When is Lying Justified?

[Kaylee]

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.

Indeed, we are not even required to help the merely inquisitive be nosy.

Agreed, and I like the way you put that.

I thought some more about this topic while I was commuting to work on the subway today and I think most people are probably not formally taught about lies and why its considered wrong once they're past the age of 5 or 6.

And naturally at that age we just get the simple overview. Our parents and teachers want us to know just enough about the subject so that we won't lie to them, and that is basically all that is said about the subject. At least that was my experience.


Apparently none of the adults in my life while I was growing up felt motivated to talk about times when it would be better to lie than not to lie. And I never thought to think more deeply about this subject until I read Bok's book a few weeks ago.

As a result, the few times I've felt forced to lie in the past I always felt badly about it but I considered it to be the lesser of two evils.

Now that this subject has been so throughly discussed in this thread -- in hindsight I don't feel badly about lying during those times. All I did was prevent people with bad intentions from doing harm to people who didn't deserve to be harmed. So, in hindsight, it wasn't even a matter of doing the lesser of two evils, there was nothing wrong in lying under those circumstances. In fact, it was the right thing to do.

 

[Kaylee]

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.

Did you see my post #74?

I think, that society has decided over the centuries that its actually a good idea to teach our kids gradually about lies and that sometimes people close to us will lie to us. We do that through several ways, including


* The Santa Claus myth.

* Ausamerican brought up an example that when his 4 year old asked him what he and her mommy was doing he decided to lie to her and told her they were taking a nap instead of what they were actually doing. And of course almost any parent would do the same thing.

When Ausamerican's daughter puts the pieces together over the years -- she will have learned a few things including --

• People (including parents) have a right to privacy
• Sex is a private matter
• Its not appropriate to learn the details of how to have fun with sex from your parents

People say that they do this to preserve their children's innocence, but I don't think so. Even now, when most people live in the cities and no longer live on farms, very young children commonly see family pets having sex with other family pets. They know what's up and if they don't another kid will be sure to tell them.


* And in your above post you give an example of teaching your grandkids that you don't have to share things with people if they don't know about it. You're teaching it in a joking sort of way and their parents are probably in on it, but that is what they are learning.

Bottom line, I don't think most people want most kids growing up to be naive adults and those kind of commonly accepted lies help insure that doesn't happen.

ETA: I think it could be taught more directly, but it appears that people also want kids to grow up and learn how to talk not only directly, but also to be comfortable talking indirectly with innuendos and euphemisms and to know when its better to speak directly and when its better to speak indirectly.

What better topic to learn how to speak about indirectly than lying?

 

[Kaylee]

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

But their time is over, so your example proves my point.

In this world eventually everybodies time is over. So what is your point?

Just an fyi -- the opening quote tag includes the userid and quote number.

Like this: [ quote = JoeSmith ; 123456 ] , but without spaces.

I suggest keeping that intact so that readers can click on the arrow and see the original post being responded to, in full.


Here are the relevant posts (with the intact tags ) --

<snip>

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.

<snip>

<snip>

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

<snip>

<snip>

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).


<snip>

What I was saying was that the Victorian (actually the upper class of the Victorian Era, who had most of the privileges and rights in their era and who I think Frank was referring to as almost everyone else didn't really have it that great during that time) society faded out and was replaced by a more egalitarian and more mobile society in the Western World. The Victorian era was a 64 year period that lasted from 1837 to 1901.

There were setbacks, but when looking over the history of the Western World over the millennia -- the overall trend is constantly increasing economic and legal freedoms for more and more of the population.

Probably true for other regions of the world also, but I'm a typical American exposed to the typical western centric education given in the public schools.

 

[Alex333]

Sociopaths lie a lot. Be aware.

 

[jakesteele]

"Does this make me look fat?"

Your new hair doo looks great.

Santa Clause, etc.

Gee, we'd love to come over for dinner, but the kids are sick.

And then there's the infamous lies "The check's in the mail", I promise I won't...", "Yes, I have read the terms and conditions and I agree."

 

[Kahalachan]

In nearly every single situation where it's "OK to lie" one could just as easily remain silent and have the exact same effect. Or decline to answer.

Only if silence would also have a greatly negative effect, then the lie would be justified.

 

[Kaylee]

duplicate post

 

[Kaylee]

In nearly every single situation where it's "OK to lie" one could just as easily remain silent and have the exact same effect. Or decline to answer.

Only if silence would also have a greatly negative effect, then the lie would be justified.

I suppose that can be a good rule of thumb.

However, from what I've seen, usually the person asking the question has more power than the person being asked who doesn't want to answer. The power could be due to more social or political status, or something else, even old fashioned muscle.

I'll give a few examples where perhaps not that much was at stake but I lied anyway.

I had a childhood friend whose mother had a reputation for asking everyone the most brazen questions. My parents decided to allow my friendship anyway, but I was under strict instructions to always answer her mother's questions with "I don't know." I hated that, but I wanted to keep my friendship, so I did it. All that was at stake was not giving the crazy lady more fuel for her never-ending gossip. But it would have bothered my parents a great deal, my friend's mother had no right to the information, so it was the right thing to do. As a 12 year old standing in her house it would have probably been more awkward to stay mute instead of making the obvious white lie "I don't know."

I once worked for a company that had too many people in middle management. They tended to spend more time playing politics than actually working and as a result were not really aware of what it took to get the work done or even how it was done or where it was stored.

The deadlines were always difficult to keep but during a 7 - 10 day period they were even more difficult to keep. Many of the middle managers showed no signs of understanding that. Eventually, just out of self-preservation, a few of the staff people (including me) started answering "I don't know" or "I don't remember" to questions that had nothing to do with deadlines during the busiest days of the month. It would have been better to have a frank conversation with the managers involved, but they were not receptive to having that. They did respond surprisingly well to the obvious lies though, and became a little more reasonable during those days. I obviously wouldn't recommend doing that normally (lying to your manager), but we were all extremely overworked and literally could not do even one more thing, not even spend the 10 minutes it would take to answer a question.

ETA: Somehow half my post got lost. Drat! I'm going to try to remember what I said ...

If one finds that while lying that:
* They are doing so only because they believe that they are being asked for information or an action that will unjustly harm either themself or someone else
* They can stop it simply by saying "I don't know", "I don't remember", or "Sorry, I'm not available."

Then chances are that they are not doing any harm and are probably doing something right. I hedge because it can be difficult to be objective when one's own interests are involved. *

If the lie is more involved, than chances are one may be contributing to a current social problem. For example: professional malpractice by one's peers or employers; medical research taking advantage of nonexistant or fewer individual rights protection in Third World countries; tax fraud; embezzlement (even small scale embezzlement is embezzlement); kickbacks; unfair competition; violating pollution laws including air, water, hazardous waste; insider trader; theft; and anything that enables a social problem to continue despite many people being aware of specific actions that are contributing to the problem. Just to be crystal clear, I am not in favor of those kinds of lies.



* Note: Another possible issue is that the fact they have to lie may be due to problem that should be fixed but is too large to be fixed by an individual acting alone. However, finding others to organize with to solve a problem is a big initial hurdle to overcame. Rather than do the work, or admit that they can't or don't want to do the work, some people will lie to themselves and others and say that there is no problem, really.

 

[The Man]

If you got game, why do you need guile anyway?

Sometimes guile is a significant aspect, if not the whole point, of the game. In those cases if you ain’t got guile then you ain’t got game.

 

[The Man]

Sociopaths lie a lot. Be aware.

Yeah, but we only do it to be sociable.

 

[h.g.Whiz]

In nearly every single situation where it's "OK to lie" one could just as easily remain silent and have the exact same effect. Or decline to answer.

Only if silence would also have a greatly negative effect, then the lie would be justified.

So be elliptic.

 

[Frank Merton]

Your new hair doo looks great.

Santa Clause, etc.

Gee, we'd love to come over for dinner, but the kids are sick.

And then there's the infamous lies "The check's in the mail", I promise I won't...", "Yes, I have read the terms and conditions and I agree."

I have a little trouble with calling your first example a lie It has the formal appearance of a statement, and is, we assume, a falsehood, but it doesn't seem to carry the karmic break with reality that real lying entails. When someone asks me, "How are you," I may not be so good, but it is usually better to reply, "fine," since people don't really ask that to get a litany of complaints.

I would say that to really be a lie, the statement must have a malicious intent -- some selfish purpose. So maybe the rule should be, "Thou shalt not lie maliciously."

Still, all that being said, it seems to me reading the messages that people are far more tolerant of falsehood than is maybe good and certainly than is wise. Begging off a social engagement with a lie is malicious. Perhaps not evil, but not very good, either. Much the same goes with empty flattery. These things almost always end badly.

 

[Frank Merton]

Silence can be a lie too.

 

[Pacal]

Begging off a social engagement with a lie is malicious. Perhaps not evil, but not very good, either. Much the same goes with empty flattery. These things almost always end badly.

Really? My Mother and Father have been begging off for years going to various Social engagements for years with assorted "white lies", so have friends of mine and other families. its never ended badly.

I would like to know by what vast empirical research you have done to indicate that for the vast majority of the human race the great majority of time it has always ended badly.

 

[Pacal]

Nazis make good exemplars of evil, but I have to wonder how often this sort of situation really arises (or arose).

Be that as it may be, your first example (to save one's ass) is not a justification. It may be an excuse, but that is about it, as it appeals to selfish interest.

As far as saving the Jew goes, yes, I will lie out my teeth. Most people will. I still wonder, however, at what cost. One wrong in trade for what certainly seems a worse wrong, but can we be sure?

A similar situation, but one that makes the quandary a little clearer, is that of paying ransom to rescue a kidnapped child. One saves the child but enriches the kidnapper and encourages others to do the same.

In the lying to save someone from the Nazis, depending on the details, one could well end up doing vastly more harm. How does one know?

Self preservation is a basic human drive. I'm not going to get upset over someone lying to avoid death, torture or imprisonment. The person(s) threatening someone with this type of dire punishment are the ones who bear the moral onus. Of course what I'm reffering to here is people unjustly threatened and not people guilty of an actual criminal offence although even in that case although it would be nice if they owened up to it lying would not surprise me in the slightest. Sorry I don't see the need for human beings to be honest in situations where they may be killed, tortured or imprisoned if they are honest.

To give an example. Someone accused of having protestant beliefs during the reign of Mary I, who denies under oath having those beliefs even though he has them. Of course he could courageously own up and get if he is lucky imprisoned in a vile prison or if unlucky he could be burnt alive. Lying to save ones skin under the circumstances is entirely understandable. It is the presecutors not the liars here who have truly entered a moral quagmire.

As for your comment of hiding a Jew and lying about it. Aside from the fact that hiding a Jew was a criminal act, severly punished by at best imprisonment and at worst by death it entailed by its very nature deception i.e., lying. Afterall a hidden person meant getting food for them, getting everyone to agree not to mention anything about this person etc. As for your comment about how can we be sure? Are you serious. We have a lie designed to save someone has against lying to a bunch of thugs looking for victims to brutalize. There is no comparison or equality whatsoever of a moral issue. We can be absolutely sure that lying is less bad. After all what is a lie compared to gassing a innocent person, or if they are "lucky" subjecting them to what amounts to bestial brutality. We know what happenned to those Jews who were hidden who got caught, if they wern't murdered right away they were sent to bestial camps or gassed. Compared to this lying to the Nazi is a trivial moral issue. Of course those Nazis and others who searched for Jews were accessaries to murder and if the victim survived they were accessories to deeply inhuman degrading torture and abuse. Their moral dilemna is obviously many orders of magnitude greater. So sorry in this case we can be very sure.

As for potentially doing more harm. Well one could argue that potentially doing anything could do more harm than good. I'm rather leery of doing this sort of cost benifit analysis in the situation of hiding a innocent person from patently unjust treatment including wrongful death. Frankly I doubt the people involved try anything like that. They see an innocent person in need and do what is required to save them.

I could also point out that killing in self defense or to save another person's life is allowed by law. If that is the case I see no problem in lying to save someone from wrongful punishment.

 

[Frank Merton]

Really? My Mother and Father have been begging off for years going to various Social engagements for years with assorted "white lies", so have friends of mine and other families. its never ended badly.

I would like to know by what vast empirical research you have done to indicate that for the vast majority of the human race the great majority of time it has always ended badly.

As a "critical thinker" you should know better to post unsubstantiated and unsubstantiatable claims. I think your family probably has a stinking reputation if they are as bad about social engagements as you say. I suspect you have a similar reputation.

That people overlook such rudeness is to their credit; that your family does it is not.

 

[Frank Merton]

Self preservation is a basic human drive. I'm not going to get upset over someone lying to avoid death, torture or imprisonment. . .
I could also point out that killing in self defense or to save another person's life is allowed by law. If that is the case I see no problem in lying to save someone from wrongful punishment.

In short, you think we have the right to choose when we will follow a moral path and when not to, and you use extreme examples to justify this.

It amazes me, for a "critical thinker," that you don't see the fallacies in your thinking.

Off a bit on a tangent, it occurs to me that Westerners are too influenced by Christian dogma about sin. They have been taught that all sin is equally abhorrent to a perfect divinity, and even though they dismiss that as hogwash, they still think that way.

Many Asians have an understanding of the concept of karma, and that different "amounts" of good or bad karma (don't take my use of this word mystically -- translate it as "merit" if you must) accompany different acts. Therefore it is perfectly possible to have situations where the bad karma of an act is outweighed by the good karma, even though they come from different aspects of the act.

In short, lying is bad; no lie is good. However, murder tends to be worse. Even gossip is worse, when nothing is repeated except truth.

 

[Kaylee]

Interesting Frank. I am curious about the cultural aspects that affects our opinions about lying. I wanted to bring it up before but I hesitated because its the kind of conversation that can quickly degenerate into a nonsense one filled only with prejudice. But, I'm still really curious so I'll give it a try.

I'm fairly certain that all cultures state that lying is "wrong". However, I suspect that the reasons behind why its thought to be wrong may vary and this probably effects people's actions.

IMHO, this is a weakness of Bok's book -- the only cultural aspect she explores throughly are the Western ones. The only religions whose stance she explores on lies is the Christian one, although she also mentions a few Jewish sources.

To sum up Christianity's position on lies -- the reason that lying is wrong is because God considers it to be a sin and any lies told for whatever reason can jeopardize your soul even after death. Carrying this idea forward in a strict interpretation -- this is a matter between each individual and God, and that is why people should not lie to each other even if they are strangers or even enemies. This also explains why some Christian philosophers said that one should not even lie to a murderer demanding to know where his intended victim is.

Well, what if the underlying reason for not telling lies is a different one coming from a different culture?

For example, in Confucius Philosophy, I've read that the basis of society is relationships and how people know each other and what is expected from each group. Confuciusm, if my understanding is correct, endorses a highly authoritarian and class orientated way of life.

Under that understanding it seems that relationships are paramount and are far more important than in societies not influenced by Confucius. As a result, perhaps its possible that scenarios can come up where one person (non-Confucius background) may think I'm being lied to and another person thinks I don't know this person, my family doesn't know his family and I don't owe him any accurate information and I have an obligation to my family/business partners/commuity/etc. and I have to make sure they're taken care of.

I wish Wolfman was still a member here because I would like to get his take on it. IIRC, Wolfman was a Canadian that had moved to China and worked as a consultant to Western Businesses interested in doing business in China.

He wrote a few posts where he gave his opinion on how China was a society still heavily influenced by Confucius Philosophy and how that in turn influenced politics, business and relationships even today.

From one of his posts:

Now, I've been doing business in China for some 14 years now, and have assisted numerous companies in securing Chinese suppliers. In every instance, I advised the foreign companies to take an extended period of time to check out the Chinese suppliers -- to build relationships with them, to become familiar with their reputation and practices, to begin with smaller 'test' orders before proceeding to larger orders, etc.

You see, people seem to assume that doing business in China is like doing business back home: you find a supplier, negotiate a contract, sign the contract, then your job is done. ANYONE who does business in China in this manner is just begging for trouble. I have spent years as a cross-cultural consultant, and far, far too many foreigners underestimate or entirely ignore the importance of cultural differences in doing business.

So here's a primer, for anyone interested: number one most important rule in doing business in China is to understand the importance of relationships, and in understanding how Chinese view responsibility. In China, the Confucian ethic still reigns supreme: thus, you have the greatest responsibility to your government first; then to your immediate family (parents/grandparents, siblings, children, etc.); then to your immediate community (the town you live in, friends, etc.); and continuing in ever-increasing circles (your province, your country, etc.).

Now, if you're not part of the immediate "community" surrounding me (either family, or friend), then I have little responsibility towards you at all. I can lie to you, cheat you, etc., and there is no loss of face. The idea of the Golden Rule, "Do unto others as you'd have them do unto you", is foreign to this culture. Chinese will go to exceptional lengths to avoid damaging a relationship with someone who is within their immediate circle of relationships/responsibilities; but will feel no guilt whatsoever at robbing anyone else blind.

An example, to illustrate: when I first came to China, and I was learning Chinese, there was a small shop just outside of my university's main gate where I often went to buy snacks/drinks, and where I liked to practice my Chinese with the shopkeeper (who was a guy about the same age as me). For over a year this went on and on, slowly building a relationship with this guy. After a year, we became 'friends', and he invited me to go to his home to meet his family and have dinner with them.

After dinner, we were sitting around singing karaoke on their home karaoke machine, when he suddenly pulled out his wallet, and handed me a wad of cash. I was stymied, until he explained that for the past year, he'd been systematically over-charging me for things I bought in his shop. Now, so long as we were not "friends", he had felt no guilt whatsoever about doing this; but once be became friends, he felt an immediate obligation to correct this, despite the fact that I would have remained unaware of it had he not told me.

Negotiating a contract, or doing business in general, is almost pointless if you aren't going to take the time to first build relationships with the Chinese people you are working with. For me, I wouldn't trust the most complete, thorough contract ever written, if I don't have a relationship with the person I'm doing business with first; conversely, if I have a strong relationship with them already, I wouldn't even see a need to have a contract.

Note that Wolfman said that the notion of the Golden Rule was foreign to Chinese culture but according to Wiki, Confucius came up with an early version of the Golden Rule:

He expressed the well-known principle, "Do not do to others what you do not want done to yourself", one of the earlier versions of the Golden Rule.

Also, I think Confucius believed that loyalty to family was more important than loyalty to the government.

Confucius said that filial piety consisted of obedience to, respect for, and loyalty to one's parents. A man would be truly filial if he did not stray from his father's occupation and behavior for several years after his father's death: "When his father is alive, you observe a man's intentions. It is when the father is dead that you observe the man's actions. If for three years he makes no change from the ways of his father, he may be called filial." (1:11, Analects).

Filial piety was so important, in fact, that Confucius felt that it should be considered more important than the law. He told the Duke of She that "Fathers cover up for their sons and sons cover up for their fathers. Uprightness is to be found in this" (13:18, Analects).

So, while I'm the first to say that Wolfman knew how to write a really good post -- I'm not sure that what he had to say was always accurate.

After all, Western Society certainly has its share of corrupt businesses and politicians!

But I don't doubt that Wolfman was relaying his impressions as he saw them based on his experience.

Here's some more posts by Wolfman on the subject

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=6639292#post6639292
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=3719993#post3719993

If anyone can think of another philosophical or cultural basis that can influence our ideas about lying and how we weigh the importance of not lying against other ethics please discuss.

 

[Pacal]

In short, you think we have the right to choose when we will follow a moral path and when not to, and you use extreme examples to justify this.

It amazes me, for a "critical thinker," that you don't see the fallacies in your thinking.

Off a bit on a tangent, it occurs to me that Westerners are too influenced by Christian dogma about sin. They have been taught that all sin is equally abhorrent to a perfect divinity, and even though they dismiss that as hogwash, they still think that way.

Many Asians have an understanding of the concept of karma, and that different "amounts" of good or bad karma (don't take my use of this word mystically -- translate it as "merit" if you must) accompany different acts. Therefore it is perfectly possible to have situations where the bad karma of an act is outweighed by the good karma, even though they come from different aspects of the act.

In short, lying is bad; no lie is good. However, murder tends to be worse. Even gossip is worse, when nothing is repeated except truth.

It amazes me that you don't recognize the basic inhumanity of your position, but then your last two paragraphs indicate you agree with my position, a bit of a logical fallacy there I think. Oh and please stop mind reading. Your fantasies are amusing along with your fear of human choice.

 

[Pacal]

Originally Posted by Pacal
Really? My Mother and Father have been begging off for years going to various Social engagements for years with assorted "white lies", so have friends of mine and other families. its never ended badly.

I would like to know by what vast empirical research you have done to indicate that for the vast majority of the human race the great majority of time it has always ended badly.

As a "critical thinker" you should know better to post unsubstantiated and unsubstantiatable claims. I think your family probably has a stinking reputation if they are as bad about social engagements as you say. I suspect you have a similar reputation.

That people overlook such rudeness is to their credit; that your family does it is not.

My you do enjoy feeling superior to others don't you.

My comment was occassioned by your totally unsubstatiated claim that such social lying, which is incrediably common always ends badly. You simply asserted that piece of utter nonsense.

Please fantasize about my families "stinking reputation". My parents have an excellant reputation and lots of friends etc. As for overlooking it. Well of course others overlook it. Why? Because they do the same thing. God! are you that naive? Please continue to live in the rarified realm of Plato's ideal forms.

As for me you can suspect all you want I actually have a reputation for being rather blunt.

I can only assume that you are incredibly ignorant or self blinded to the vast amount of social lying that goes on.

The fact that you stoop to such crap says a awful lot about you.

P.S. THe Critical Thinker tag is not my choice.