On the Nature and Morality of Lying

[billisonboard]

‘A Partial Register of the 927 (or was it 928?) Eternal Truths’
...
19. Everyone lies, cheats, pretends (yes, you too, and most certainly I myself).
...

[Tennesseer]

Oct 4, 2016 13:01:22 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

‘A Partial Register of the 927 (or was it 928?) Eternal Truths’
...
19. Everyone lies, cheats, pretends (yes, you too, and most certainly I myself).
...

This one was right after #19:

20. All evil is potential vitality in need of transformation.

I used to run into this while investigating employee theft at work. If only they had used their creativity in stealing for something positive.

[Virgil Showlion]

Oct 4, 2016 13:01:22 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

‘A Partial Register of the 927 (or was it 928?) Eternal Truths’
...
19. Everyone lies, cheats, pretends (yes, you too, and most certainly I myself).
...

Is this true, though?

Depending on how you define "lie" and "pretend", I suppose it would be hard to avoid. For example, saying "I have to go." rather than admitting "I have no more desire to speak to you.", or pretending to enjoy a hard-cooked meal even if it's unappetizing.

I consider these kinds of practices to be basic courtesy, and a part of loving our fellow man.

But the wording here suggests "lie" and "pretend" refer to hurtful deceit, concealing wrongdoing, deliberately misleading others for selfish reasons, and that the author is asserting "everybody" does these habitually. As a matter of practice.

If this isn't the author's point--if the point is simply that everybody has lied, cheated, or pretended at some point in their life--then this much is a universally-accepted constant of the human condition, and the statement has no meaning.

I don't agree that "everybody" lies habitually (or even occasionally). And when you throw in "cheating", I disagree even more strongly.

[billisonboard]

Oct 4, 2016 17:48:01 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Oct 4, 2016 13:01:22 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

‘A Partial Register of the 927 (or was it 928?) Eternal Truths’
...
19. Everyone lies, cheats, pretends (yes, you too, and most certainly I myself).
...

Is this true, though?

Depending on how you define "lie" and "pretend", I suppose it would be hard to avoid. For example, saying "I have to go." rather than admitting "I have no more desire to speak to you.", or pretending to enjoy a hard-cooked meal even if it's unappetizing.

I consider these kinds of practices to be basic courtesy, and a part of loving our fellow man.

But the wording here suggests "lie" and "pretend" refer to hurtful deceit, concealing wrongdoing, deliberately misleading others for selfish reasons, and that the author is asserting "everybody" does these habitually. As a matter of practice.

If this isn't the author's point--if the point is simply that everybody has lied, cheated, or pretended at some point in their life--then this much is a universally-accepted constant of the human condition, and the statement has no meaning.

I don't agree that "everybody" lies habitually (or even occasionally). And when you throw in "cheating", I disagree even more strongly.

Okay, I'll believe you.

[Deleted]

[Virgil Showlion]

Oct 4, 2016 17:56:31 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

Oct 4, 2016 17:48:01 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Is this true, though?

Depending on how you define "lie" and "pretend", I suppose it would be hard to avoid. For example, saying "I have to go." rather than admitting "I have no more desire to speak to you.", or pretending to enjoy a hard-cooked meal even if it's unappetizing.

I consider these kinds of practices to be basic courtesy, and a part of loving our fellow man.

But the wording here suggests "lie" and "pretend" refer to hurtful deceit, concealing wrongdoing, deliberately misleading others for selfish reasons, and that the author is asserting "everybody" does these habitually. As a matter of practice.

If this isn't the author's point--if the point is simply that everybody has lied, cheated, or pretended at some point in their life--then this much is a universally-accepted constant of the human condition, and the statement has no meaning.

I don't agree that "everybody" lies habitually (or even occasionally). And when you throw in "cheating", I disagree even more strongly.

Okay, I'll believe you.

Do you believe the proverb?

More specifically, if we qualify "lie" and "pretend" as in par. 4 of my post, would you rate the proverb "true" or "false"?

How would you rate your confidence in this answer? "Very confident", "somewhat confident", or "not at all confident".

[billisonboard]

Oct 4, 2016 18:27:24 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Oct 4, 2016 17:56:31 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

Okay, I'll believe you.

Do you believe the proverb?

More specifically, if we qualify "lie" and "pretend" as in par. 4 of my post, would you rate the proverb "true" or "false"?

How would you rate your confidence in this answer? "Very confident", "somewhat confident", or "not at all confident".

Yes, I believe in it.
As you qualify the terms, I would rate it "false".
I would rate my confidence "Very confident".

[Virgil Showlion]

Oct 4, 2016 18:40:17 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

Oct 4, 2016 18:27:24 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Do you believe the proverb?

More specifically, if we qualify "lie" and "pretend" as in par. 4 of my post, would you rate the proverb "true" or "false"?

How would you rate your confidence in this answer? "Very confident", "somewhat confident", or "not at all confident".

Yes, I believe in it.
As you qualify the terms, I would rate it "false".
I would rate my confidence "Very confident".

I fail to see how the proverb has any significance at all if we omit the qualification. It's like saying, "Everbody smiles, laughs, and cries." upon reflecting that everybody has smiled, laughed, and cried at least once in their life.

OK. No snow leopard, Sherlock.

[Deleted]

Oct 4, 2016 13:01:22 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

‘A Partial Register of the 927 (or was it 928?) Eternal Truths’
...
19. Everyone lies, cheats, pretends (yes, you too, and most certainly I myself).
...

#19 is wrong then.

[Deleted]

Oct 4, 2016 17:48:01 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Oct 4, 2016 13:01:22 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

‘A Partial Register of the 927 (or was it 928?) Eternal Truths’
...
19. Everyone lies, cheats, pretends (yes, you too, and most certainly I myself).
...

Is this true, though?

Depending on how you define "lie" and "pretend", I suppose it would be hard to avoid. For example, saying "I have to go." rather than admitting "I have no more desire to speak to you.", or pretending to enjoy a hard-cooked meal even if it's unappetizing.

I consider these kinds of practices to be basic courtesy, and a part of loving our fellow man.

But the wording here suggests "lie" and "pretend" refer to hurtful deceit, concealing wrongdoing, deliberately misleading others for selfish reasons, and that the author is asserting "everybody" does these habitually. As a matter of practice.

If this isn't the author's point--if the point is simply that everybody has lied, cheated, or pretended at some point in their life--then this much is a universally-accepted constant of the human condition, and the statement has no meaning.

I don't agree that "everybody" lies habitually (or even occasionally). And when you throw in "cheating", I disagree even more strongly.

"Telling an intentional falsehood" is lying... even if done with good intentions. Honorable people and people with integrity don't do it... even with good intentions.

[billisonboard]

Oct 4, 2016 19:32:41 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

Oct 4, 2016 13:01:22 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

‘A Partial Register of the 927 (or was it 928?) Eternal Truths’
...
19. Everyone lies, cheats, pretends (yes, you too, and most certainly I myself).
...

#19 is wrong then.

Sure "then", but how about now?

[billisonboard]

Oct 4, 2016 19:34:31 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

Oct 4, 2016 17:48:01 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Is this true, though?

Depending on how you define "lie" and "pretend", I suppose it would be hard to avoid. For example, saying "I have to go." rather than admitting "I have no more desire to speak to you.", or pretending to enjoy a hard-cooked meal even if it's unappetizing.

I consider these kinds of practices to be basic courtesy, and a part of loving our fellow man.

But the wording here suggests "lie" and "pretend" refer to hurtful deceit, concealing wrongdoing, deliberately misleading others for selfish reasons, and that the author is asserting "everybody" does these habitually. As a matter of practice.

If this isn't the author's point--if the point is simply that everybody has lied, cheated, or pretended at some point in their life--then this much is a universally-accepted constant of the human condition, and the statement has no meaning.

I don't agree that "everybody" lies habitually (or even occasionally). And when you throw in "cheating", I disagree even more strongly.

"Telling an intentional falsehood" is lying... even if done with good intentions. Honorable people and people with integrity don't do it... even with good intentions.

And there are lies of omission as well.

[Deleted]

Oct 4, 2016 19:35:45 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

Oct 4, 2016 19:32:41 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

#19 is wrong then.

Sure "then", but how about now?

Still wrong. (the verb "is" was the key... it's always wrong in the moment because it "is" not "was")

If #19 had said:

19. Everyone has or will... lie, cheat, or pretend (yes, you too, and most certainly I myself).

Then it would be true. Children lie... at least until they learn that lies hurt AND care about the hurt that they cause. Since everyone has been a child. I'd bet money that everyone has lied (yes, even me). But I haven't lied since my early teens (I'm 49 now... so it's been a while).

[Deleted]

Oct 4, 2016 19:38:35 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

Oct 4, 2016 19:34:31 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

"Telling an intentional falsehood" is lying... even if done with good intentions. Honorable people and people with integrity don't do it... even with good intentions.

And there are lies of omission as well.

No such thing as a "lie of omission". That's a falsely created concept. You cannot tell an intentional falsehood without saying anything.

[billisonboard]

Oct 4, 2016 19:41:14 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

.... But I haven't lied since my early teens (I'm 49 now... so it's been a while).

[billisonboard]

Oct 4, 2016 19:42:41 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

Oct 4, 2016 19:38:35 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

And there are lies of omission as well.

No such thing as a "lie of omission". That's a falsely created concept. You cannot tell an intentional falsehood without saying anything.

[Virgil Showlion]

Oct 4, 2016 19:34:31 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

Oct 4, 2016 17:48:01 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Is this true, though?

Depending on how you define "lie" and "pretend", I suppose it would be hard to avoid. For example, saying "I have to go." rather than admitting "I have no more desire to speak to you.", or pretending to enjoy a hard-cooked meal even if it's unappetizing.

I consider these kinds of practices to be basic courtesy, and a part of loving our fellow man.

But the wording here suggests "lie" and "pretend" refer to hurtful deceit, concealing wrongdoing, deliberately misleading others for selfish reasons, and that the author is asserting "everybody" does these habitually. As a matter of practice.

If this isn't the author's point--if the point is simply that everybody has lied, cheated, or pretended at some point in their life--then this much is a universally-accepted constant of the human condition, and the statement has no meaning.

I don't agree that "everybody" lies habitually (or even occasionally). And when you throw in "cheating", I disagree even more strongly.

"Telling an intentional falsehood" is lying... even if done with good intentions. Honorable people and people with integrity don't do it... even with good intentions.

I've long considered the issue but never been able to concede that telling the truth in every possible circumstance is wise or moral.

In 99.99% of circumstances, indeed it is, but I do believe exceptions exist.

Where we can agree: the morality of the act isn't justified by one's intentions.

[Deleted]

Oct 4, 2016 21:28:29 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Oct 4, 2016 19:34:31 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

"Telling an intentional falsehood" is lying... even if done with good intentions. Honorable people and people with integrity don't do it... even with good intentions.

I've long considered the issue but never been able to concede that telling the truth in every possible circumstance is wise or moral.

In 99.99% of circumstances, indeed it is, but I do believe exceptions exist.

Where we can agree: the morality of the act isn't justified by one's intentions.

I can agree with this... but one can be wise and moral AND honest. There's no requirement ever to say anything. And when you do you can say it in such a way as to lessen the blow (if possible)... or comment on something entirely different to take focus off of the fact that you don't want to comment on the other thing.

There are no exceptions. You can't take a moral stance by committing an immoral act.

[Virgil Showlion]

Oct 4, 2016 21:59:23 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

Oct 4, 2016 21:28:29 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

I've long considered the issue but never been able to concede that telling the truth in every possible circumstance is wise or moral.

In 99.99% of circumstances, indeed it is, but I do believe exceptions exist.

Where we can agree: the morality of the act isn't justified by one's intentions.

I can agree with this... but one can be wise and moral AND honest. There's no requirement ever to say anything. And when you do you can say it in such a way as to lessen the blow (if possible)... or comment on something entirely different to take focus off of the fact that you don't want to comment on the other thing.

When saying nothing at all or answering indirectly is an option, I agree it's incumbent upon us to do so. But not all situations afford us this option.

I also don't make as sharp a distinction as you do between falsehoods and lies of omission. Lies of omission can be every bit as harmful and destructive as falsehoods. There's no basis for drawing a line between the two, calling the former moral and acceptable, and the latter immoral.

There are no exceptions. You can't take a moral stance by committing an immoral act.

To be perfectly clear, I'm saying that lying isn't always an immoral act, just as killing a man isn't always an immoral act. There are limited circumstances where the act is lawful and justifiable.

[Deleted]

Oct 4, 2016 23:35:42 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Oct 4, 2016 21:59:23 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

I can agree with this... but one can be wise and moral AND honest. There's no requirement ever to say anything. And when you do you can say it in such a way as to lessen the blow (if possible)... or comment on something entirely different to take focus off of the fact that you don't want to comment on the other thing.

When saying nothing at all or answering indirectly is an option, I agree it's incumbent upon us to do so. But not all situations afford us this option.

I also don't make as sharp a distinction as you do between falsehoods and lies of omission. Lies of omission can be every bit as harmful and destructive as falsehoods. There's no basis for drawing a line between the two, calling the former moral and acceptable, and the latter immoral.

There are no exceptions. You can't take a moral stance by committing an immoral act.

To be perfectly clear, I'm saying that lying isn't always an immoral act, just as killing a man isn't always an immoral act. There are limited circumstances where the act is lawful and justifiable.

There's no such thing as a "lie of omission". You can't knowingly TELL a falsehood without SAYING SOMETHING.

ETA: I understand what you are saying. What I am saying is that you are wrong. You can't do a moral thing by doing an immoral act.

Murder will ALWAYS be immoral. Killing is not always murder. That's where your analogy to death fails.

[Virgil Showlion]

Oct 4, 2016 23:39:28 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

Oct 4, 2016 23:35:42 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

When saying nothing at all or answering indirectly is an option, I agree it's incumbent upon us to do so. But not all situations afford us this option.

I also don't make as sharp a distinction as you do between falsehoods and lies of omission. Lies of omission can be every bit as harmful and destructive as falsehoods. There's no basis for drawing a line between the two, calling the former moral and acceptable, and the latter immoral.

To be perfectly clear, I'm saying that lying isn't always an immoral act, just as killing a man isn't always an immoral act. There are limited circumstances where the act is lawful and justifiable.

There's no such thing as a "lie of omission". You can't knowingly TELL a falsehood without SAYING SOMETHING.

ETA: I understand what you are saying. What I am saying is that you are wrong. You can't do a moral thing by doing an immoral act.

Murder will ALWAYS be immoral. Killing is not always murder. That's where your analogy to death fails.

Murder is always immoral precisely because murder is defined as the immoral (that is, unlawful) killing of a human being.

"Lying" is not similarly defined as the immoral (unlawful) telling of a falsehood. As you pointed out in your own definition, "lying" is simply the deliberate conveying of false information. The definition attaches no moral antecedents to it. You may posit that all lying is immoral, but it's precisely this position I'm disputing.

I find it hard to believe you've never heard of a "lie of omission" before. It's deceit through the deliberate omission of facts/testimony in circumstances where one can reasonably infer a listener will reach an erroneous conclusion in its absence. In simpler terms, it's holding back critical information with the intent of deceiving somebody.

Both presidential candidates have engaged in lies of omission, dredging up accusations and deliberately omitting context or key details with the hope of deceiving the public.

If your beef is a belief that "lie" must involve the proactive conveying of false information, the architects and stewards of our language obviously disagree with you. Omitting critical facts is also a means of conveying false information; it's been called "lying" for as long as the word has existed. A passive lie, but a lie nevertheless.

[Deleted]

Oct 5, 2016 1:43:48 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Oct 4, 2016 23:39:28 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

There's no such thing as a "lie of omission". You can't knowingly TELL a falsehood without SAYING SOMETHING.

ETA: I understand what you are saying. What I am saying is that you are wrong. You can't do a moral thing by doing an immoral act.

Murder will ALWAYS be immoral. Killing is not always murder. That's where your analogy to death fails.

Murder is always immoral precisely because murder is defined as the immoral (that is, unlawful) killing of a human being.

"Lying" is not similarly defined as the immoral (unlawful) telling of a falsehood. As you pointed out in your own definition, "lying" is simply the deliberate conveying of false information. The definition attaches no moral antecedents to it. You may posit that all lying is immoral, but it's precisely this position I'm disputing.

I find it hard to believe you've never heard of a "lie of omission" before. It's deceit through the deliberate omission of facts/testimony in circumstances where one can reasonably infer a listener will reach an erroneous conclusion in its absence. In simpler terms, it's holding back critical information with the intent of deceiving somebody.

Both presidential candidates have engaged in lies of omission, dredging up accusations and deliberately omitting context or key details with the hope of deceiving the public.

If your beef is a belief that "lie" must involve the proactive conveying of false information, the architects and stewards of our language obviously disagree with you. Omitting critical facts is also a means of conveying false information; it's been called "lying" for as long as the word has existed. A passive lie, but a lie nevertheless.

You need a diagram


Legal, moral, and ethical are NOT equal words that can always be used interchangeably.

Lying (except under oath) is perfectly legal... yet it's still immoral. There's no legitimate moral justification for intentionally telling a falsehood.


And for the third time this thread: There's no such thing as a lie of omission. You can't TELL an intentional falsehood without saying something. It's patently impossible.

You could have stopped at "Both presidential candidates have engaged in lies." Period. End of thought. You would have been accurate.

And, yes, I've heard of "lie of omission" before... who told you I'd never heard the made up fantasy term before?

To quote the famous Spock (Star Trek - TOS, season 3, episode 2 - "The Enterprise Incident"): "It is not a lie to keep the truth to oneself."

[tallguy]

Oct 5, 2016 1:43:48 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Oct 4, 2016 23:39:28 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

There's no such thing as a "lie of omission". You can't knowingly TELL a falsehood without SAYING SOMETHING.

ETA: I understand what you are saying. What I am saying is that you are wrong. You can't do a moral thing by doing an immoral act.

Murder will ALWAYS be immoral. Killing is not always murder. That's where your analogy to death fails.

Murder is always immoral precisely because murder is defined as the immoral (that is, unlawful) killing of a human being.

"Lying" is not similarly defined as the immoral (unlawful) telling of a falsehood. As you pointed out in your own definition, "lying" is simply the deliberate conveying of false information. The definition attaches no moral antecedents to it. You may posit that all lying is immoral, but it's precisely this position I'm disputing.

I find it hard to believe you've never heard of a "lie of omission" before. It's deceit through the deliberate omission of facts/testimony in circumstances where one can reasonably infer a listener will reach an erroneous conclusion in its absence. In simpler terms, it's holding back critical information with the intent of deceiving somebody.

Both presidential candidates have engaged in lies of omission, dredging up accusations and deliberately omitting context or key details with the hope of deceiving the public.

If your beef is a belief that "lie" must involve the proactive conveying of false information, the architects and stewards of our language obviously disagree with you. Omitting critical facts is also a means of conveying false information; it's been called "lying" for as long as the word has existed. A passive lie, but a lie nevertheless.

You are correct, in part (and I acknowledge that this addition may be implicit in your description.)  A lie of omission also includes intentional failure to correct a falsehood where such failure is meant to maintain the deception.  It is at this point, I think, where Richard's argument breaks down if I am understanding him correctly.  One does not in fact have to "tell" a lie of omission.  Perpetuating the lie through silence when you are capable of correcting it is equal to propagating the lie in the first place.  

I would also disagree with this:

There's no legitimate moral justification for intentionally telling a falsehood.

and this:

You can't do a moral thing by doing an immoral act.

given his definition that lying is always immoral.  Patently untrue, and examples abound.  

 

[billisonboard]

Oct 5, 2016 3:11:01 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

...
To quote the famous Spock (Star Trek - TOS, season 3, episode 2 - "The Enterprise Incident"): "It is not a lie to keep the truth to oneself."

A lie he tells to justify his lying, cheating, and pretending in that episode.

[Deleted]

Oct 5, 2016 3:50:34 GMT -5 tallguy said:

Oct 5, 2016 1:43:48 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Murder is always immoral precisely because murder is defined as the immoral (that is, unlawful) killing of a human being.

"Lying" is not similarly defined as the immoral (unlawful) telling of a falsehood. As you pointed out in your own definition, "lying" is simply the deliberate conveying of false information. The definition attaches no moral antecedents to it. You may posit that all lying is immoral, but it's precisely this position I'm disputing.

I find it hard to believe you've never heard of a "lie of omission" before. It's deceit through the deliberate omission of facts/testimony in circumstances where one can reasonably infer a listener will reach an erroneous conclusion in its absence. In simpler terms, it's holding back critical information with the intent of deceiving somebody.

Both presidential candidates have engaged in lies of omission, dredging up accusations and deliberately omitting context or key details with the hope of deceiving the public.

If your beef is a belief that "lie" must involve the proactive conveying of false information, the architects and stewards of our language obviously disagree with you. Omitting critical facts is also a means of conveying false information; it's been called "lying" for as long as the word has existed. A passive lie, but a lie nevertheless.

You are correct, in part (and I acknowledge that this addition may be implicit in your description.)  A lie of omission also includes intentional failure to correct a falsehood where such failure is meant to maintain the deception.  It is at this point, I think, where Richard's argument breaks down if I am understanding him correctly.  One does not in fact have to "tell" a lie of omission.  Perpetuating the lie through silence when you are capable of correcting it is equal to propagating the lie in the first place.  

I would also disagree with this:

There's no legitimate moral justification for intentionally telling a falsehood.

and this:

You can't do a moral thing by doing an immoral act.

given his definition that lying is always immoral.  Patently untrue, and examples abound.  

If they "abound" name one.

Disagree all you want with that first one. Won't make you right.

"Deceit" and "lie" are just as non-interchangeable as moral, ethical, and legal are. I never said or even hinted that deception was moral. Nor did I ever hint that keeping quiet wasn't deception... it most certainly can be. But deception, in and of itself, isn't lying... so long as everything actually stated (if anything is stated) is completely true and factual.

[Deleted]

Oct 5, 2016 4:20:42 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

Oct 5, 2016 3:11:01 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

...
To quote the famous Spock (Star Trek - TOS, season 3, episode 2 - "The Enterprise Incident"): "It is not a lie to keep the truth to oneself."

A lie he tells to justify his lying, cheating, and pretending in that episode.

Ahhh... but it's not a lie.

[billisonboard]

Oct 5, 2016 5:18:26 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

Oct 5, 2016 4:20:42 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

A lie he tells to justify his lying, cheating, and pretending in that episode.

Ahhh... but it's not a lie.

[thyme4change]

Lying is always immoral?  Bullshit.

I don't go around telling people they are fat, ugly and stupid.  I lie and say they are fine.  It isn't my place to insult people - even if I'm stating the truth.  

[billisonboard]

I just lied, cheated, and pretended with my wife. She was saying something about something that happened at work yesterday. I pretended to care, cheated by listening to tone and not words, and lied when I said the word "Cool" when she finished. I am one sick immoral SOB.

[djAdvocate]

Oct 5, 2016 3:11:01 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

Oct 5, 2016 1:43:48 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Murder is always immoral precisely because murder is defined as the immoral (that is, unlawful) killing of a human being.

"Lying" is not similarly defined as the immoral (unlawful) telling of a falsehood. As you pointed out in your own definition, "lying" is simply the deliberate conveying of false information. The definition attaches no moral antecedents to it. You may posit that all lying is immoral, but it's precisely this position I'm disputing.

I find it hard to believe you've never heard of a "lie of omission" before. It's deceit through the deliberate omission of facts/testimony in circumstances where one can reasonably infer a listener will reach an erroneous conclusion in its absence. In simpler terms, it's holding back critical information with the intent of deceiving somebody.

Both presidential candidates have engaged in lies of omission, dredging up accusations and deliberately omitting context or key details with the hope of deceiving the public.

If your beef is a belief that "lie" must involve the proactive conveying of false information, the architects and stewards of our language obviously disagree with you. Omitting critical facts is also a means of conveying false information; it's been called "lying" for as long as the word has existed. A passive lie, but a lie nevertheless.

You need a diagram


Legal, moral, and ethical are NOT equal words that can always be used interchangeably.

Lying (except under oath) is perfectly legal... yet it's still immoral. There's no legitimate moral justification for intentionally telling a falsehood.


And for the third time this thread: There's no such thing as a lie of omission. You can't TELL an intentional falsehood without saying something. It's patently impossible.

You could have stopped at "Both presidential candidates have engaged in lies." Period. End of thought. You would have been accurate.

And, yes, I've heard of "lie of omission" before... who told you I'd never heard the made up fantasy term before?

To quote the famous Spock (Star Trek - TOS, season 3, episode 2 - "The Enterprise Incident"): "It is not a lie to keep the truth to oneself."

i contend that that diagram has way more overlap than shown there.