Lies.

When is a lie okay to tell? Me and a friend on facebook have a rather odd discussion. When is a lie okay to tell? Is it ever okay to tell? Does one lie, even if it's meant to help someone, still bad? Should you always tell the truth?


I, personally, think that sometimes it is okay to lie, and sometimes you keep lying in order to help someone. Take, for example, a girlfriend and a boyfriend. They break up, and then, the significant other comes back. "Do you still love me?" It's okay to lie, to say no, if you do- because it's better for them, right? What about some other things. A person asks about something personal, and you don't need them to know, don't want them to know, don't want to change their perception of what they have of you, be it good or bad, indifferent, as you as a strong person, a hero..


Is it okay to lie?

What do you think? And, if you think it is, what sort of situations is it okay to lie in?

Is it ever okay to tell a lie? Well, I think to answer that some other questions have to be answered first. Is truth a relative thing or absolute? Are morals relative or are they absolute?

And here's the answer that I use.

If truth is a relative thing, then it's subject to change and indeed does change. To what can a relative declaration change to, though? An absolute declaration (Maybe this is a false dilemma)? If truth is absolute, then it doesn't change. It's at one solid, objective value.

And morals? These look like they're relative. Evidently, individuals operate on personal systems of morality. What's right to one person may be wrong to another. It makes you wonder, though. If one person decides that it's right for them to have another's pencil, these two moral systems come at odds, so who's right and who isn't?

Forgive me for subscribing to the adhominem fallacy, but it seems a tad absurd to propose a system of morals to be right if one doesn't accept it when its enforced upon them. That said, I'm of the train of thought that says lying under every possible circumstance is wrong. Indeed the repercussions for being honest may be steep, but there's an old saying I find to be self evident.

"Truth divides."

What about the sort of lies that parents tell? "The Tooth fairy is real, you can be anything in the world you want to be," Ectera? Is that, so wrong? As a child who grew up in a home who didn't get lied to- who didn't get told the whole, "Mommy and daddy are just fighitng, we'll get over it", I woulda loved the lies- so when does a lie stop being good, and start being hurtful?

I've always been told the truth by my parents, they never did the 'tooth fairy' or 'Santa Claus coming in the chimney deal.
I think I prefer it that way.
It means I know I can trust what they say.
If they really were going to break up, but told their child they were just having a small fight, wouldn't that just hurt the child later, when they actually broke up?
When is it good to tell a lie?
More importantly, is it ever good to tell a lie?
It's only my opinion, but my opinion is never.
Even if it never hurts another, lying usually hurts you.

In my opinion, morality should be based upon real-life consequences. Lying is only bad if the consequences of said lie are bad. Of course it's more nuanced than that, but I think that's the basics of it.

Saken raises a good point -- we "white lie" in society all the time, and no one seems to really care. If a friend walks up to you and asks you how you are doing, and you respond "I'm fine" when you really feel like shit, isn't that lying?

Countless more thought experiments about lying could be made. To be honest, I don't think that people who say that lying is always bad have really thought it through.

Alasund De'astio wrote:I've always been told the truth by my parents, they never did the 'tooth fairy' or 'Santa Claus coming in the chimney deal.
I think I prefer it that way.
It means I know I can trust what they say.

Ah, but think about this: is it really a good thing to know that you can always trust what your parents say?

At first you may be thinking "Yes, of course", but hear me out. I think that telling kids about Santa Clause and other such mythical creatures is an easy and important way to get them to think for themselves; it helps them develop critical thinking skills, and it shows them that their parents aren't always right and the most reliable way to figure out the truth is to think for themselves.

If they really were going to break up, but told their child they were just having a small fight, wouldn't that just hurt the child later, when they actually broke up?

Possibly, but that's a bad example. It's pretty clear that you need to sugarcoat the truth or even flat-out lie sometimes to children, because, quite simply, they can't handle the harsh reality of life.

When is it good to tell a lie?
More importantly, is it ever good to tell a lie?
It's only my opinion, but my opinion is never.
Even if it never hurts another, lying usually hurts you.

Really? I know this is cliche, but what some Nazis came knocking on your door, asking you if you were hiding Jews when you were? Lying can be good sometimes, even in much more practical situations than that.

Psyche wrote:And morals? These look like they're relative. Evidently, individuals operate on personal systems of morality. What's right to one person may be wrong to another. It makes you wonder, though. If one person decides that it's right for them to have another's pencil, these two moral systems come at odds, so who's right and who isn't?

The one who's "right" is the one who can keep the pencil.

epicfaceofwin wrote:Ah, but think about this: is it really a good thing to know that you can always trust what your parents say?

At first you may be thinking "Yes, of course", but hear me out. I think that telling kids about Santa Clause and other such mythical creatures is an easy and important way to get them to think for themselves; it helps them develop critical thinking skills, and it shows them that their parents aren't always right and the most reliable way to figure out the truth is to think for themselves.

And yet, I think for myself perfectly well, as do my siblings, and yet we never got 'Santa Claused'.
All my parents did? Encouraged self sufficiancy, and more importantly, freely admitted they weren't always right.

epicfaceofwin wrote:Possibly, but that's a bad example. It's pretty clear that you need to sugarcoat the truth or even flat-out lie sometimes to children, because, quite simply, they can't handle the harsh reality of life.

Maybe, and maybe not.
I'll admit that some subjects should wait until they're older, and maybe it would be necessary to lie to them.
But many lies are used by parents that are unnecessary.
Maybe it was a bad example, but it highlights my point about unnecessary lies.

epicfaceofwin wrote:Really? I know this is cliche, but what some Nazis came knocking on your door, asking you if you were hiding Jews when you were? Lying can be good sometimes, even in much more practical situations than that.

Well, actually you have a point here, I hadn't thought about it coming from that point of view...

And onto your above post, white lies are only a step away from black lies, it's so easy to swap from one to the other.
I prefer not to just auto response with 'I'm fine', I usually think about what I feel like, because if they are considered a friend, they have the right to know that you're feeling bad, or don't you even trust them that much, if so, why call them a friend?
I avoid white lies when at all possible.
You have indeed made a point that lying isn't always bad, but I still think it's used unnecessarily, and too often in today's society.

Lying is alright. It's getting caught that has negative consequences. So remember kids, always make sure your lies are credible!

I'm a Kantian Deontologist. As a result, I believe that lying is always wrong. Nevertheless, this doesn't mean I have never lied in my life. If I tried to tell you I have never lied, I would be lying. But hey, I think we can all agree that no one is perfect (regardless of what they believe.)

:EDIT: I considered mentioning the classical example of living in 1940s Poland when the Nazis knock at your door while you are hiding Jews, and decided against mentioning it. Then I scrolled up and saw epicfaceofwin's post. I will add that as a result of my Kantian beliefs, I believe I could not lie about hiding the Jews. (That doesn't prevent me from slamming the door in their face, however!)

Ylanne wrote:I'm a Kantian Deontologist. As a result, I believe that lying is always wrong. Nevertheless, this doesn't mean I have never lied in my life. If I tried to tell you I have never lied, I would be lying. But hey, I think we can all agree that no one is perfect (regardless of what they believe.)

:EDIT: I considered mentioning the classical example of living in 1940s Poland when the Nazis knock at your door while you are hiding Jews, and decided against mentioning it. Then I scrolled up and saw epicfaceofwin's post. I will add that as a result of my Kantian beliefs, I believe I could not lie about hiding the Jews. (That doesn't prevent me from slamming the door in their face, however!)

Where's the logic in that? What makes lying wrong, if not for the consequences of it? I can't understand that sort of thinking at all and quite honestly, it sounds pretty ridiculous.

Alasund De'astio wrote:And yet, I think for myself perfectly well, as do my siblings, and yet we never got 'Santa Claused'.
All my parents did? Encouraged self sufficiancy, and more importantly, freely admitted they weren't always right.

That's great -- I'm not saying that telling your kids about Santa Clause is necessary for them to develop critical thinking skills, but it can help, and it also can be a fun thing to believe in.

epicfaceofwin wrote:
Maybe, and maybe not.
I'll admit that some subjects should wait until they're older, and maybe it would be necessary to lie to them.
But many lies are used by parents that are unnecessary.
Maybe it was a bad example, but it highlights my point about unnecessary lies.

I agree that the truth should be told as often as reasonable, but I also accept that lying is sometimes necessary and can be beneficial.

epicfaceofwin wrote:
And onto your above post, white lies are only a step away from black lies, it's so easy to swap from one to the other.
I prefer not to just auto response with 'I'm fine', I usually think about what I feel like, because if they are considered a friend, they have the right to know that you're feeling bad, or don't you even trust them that much, if so, why call them a friend?
I avoid white lies when at all possible.
You have indeed made a point that lying isn't always bad, but I still think it's used unnecessarily, and too often in today's society.

Agreed.

Epicfaceofwin: Kantian deontology is duty or principle based ethics. In this ethical theory, there is an absolute morality. Today, the idea of an absolute morality is quite foreign in the age of Relativism, where truth and morality become subjective and relative. But if everything is true so long as someone believes it, then nothing can really be true. I happen to believe there is an absolute morality. (I don't claim to know everything about it, or to adhere perfectly to it, or to possess any higher understanding of it, but I believe absolute morality exists.) IF then, there are moral principles which are absolute for their own sake (called the categorical imperative), then it follows that those principles may not be excepted on a case by case basis. Does this make sense? I'm not trying to convince you of what I believe, but merely trying to explain it.

Ylanne wrote:Epicfaceofwin: Kantian deontology is duty or principle based ethics. In this ethical theory, there is an absolute morality. Today, the idea of an absolute morality is quite foreign in the age of Relativism, where truth and morality become subjective and relative. But if everything is true so long as someone believes it, then nothing can really be true. I happen to believe there is an absolute morality. (I don't claim to know everything about it, or to adhere perfectly to it, or to possess any higher understanding of it, but I believe absolute morality exists.) IF then, there are moral principles which are absolute for their own sake (called the categorical imperative), then it follows that those principles may not be excepted on a case by case basis. Does this make sense? I'm not trying to convince you of what I believe, but merely trying to explain it.

I'd just like to say that I'm not a subjective realist -- I believe in an objective reality. I am a subjective moralist, though.

Moral absolutism seems so...what's the word...simplistic, as well as impractical. Of course morality depends on the specific situation; ignoring all context and saying that a certain action is wrong no matter what is not realistic.

I have no problem with someone claiming that there is objective morality, although I would disagree with it; but absolute morality seems to be very primitive.

I disagree entirely, naturally. :) I have no problem with people claiming anything, either, although I would probably disagree with most people about most things. (You are talking to a Kantian who is a political liberal who is an Evangelical Christian who believes in evolution and the big bang. Go figure for making sense.) Impracticality is not the concern of ethics. If one were to base an ethical system of belief or a normative theory merely on whether or not an action or believe is practical, one would find a dangerously unhinged morality as a result. It is impractical to put others before yourself, yet most people (excepting ethical egoists -- ethical egoism is a theory of ethics) would generally support the idea that putting others first is a moral or virtuous thing to do whereas always acting selfishly is not. Simplistic? Perhaps. But is simplicity necessarily a bad thing? As a teacher, if a student can articulate an idea in a twenty page paper but another student can articulate the same idea in a five page paper, then the second student is the better writer. Complex is not always better; neither is simplicity always better.

It is past midnight here. I fear I am not making any sense.

I think you are making sense, Ylanne, if it helps.

As for the idea that 'white' lies are a step above black lies, I believe this to be not entirely true. Growing up as an older child, in a family of too many people, I've told more than my share of white lies - in order to help my younger siblings to learn and survive. If they get caught watching a scary movie, or peeking in on a scary movie, it's okay to assure them that the amount of blood and gore ' will not happen to them', at least for a little while (and yet, at the same time, it is not a lie - because if a parent is a good parent, the child won't be put into such a situation early on). Yet, at the same time, it's stealing a little bit of themselves.

This doesn't mean I think it's a good idea to 'lie' to a person- although, what about the lie of a surprise birthday party? "Oh, nothing is happening, nothing." Is it still a bad lie?

I mean, in this case, the consequences are good- right?

Ylanne wrote:I disagree entirely, naturally. :) I have no problem with people claiming anything, either, although I would probably disagree with most people about most things. (You are talking to a Kantian who is a political liberal who is an Evangelical Christian who believes in evolution and the big bang. Go figure for making sense.)

I wish more Christians were like you :)

Impracticality is not the concern of ethics.

But it is the concern of real life, and if ethical systems want to relate to real life, they need to be practical.

If one were to base an ethical system of belief or a normative theory merely on whether or not an action or believe is practical, one would find a dangerously unhinged morality as a result.

They shouldn't be based merely on what is practical, but practicality should be a factor.

It is impractical to put others before yourself,

Not always. Many times there are benefits to helping others.

yet most people (excepting ethical egoists -- ethical egoism is a theory of ethics) would generally support the idea that putting others first is a moral or virtuous thing to do whereas always acting selfishly is not.

I agree.

Simplistic? Perhaps. But is simplicity necessarily a bad thing? As a teacher, if a student can articulate an idea in a twenty page paper but another student can articulate the same idea in a five page paper, then the second student is the better writer. Complex is not always better; neither is simplicity always better.

I agree; however, in a theory that deals with how people should behave in the real world, I would think that it should have at least some nuance.

Hey! Presto! It's the afternoon! :D Just back from a meeting and heading out again tonight, but here I shall attempt to respond to what has been said since my last post at (goggles) -- past MIDNIGHT?! Well, that being said.

Here is something to ponder. The word morality derives from the Latin word for behavior. Morality's original meaning is "that which we do" whereas ethics, which derives from Greek ethos, has come to mean "that which we ought to do." Therefore, if what we strive for in ethics is to understand a develop a normative theory with real life applications we must first understand why ethics is what we ought to do (given that different folks will have different ideas about what we ought to do). If ethics is what we ought to do, it follows that any ethical standard is one to which we do not ascribe consistently. This is to say that any "ought" is a standard we aren't living up to. I think (and correct me please if I am wrong) that that can at least begin to address the concern that "it is the concern of real life, and if ethical systems want to relate to real life, they need to be practical" and that "[t]hey shouldn't be based merely on what is practical, but practicality should be a factor." Ethical systems, by the definition I have given, are inherently concerned with real life -- not merely relating to real life, but providing a framework within which real lives are lived and understood. Ethics is not supposed to be the work of theoreticians in stuffy classrooms pondering impossible hypotheticals and retrospective dilemmas with only some marginal application to actual life... while theory and hypothetical discussions are an excellent forum (an important one, even!) for ethical discussions, ethics is meant for the real world first and foremost.

Ylanne wrote:Hey! Presto! It's the afternoon! :D Just back from a meeting and heading out again tonight, but here I shall attempt to respond to what has been said since my last post at (goggles) -- past MIDNIGHT?! Well, that being said.

Here is something to ponder. The word morality derives from the Latin word for behavior. Morality's original meaning is "that which we do" whereas ethics, which derives from Greek ethos, has come to mean "that which we ought to do." Therefore, if what we strive for in ethics is to understand a develop a normative theory with real life applications we must first understand why ethics is what we ought to do (given that different folks will have different ideas about what we ought to do). If ethics is what we ought to do, it follows that any ethical standard is one to which we do not ascribe consistently. This is to say that any "ought" is a standard we aren't living up to. I think (and correct me please if I am wrong) that that can at least begin to address the concern that "it is the concern of real life, and if ethical systems want to relate to real life, they need to be practical" and that "[t]hey shouldn't be based merely on what is practical, but practicality should be a factor." Ethical systems, by the definition I have given, are inherently concerned with real life -- not merely relating to real life, but providing a framework within which real lives are lived and understood. Ethics is not supposed to be the work of theoreticians in stuffy classrooms pondering impossible hypotheticals and retrospective dilemmas with only some marginal application to actual life... while theory and hypothetical discussions are an excellent forum (an important one, even!) for ethical discussions, ethics is meant for the real world first and foremost.

I agree with this. And this is why I don't think absolute morality doesn't work.

In real life, you have context -- you have specifics, details, shades of grey. The world isn't black and white; you can't just strip all the context away from an action and expect your ethical judgement of it to be sound. You cannot broadly apply a simplistic theory to a complex world; that is impractical, and it simply doesn't work. Moreover, it is unintuitive, and I view it as illogical and unempathetic.