The Truth About Lying

[jackofallgeeks]

So I came into work this morning and found This article about lying. Itstarts out by saying that some 60% of Americans claim that lying is never justified, and that 66% of those same Americans said it was sometimes alright to lie (presumably they had sepparate questions or something, like specific cases or such). It goes on to make a few claims from moral philosophers (apparently getting a PhD in philosophy makes you eligable to be interviewed for web articles), such as how "to lie or not to lie" isn't a simple question, that it can sometimes be a moral duty to lie, and that honesty sometimes conflicts with other values.

For my part, I'm not so sure. I think honesty is always* the best policy and that there's always an honest way to affect the same outcome as a lie, without having to perjure oneself. Of course, I agree that it's stickier than a simple black-and-white, especially depending on how you define lying. Is omission a lie? Does it matter how much (or how little) you omit? If you call out of work saying you can't come in because you're not feeling well, is that a lie if you mean 'I need a break from work' and not 'the doctor says it's viral'?

Down in the article, they mention lying to protect feelings, or honesty versus the 'value' of maintaining a happy relationship. I'm not sure I think either of those are valid. Maybe it's a matter of how much weight these sorts of things get -- and maybe I'm just a heartless bastard. Feelings get hurt, it's a fact of life. There's no one out there whose feelings have never been hurt, and I'm not sure it's even possible (or necessarily healthy) to have such a life. So I don't feel that protecting someone's feelings is justification for lying. And I snear at the thought of lying to maintain a 'happy' relationship. If you're relationship is insulated from reality by a layer of lies, how valis *is* that relationship, really?

There was a bit that made me pause in my determination, though: lying as a moral duty, and lying to protect someone from harm. At first glance, I'd say both are ridiculous and unfounded, and I'd be hard pressed to say which was more absurd. But when I think about it, I recall Nazi Germany, and the families who hid jews from the authorities. Is there a way to keep someone hidden from dire harm like that without lying? There are plenty of ways to let the cops come to their own conclusions about whether you're hiding anyone without saying, "there are no jews here," but that's a pretty fuzzy line. If you knowingly let someone conclude incorrectly, how different is that from lying? And this isn't like protecting feelings; this isn't a hurt that can be inflicted and recovered from. And it's not the case that you can say, "there are jews here, but I can not let you take them." *Are* you morally obligated to lie in such circumstances?

This is why I like characters in movies like Bender (The Breakfast Club) and Jack Sparrow (you know him) -- they never lie. Everything they say (so far as I've been able to find) is true. Most of the time, they are assumed to be lying, or they're simply disregarded, but they tell the truth. I admire that.

Comments

[dikaiosunh.livejournal.com]

Just FYI, though they give a brief swipe at Kant, the only person they actually quote (that I saw) on moral philosophers is Randy Cohen, who is a columnist for the NYT and does not have a Ph.D. in Philosophy.

I think you're too hard on "white lies," (though I think that we tend to overuse them). I don't think it invalidates a personal relationship to recognize that most of us have inner mental lives subject to all sorts of weird vagaries and storms and that it's not always worth hashing every little bit of that out. E.g., if I thought my wife was really, in general, annoying (or had some annoying habit), that should probably be talked over. If she does something that, on one specific occasion, rubs me the wrong way, it's probably not worth bringing up - even if she asks directly. Most of the time, it's easy and better to deal with such situations with omissions, silences, etc. - but, as Camus says, everyone who is loved has had the experience of asking what someone is thinking about and being told "nothing." And, in general, I think there's a whiff of 'clean hands' syndrome about preferring *not technically lying* but omitting (e.g.) in an intentionally deceptive fashion to asserting an untruth. I don't see a clear reason why one is morally preferable to the other (nor, I think, would Kant - for him, the evil of lying is making another an instrument of your will by manipulating them into action through the generation of false beliefs).

The more extreme cases are, I sometimes think, a bit too contrived. But I also would worry about maintaing too much scruple in those. There may be some way of deflecting the Nazis at the door with a creative non-lie - but, you know what? If I'm hiding Jews, I'm not going to play cute with the Nazis and hope I can come up with something really creative when a straighforward lie will get the job done.

Of course, I'm a damn dirty consequentialist, so there's that.

[laurelei28.livejournal.com]

There were lots of ways of deflecting Nazi's with the truth even. One story tells of a young girl who answered the door and told the Nazi's that the Jews were "Under the table" . They did not believe her, but if they had looked, that's where the trap door was. So she, like Bender from The Breakfast Club and Captain Jack Sparrow, told the truth and was not believed.

In any case, personally, I wonder a lot about lies. About when it is OK. I used to very very strongly believe that the truth was always the best idea. Now, I'm not so sure. Frankly, I guess I appreciate the fact that I am privy to certain information. It is no business of yours to know what I truly think of you, for example. Even if you directly ask... It is in fact my right to omit that information, if I choose.

[dikaiosunh.livejournal.com]

Fair enough - I'm not saying that I would DEFINITELY lie to the Nazis, or even that I don't consider both saving your hidden Jews AND telling the truth wouldn't be better than saving them by lying. All I mean is that I worry about placing too high a premium on telling the truth in such cases. The story is a neat one, and a creative use of truth - but if the Nazis come to my door and say "Any Jews in here?" I think the reasonable thing to do in most situations like that is to just say "No" (at least if you think you'll be believed) than to try to get creative.

Incidentally, it might even have a weird Kantian (though not Kant-endorsed) effect. Kant's problem with lying (to caricature) was that, in a world of liars, no one would be believed, defeating the purpose of lying. In a world of lying-to-the-Nazis, the Nazis wouldn't go away just because you told them there were no Jews at home (since they wouldn't believe you), but they'd have to expend a massive amount of time and energy searching everywhere (because they can't ask), which would be good in itself...

[laurelei28.livejournal.com]

So in a world of liars, which some might say we are currently in, truth-tellers are not believed. Then doesn't it also stand to reason that there is no necessity for truth telling? Since you would figure that everyone who tells the truth is a percieved liar, then why not just lie anyways. Sort of like my old ideas about internet personas. I assume that since everyone has the oppertunity to lie about themselves online, that they do. There is a real limited means in which I can verify truth in what is told to me, so I assume everyone is a liar. If everyone online is a liar, then there is absolutely no reason for me to be honest about myself online either.

The cycle perpetuates. So do we then blame the liars for ruining it for the rest of us, or the truth tellers for going against the grain?

And as for the Nazis, or any other such evil, I suppose silence is best. Because they wouldn't believe me anyway.

[jackofallgeeks.livejournal.com]

assume that since everyone has the oppertunity to lie about themselves online, that they do.

-smirk- It could be argued that this says more about you than it says about anything else...

[laurelei28.livejournal.com]

it could be, but those who know me, know that I don't lie.

[jackofallgeeks.livejournal.com]

I wasn't saying otherwise, but you expect the worst in people -- if they can lie, they probably are. That's an interesting statement to make.

[laurelei28.livejournal.com]

Only online. Not in a face to face context. I think it stems from a history of extreme gulibility and being too trusting.

[jackofallgeeks.livejournal.com]

It is no business of yours to know what I truly think of you, for example.

This is a good example, I think, of where honesty is not equal to full-disclosure. "I don't want to talk about it," "I'd rather not say," and "that's none bof your buisness" are all truths, and allow you to maintain your... OK, my CS-brain isn't working, and all I can come up with is "flow of information." I should probably go eat something, i'm really starting to break down now...

[jackofallgeeks.livejournal.com]

-laughs- Well, I would expect Kant didn't have a PhD, either, unless I'm way off on the historic legacy of accademic degrees or the time Kant was doing his thing. Either of which is possible, I guess. Really, I was just taking a cheap shot at my philosophy buddies. Like you. :p
(To be fair, Phlosophy is what I would have done all else being equal. So I admire your lot in life.)

I don't think i'm too hard on white lies, but I think I am possibly too idealistic on how well people can accept the truth. You say that if your wife does one thing that rubs you the wrong way once, there's probably no reason in bringing it up, and I think I'd agree. This touches on my idea of honesty not being equivalent to full-disclosure. But if she asks you point-blank...? Well, first we must assume for this scenario that a omission is as bad an untruth, something I don't think I believe. But let's say when asked, you omit it (or maybe out-right lie, I guess that's not unplausible). Why? The truth is that one time, on one occation, it rubed you the wrong way. What motivation do you have for not saying something so simple? Your motivation is the assumption that she won't trust you -- that instead of taking your statements at face value, she's going to read into them and take things further than they really are. The only reason you have to lie is that assumption that the truth won't be accepted.

And I think that generalizes. At least somewhat. It's possible that the only real motivation the honest man has to lie is the assumption that the truth will not be accepted. When I lie about being sick to get out of work, it's because burn-out isn't accepted as suitable for absence. That sort of thing. "Does this make me look fat?" can be honestly answered with "dear, you look fine," but that truth isn't going to be accepted. All things being equal, if the dress really did make her look fat, what favor are you doing her by not suggesting something else might be better?

It's notable here, also, that honesty need not be without tact. You can be honest without being cruel, though it might take a little bit more work at times, and that extra effort can come accross as insincerety.

I'm meandering now...