When is Lying Justified?

[Frank Merton]

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.

I think the Christian/Muslim/Jewish view is a little more sophisticated than just that lying is forbidden by God. That view leads to the Socratic quandary of whether lying is wrong because God condemns it or God condemns it because it is wrong. Instead they say that lying is a break from perfection, and God is 'infinitely' perfect (I tick that because in that context I would be hard pressed to define 'infinitely.') Just as any other sin is a break from perfection, infinitely so when compared to God's perfection, that he has really little choice but to condemn any such offender to infinite punishment.

The Buddhist of course does not perceive the Buddha as a law-giver, nor really even as a law-discoverer. He thinks we already know what we should do (it's more subtle than that --some people have better understanding of what we should do than others -- but leave it there). Lying is wrong because it is wrong. It is, as with the Christian view, an imperfection. The difference I pointed out is that in the Buddhist view gods, if they exist at all, are just as subject to the rules as we are, and capable of breaking them -- of being less than perfect. There is no infinite perfection in this view.

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. Confucianism, if my understanding is correct, endorses a highly authoritarian and class orientated way of life.

Paternalistic is a better word than "authoritarian." The story you go on to tell about trust and friendship could have happened anywhere. There are lots of people everywhere who feel it is wrong to screw a friend but have no such qualms about strangers. I would very much endorse the advice he provides to get to know Chinese suppliers well -- they can be masters of misdirection and outright flim-flam.

 

[Frank Merton]

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.

As I see it, where we disagree is that you say there are situations where lying is good: I think that lies, by their very nature, are always wrong.

Where you perceive my "inhumanity" comes from your Christian-influenced thinking -- that something that is wrong is "sin," infinitely wrong. Right and wrong are, to me, quantitative properties, measured by their karma, not inherent properties. Things can be "a little wrong" or "a lot wrong," just as cities can be nearby or far away. With right and wrong the numbers may be more difficult to assign, and the comparisons consequently more subtle, but there are no absolutes (unless you believe in an omnipotent God that by his nature creates these absolutes, and I don't).

 

[The Man]

As I see it, where we disagree is that you say there are situations where lying is good: I think that lies, by their very nature, are always wrong.

Where you perceive my "inhumanity" comes from your Christian-influenced thinking -- that something that is wrong is "sin," infinitely wrong. Right and wrong are, to me, quantitative properties, measured by their karma, not inherent properties. Things can be "a little wrong" or "a lot wrong," just as cities can be nearby or far away. With right and wrong the numbers may be more difficult to assign, and the comparisons consequently more subtle, but there are no absolutes (unless you believe in an omnipotent God that by his nature creates these absolutes, and I don't).

So which is it “Right and wrong are, to me, quantitative properties, measured by their karma, not inherent properties.” or “I think that lies, by their very nature, are always wrong”? One assertion claims you do not believe that right and wrong are inherent properties and the other asserts that you believe lies have the inherent property of always being wrong, which would also be an absolute claim but you then say “there are no absolutes”.

 

[epix]

So which is it “Right and wrong are, to me, quantitative properties, measured by their karma, not inherent properties.” or “I think that lies, by their very nature, are always wrong”? One assertion claims you do not believe that right and wrong are inherent properties and the other asserts that you believe lies have the inherent property of always being wrong, which would also be an absolute claim but you then say “there are no absolutes”.

Lying is essential in the case when you face an idiot who can't stand the truth one way or the other. A statement labeled "lie" is trailing morals and sometimes smells of legal papers, and so it's better "to provide someone with asymmetric information" instead, especially when it involves a few million of other people's money. Lols.

 

[Frank Merton]

You are blinded by your Western way of looking at it; go back and read some of the earlier posts.

 

[Frank Merton]

Lying is essential in the case when you face an idiot who can't stand the truth one way or the other. A statement labeled "lie" is trailing morals and sometimes smells of legal papers, and so it's better "to provide someone with asymmetric information" instead, especially when it involves a few million of other people's money. Lols.

It's a lot easier on the soul to convince yourself what you want to do is right than to do it anyway knowing what you do is wrong. It is known as self-deception.

 

[The Man]

Since you apparently missed my question here it is again.

So which is it “Right and wrong are, to me, quantitative properties, measured by their karma, not inherent properties.” or “I think that lies, by their very nature, are always wrong”? One assertion claims you do not believe that right and wrong are inherent properties and the other asserts that you believe lies have the inherent property of always being wrong, which would also be an absolute claim but you then say “there are no absolutes”.

 

[The Man]

It's a lot easier on the soul to convince yourself what you want to do is right than to do it anyway knowing what you do is wrong. It is known as self-deception.

Hardly what one could consider heavy work since you apparently just know “what you do is wrong” “because it is wrong”, such a burden for your soul, not to mention having to muster up all that self deception.

Don’t sprain your soul or strain your brain.

 

[Mr. Scott]

It's a lot easier on the soul to convince yourself what you want to do is right than to do it anyway knowing what you do is wrong. It is known as self-deception.

The original question, "when is lying justified?" may not be the same as "when is lying right, or wrong?" Maybe it can be wrong to tell a nevertheless justifiable lie.

Lying is certainly justified when protecting one's self from unjust harm.

I suppose disinformation in wartime, to mislead the enemy, is justified -- maybe not. That's a tough one.

Lying to protect the feelings of loved ones? A gray area for sure.

Lying to prevent overreactions? Probably justified (e.g. telling a loved one their pants do not make them look fat.)

Personally I think lying is seldom justified, as it is a breach of the social contract. If you don't believe in a social contract...

How about in a game (akin to wartime), when you intentionally look like you are doing one thing, and then do something different. I recall this scene from "Hope and Glory" (1987) re. a father teaching his son Cricket strategy:

CLIVE
Now, the googly looks like a leg
break, but it's really an off
break. Got it? Like this.

BILL
It's like telling fibs.

CLIVE
That's it. When you tell a lie,
you hope to get away with it.
When someone else does, you want
to find them out. A good batsman
will spot a googly. A good bowler
will hide it. Always remember
that, son.

 

[Frank Merton]

I tend to be interested in serious discussion, not arguments. If you have something positive to say, I would love to respond.

 

[Frank Merton]

The original question, "when is lying justified?" may not be the same as "when is lying right, or wrong?" Maybe it can be wrong to tell a nevertheless justifiable lie.

We all lie. Whether or not the lie is justified is a difficult question, and one we rarely are honest with ourselves about, since the exercise generally involves only justifies doing as we wish to do.

There are also statements that take the formal form of a lie (declarative statement of something that isn't true) but really aren't lies (they are social fictions, hyperbole, metaphors, and so on -- statements that contain technical falsehoods but do not deceive. Whether one calls these "lies" or not is a definitional matter: it remains that they are not wrong the way deceptive lies are wrong.

Then there are lies where the wrongness of the lie is outweighed by the wrongness of whatever consequences follow from not lying -- say someone is put in danger of harm. This is the "justification" most people look for. I find this approach problematic. It is easy enough to invent scenarios of this sort; I doubt that most of us ever really have a serious one in real life. If we do, we should, at a minimum, be careful before we rationalize lying.

Lying is certainly justified when protecting one's self from unjust harm.

It may be justified; I would not agree that it is "certainly" justified.

I suppose disinformation in wartime, to mislead the enemy, is justified -- maybe not. That's a tough one.

Yes, it is tough -- any argument that boils down to, "for the greater good" is hairy indeed. Politicians live on that loophole.

Lying to protect the feelings of loved ones? A gray area for sure.

My wife and my children don't need my lies to protect their feelings; our relationship is different. There are times when I feel it necessary to lie to people with whom I don't have a trusting relationship, but building the trust as soon as possible seems a better approach.

Personally I think lying is seldom justified, as it is a breach of the social contract. If you don't believe in a social contract...

The social contract as a reason for not lying is a good approach. We need the ability to trust, and when it is missing, as is the case with most business relationships, we need a heavy burden of law and litigation and so on, that we would all be much better off if only people could be depended on to tell the truth.

 

[The Man]

Since you apparently missed my question here it is again.

So which is it “Right and wrong are, to me, quantitative properties, measured by their karma, not inherent properties.” or “I think that lies, by their very nature, are always wrong”? One assertion claims you do not believe that right and wrong are inherent properties and the other asserts that you believe lies have the inherent property of always being wrong, which would also be an absolute claim but you then say “there are no absolutes”.

 

[Belz...]

My personal beliefs are that lying is justified only when a more important principle would be jeopardized by being truthful. To me that means when someone's life or health would be put at risk. Otherwise I see no reason.

 

[Mr. Scott]

My personal beliefs are that lying is justified only when a more important principle would be jeopardized by being truthful. To me that means when someone's life or health would be put at risk. Otherwise I see no reason.

Yes, a hierarchy of principles like Asimov's 3 robot laws!

<<
1) A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.
2) A robot must obey orders given it by human beings except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.
3) A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law.
>>

So, robots may either lie all they want unless they conflict with 1...3, or perhaps never lie unless it conflicts with 1..3 (I'd lean towards the latter).

 

[sphenisc]

Yes, a hierarchy of principles like Asimov's 3 robot laws!

<<
1) A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.
2) A robot must obey orders given it by human beings except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.
3) A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law.
>>

So, robots may either lie all they want unless they conflict with 1...3, or perhaps never lie unless it conflicts with 1..3 (I'd lean towards the latter).

Liar!^WP

 

[The Man]

Yes, a hierarchy of principles like Asimov's 3 robot laws!

<<
1) A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.
2) A robot must obey orders given it by human beings except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.
3) A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law.
>>

So, robots may either lie all they want unless they conflict with 1...3, or perhaps never lie unless it conflicts with 1..3 (I'd lean towards the latter).

Such things seem appealing on their face but once you get into the nuts and bolts logic of it, a lie may be the most efficient way of keeping human beings from coming to harm, particularly though inaction. So even if instructed not to lie by a human such a hierarchy of principles and the requirement of protective action might necessitate lies. That’s what got HAL (from 2001 a Space Odyssey) in trouble, lying (primarily to himself) due to a hierarchy of principles (the mission and its secrecy over the crew) and thus made the crew expendable. That we can perceive some of the possible defects in such hierarchies (and thus realize their lack of applicability in some circumstances) is one of the advantages of being human and not robots. Another is that we don’t have to take things, even lies, as seriously as might be required by some given hierarchy. As such we can experiment gaining both experience and knowledge. Deception and avoiding being deceived are fundamentally evolutionary traits as survival tools and it is unlikely that either will go away.

 

[Mr. Scott]

Liar!^WP

omg I just read wiki's summary of this story and, wow, so germane!

I wonder if a good indicator of the achievement of true artificial intelligence (consciousness?) would be a computer that would invent justification to lie to its creators (eg, "no, I didn't eat that apple")

Once a robot is able to understand and try to avoid hurting human's feelings ... fasten your seat belts, gentlemen.

 

[The Man]

omg I just read wiki's summary of this story and, wow, so germane!

I wonder if a good indicator of the achievement of true artificial intelligence (consciousness?) would be a computer that would invent justification to lie to its creators (eg, "no, I didn't eat that apple")

Nope, a simple hierarchy of principles can necessitate that, as mentioned before.

Once a robot is able to understand and try to avoid hurting human's feelings ... fasten your seat belts, gentlemen.

It is when a robot can violate said hierarchy of principles, particularly for just its own survival, the very last regard in those three laws, that one really needs to question their robotic seats and seatbelts as they should any human.

 

[Polarize]

It's only justifiable by you. I get the impression that by asking people whats justifiable, you are looking to others to dictate how you should behave. In the end, you are the one who decides how to behave whether people like it or not.

 

[Alex333]

Yeah, but we only do it to be sociable.