is plain enough. I am interested in what it is, if anything, that makes lying inherently wrong. The immediate reaction is that it is more complicated than that, but when I take that tack, I find it always leads back to lying being inherently wrong--or at least to the conclusion that all lies are inherently problematic.

But there is no rational basis for this. The various efforts to rationally deduce moral principles don't work, and appeals to nature or society or even self-interest are irrelevant. So why is lying problematic. I am just simply not willing to say that it isn't. The consequences would be horrid.

A lie is a sour note that breaks the harmony of the universe. Why one musical note is sour and another is harmonious is the real question.

 

[Kaylee]

<snip>

“Relies on veracity to function”? How?

Our society and laws are set up so that honesty is the default mode of interaction.

I'm not the strongest, smartest person I know but for the most part I can have confidence that I won't be taken advantage of despite that.

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.

People are too complicated too generalize. Speaking for myself, I go by the "trust but verify" policy. It works for me, and I use it until I think the person in question has proven him or herself satisfactorily to me. FWIW, I don't carry over trust from one area of life to another, until someone has proven themselves in a variety of different areas. So for example, just because someone has proven to be a good co-worker does not necc. mean that he would make a good friend and so on. So far, so good. YMMV.

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.

That is true and has been mentioned in this thread a few times by a few different people. The beauty of skeptical thinking is that its helpful with both lies and mistakes.

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.

I don't think Bok would disagree with the highlighted statement.

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.

There's no end to the way someone can lie. Truth is limited to the actual state of the matter. Sometimes this gets confusing because as imperfect humans we may never be able to perfectly capture truth -- but most of the time if eveyone's intentions are honest --- I think it works out.

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”?

There are two types of people I don't waste my time debating with:

The Parky type person -- never wants to concede a point so just keeps trying to change reality instead by restating whats actually been stated on both sides. If you read this thread, you'll see that I'm not the only one who notices that he does that.

The CFLarsen type person -- goes off on a side issue and endlessly debates something that is completely unimportant. Do snakes have eyelids? Does an uncooked live chicken walk on drumsticks? Who cares?

If Brian M wants to resume the debate, he knows what he needs to do.

I note you did not address this part..

The way to help improve an incompetent society would be different than the way to help cure the ills that would plague a largely dishonest society.

Do you want to start discussing when incompetency is justified? You're welcome to start a new thread.

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

 

[Kaylee]

Nazis do make such a good example of evil it becomes a cliche. Still, I will cliche myself out my ears to make a point clearly.

That people lie a lot and that we would probably all be better off if they didn't is plain enough. I am interested in what it is, if anything, that makes lying inherently wrong. The immediate reaction is that it is more complicated than that, but when I take that tack, I find it always leads back to lying being inherently wrong--or at least to the conclusion that all lies are inherently problematic.

I think that's a great question and I hope I'm not the only one that puts in my two cents. It be interesting to see where a discussion on this would go.

But there is no rational basis for this. The various efforts to rationally deduce moral principles don't work, and appeals to nature or society or even self-interest are irrelevant. So why is lying problematic. I am just simply not willing to say that it isn't. The consequences would be horrid.

I disagree. I think the rational basis is the same logic that makes lying wrong.

For people to be able to live together we need to be able to communicate honestly and be able to discuss the true state of affairs. Lies interfere with that and that is why, IMHO, moral systems throughout the world have developed into ones that decided lies (or at least most lies) are wrong.

The more sucessful a society is at communicating honestly, the more likely it is that that society will grow and continue to exist.

I don't think its an accident that over the years emancipation has expanded throughout the world's population and that republics have grown at the expense of monarchies and dictatorships. Needless to say, feudalism which were basically gangs ruling under the idea might makes right, does not exist anymore in the Western World. Societies with a strong large middle class and a smaller poor and wealthy classes appears to be more successful over the long run than other kinds of societies.

Honest communication in many spheres of life probably goes a long way to help making that kind of society successful.

When people find out that they have been lied to -- the response is almost always anger.

Makes sense as you can't have honest communication and lies simultaneuosly. Also, a liar often has the attitude that they have the right to lie and are superior to those he is lying to. In a republic that is classless compared to the Romans of 2000 years ago or to the monarchies prevelant in Europe during the Middle Ages, that is not going to fly well.

A lie is a sour note that breaks the harmony of the universe. Why one musical note is sour and another is harmonious is the real question.

Nice metaphor.

 

[The Man]

Nazis do make such a good example of evil it becomes a cliche. Still, I will cliche myself out my ears to make a point clearly.

That people lie a lot and that we would probably all be better off if they didn't is plain enough. I am interested in what it is, if anything, that makes lying inherently wrong. The immediate reaction is that it is more complicated than that, but when I take that tack, I find it always leads back to lying being inherently wrong--or at least to the conclusion that all lies are inherently problematic.

But there is no rational basis for this. The various efforts to rationally deduce moral principles don't work, and appeals to nature or society or even self-interest are irrelevant. So why is lying problematic. I am just simply not willing to say that it isn't. The consequences would be horrid.

A lie is a sour note that breaks the harmony of the universe. Why one musical note is sour and another is harmonious is the real question.

Perhaps you should just try singing a different tune every now and again? Honestly I can’t remember the last time I lied other than as some set up for a joke or to make a point. Things like comedy, acting and role-playing all often involve statements known to be false that are intend to be believed in at least some way. Though the difference may be that such deception is not intend to last all that long in those cases. Generally not problematic at all as they are just intended to get to that punch line or the morale of the story and make them effective. So perhaps the problematic nature you refer to might come more from attempting to maintain the deception. The more one has to “live the lie” (so to speak) to maintain the deception the less of a lie it actually becomes. Just think of some undercover investigator. Honesty can be problematic as well though some seem to regard those problems as more easily justifiable since they were at least, well, honest about it.

“Well, that’s what I heard.”

“That’s what I saw.”

“That’s what they said.”

Honesty is all to often the morale blanket we try to wrap ourselves in to help keep us feeling all snug and warm in the biting cold of what is often simply our own (potentially deliberate) ignorance.

 

[Frank Merton]

I disagree. I think the rational basis is the same logic that makes lying wrong.

Depending on the context, either lying or telling the truth can be the rational thing and the other irrational.

For people to be able to live together we need to be able to communicate honestly and be able to discuss the true state of affairs. Lies interfere with that and that is why, IMHO, moral systems throughout the world have developed into ones that decided lies (or at least most lies) are wrong.

Sometimes this is true, but sometimes honest communication does harm. For example, I think that for the most part modern democracy is a sham and that we deceive ourselves into thinking we really have self-rule. That said, it is an extremely useful notion that gives existing order its legitimacy.

The more successful a society is at communicating honestly, the more likely it is that that society will grow and continue to exist.

I dunno about that. The Victorians, for example, were an abysmally dishonest society, but they did fine.

When people find out that they have been lied to -- the response is almost always anger.

This is true and puzzles me -- the reaction is so predictable. It takes good teaching to learn to not be upset when one is lied to, yet in fact usually anger is not a useful way to react.

What I think you are doing is equating truth with helpfulness, in a utilitarian sort of way saying that lying is bad because it does harm. I don't think that is the case. Lying often does harm, but not always, and that it can do harm does not seem to be the source of the problem we have with it.

 

[Frank Merton]

Honestly I can’t remember the last time I lied other than as some set up for a joke or to make a point. Things like comedy, acting and role-playing all often involve statements known to be false that are intend to be believed in at least some way.

What you describe is not lying, but forms of hyperbole and other figures of speech. When there is no deception there is no lie, no matter the formal form of the statement.

Honesty is all too often the moral blanket we try to wrap ourselves in to help keep us feeling all snug and warm in the biting cold of what is often simply our own (potentially deliberate) ignorance.

In other words sometimes we lie to hide our ignorance?? Or do you mean we wrap ourselves in honesty -- well, I can't figure out what you might mean.

 

[tsig]

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.

Until god tells us to kill the guy across the street because he's an unbeliever.

 

[tsig]

Nazis do make such a good example of evil it becomes a cliche. Still, I will cliche myself out my ears to make a point clearly.

That people lie a lot and that we would probably all be better off if they didn't is plain enough. I am interested in what it is, if anything, that makes lying inherently wrong. The immediate reaction is that it is more complicated than that, but when I take that tack, I find it always leads back to lying being inherently wrong--or at least to the conclusion that all lies are inherently problematic.

But there is no rational basis for this. The various efforts to rationally deduce moral principles don't work, and appeals to nature or society or even self-interest are irrelevant. So why is lying problematic. I am just simply not willing to say that it isn't. The consequences would be horrid.

A lie is a sour note that breaks the harmony of the universe. Why one musical note is sour and another is harmonious is the real question.

Most of us would rather not be murdered so when we get together in groups we make rules against murder, seems rational to me.

 

[Frank Merton]

Most of us would rather not be murdered so when we get together in groups we make rules against murder, seems rational to me.

What rational principle do you derive this from -- your self-interest? Then murdering others is okay, just not yourself? Or do you perhaps derive the rule from some larger principle, such as that human life is sacred? Is that a rational rule?

 

[Frank Merton]

Until god tells us to kill the guy across the street because he's an unbeliever.

Good point. It seems that whether or not the God idea is useful depends on the god in question.

 

[bigred]

I'd like to hear your opinions, including if you think that there are times and situations where lying can be justified and what those times and situations are. Also, if you do accept that it can be justified to lie, how do you determine what the boundaries should be?

The answer to the first part is a very obvious "yes" and anyone who says otherwise is either a liar or a moron. The answer to the rest depends on the specifics and therefore to me at least cannot be given a pat answer. Generally we lie if we feel it is justified (morally etc); otherwise not.

When there is no deception there is no lie, no matter the formal form of the statement.

Nah. Lying means not telling the truth. If I say 2+2=3 I am lying, even though I know I'm not about to deceive anyone or even intending to do so.

A lie is a sour note that breaks the harmony of the universe.

 

[Frank Merton]

Generally we lie if we feel it is justified (morally etc); otherwise not.

You describe what people do, not what they should do or what is right. That we think a lie is justified does not mean it is justified.

Nah. Lying means not telling the truth. If I say 2+2=3 I am lying, even though I know I'm not about to deceive anyone or even intending to do so.

You are lying if your intent is to convince someone of the falsehood. When I refer to my daughters in a tree as "monkeys," I am not lying, even though the statement, "Look at those monkeys in that tree," is false. (They are not monkeys, they are apes).

 

[dafydd]

You describe what people do, not what they should do or what is right. That we think a lie is justified does not mean it is justified.

You are lying if your intent is to convince someone of the falsehood. When I refer to my daughters in a tree as "monkeys," I am not lying, even though the statement, "Look at those monkeys in that tree," is false. (They are not monkeys, they are apes).

Not in Flanders or the Nederlands. Aap is the word for an ape and a monkey.

 

[The Man]

What you describe is not lying, but forms of hyperbole and other figures of speech. When there is no deception there is no lie, no matter the formal form of the statement.

Nope I was quite specific about what I was describing and it did not involve hyperbole and other figures of speech. It did however specifically involve and reference deception. Though for some strange reason that specific reference is missing from what you quoted.

In other words sometimes we lie to hide our ignorance??

Well, those would certainly be some “other words” since the statement makes no reference to a lie or lying.

Or do you mean we wrap ourselves in honesty -- well, I can't figure out what you might mean.

Small wonder as you apparently missed the reference to deception that was there and had some “other words” of your own later that weren’t there.

Did you honestly or deceptively intend your post to exemplify deliberate ignorance?

 

[dafydd]

All the posts here are lies,including this one.

 

[tsig]

Most of us would rather not be murdered so when we get together in groups we make rules against murder, seems rational to me.

What rational principle do you derive this from -- your self-interest? Then murdering others is okay, just not yourself? Or do you perhaps derive the rule from some larger principle, such as that human life is sacred? Is that a rational rule?

Did you miss the hilited phrase? I'm speaking of the group self interest. Why would I go around murdering when I said the object was not to get murdered?


Why would the rule against murder have to derive from any higher principle than all of us collectively not wishing to be killed?

 

[I Ratant]

I have to hold my tongue when passing the kiosk selling the XE-Power Bands, watching the salesperson pull potential buyers off balance, and then with the band on the arm, pull them in a on-balance direction.
That is lying, for cash.
But, fools and money are soon parted.

 

[I Ratant]

Did you miss the hilited phrase? I'm speaking of the group self interest. Why would I go around murdering when I said the object was not to get murdered?


Why would the rule against murder have to derive from any higher principle than all of us collectively not wishing to be killed?

.
I see this lack of desire for an early death out in the wild, also.
All animals will flee a situation where their life is possibly threatened, without being aware they are alive.. just not wanting the alternative.