The Truth About Lying
Jul. 13th, 2006 08:32 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
jackofallgeeksSo 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.
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.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2006-07-14 01:23 am (UTC)(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...