On the Nature and Morality of Lying

[djAdvocate]

Oct 5, 2016 8:38:09 GMT -5 thyme4change said:

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.  

i heard something very touching on NPR the other day.  a woman was telling a story about her mother, who after a lifetime of hardship with men, fell in love and got married at the age of 90.  by age 95, she was suffering from dimentia, but her husband died.  rather than telling her, her daughter made the decision that not only she, but the nursing home staff, would never tell her.  she lived for another 5 years, totally in love, and totally happy.

sometimes lying is a very good thing.

[Tennesseer]

Oct 5, 2016 10:02:58 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Oct 5, 2016 8:38:09 GMT -5 thyme4change said:

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.  

i heard something very touching on NPR the other day.  a woman was telling a story about her mother, who after a lifetime of hardship with men, fell in love and got married at the age of 90.  by age 95, she was suffering from dimentia, but her husband died.  rather than telling her, her daughter made the decision that not only she, but the nursing home staff, would never tell her.  she lived for another 5 years, totally in love, and totally happy.

sometimes lying is a very good thing.

I have told this before on this board. My mom had full blown Alzheimer's disease. When my dad died in a nursing home, one of my siblings drove to the Alheimer's facility where my mom lived to bring her to dad's nurding home so she could see and dad one last time. Mom cried for a minute or two seeing dad dead. Then mom quieted down for a few minutes and suddenly asked my siblings who was that man in the bed.

During the next few weeks mom would ask where dad was. We reminded her dad had died. She would cry because in her mind she was hearing this news for the very first time. We felt it best to stop telling mom dad died because she would never be able to remember he had died and begin the grieving process including acceptance.

From that point on, when asked where dad was, we lied to mom and told one of two false stories to her: Dad had just visited with her and she simply forgot he had been there or dad was down the hall of the Alzheimer facility, had a cold and was resting and he would stop by soon. Mom was content and at peace with that news.

No need to continue making mom cry.

[Virgil Showlion]

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.

I'm aware of that. I'm using "lawful" here in the sense of Biblical law, which is the only standard on which I base morality judgments. I figured you'd assume this was the case.

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?

It's not a fantasy term. You can find it in anywhere from Wiki to Oxford Encyclopedia to US legal dictionaries and anywhere in between.

If you want to quibble over the semantics of the term "lie of omission" and whether it really constitutes a lie, you'll find the encyclopedia entry to be of particular interest. It devotes an entire section to it.

[djAdvocate]

Oct 5, 2016 12:00:53 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

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

You need a diagram


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

I'm aware of that. I'm using "lawful" here in the sense of Biblical law, which is the only standard on which I base morality judgments. I figured you'd assume this was the case.

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?

It's not a fantasy term. You can find it in anywhere from Wiki to Oxford Encyclopedia to US legal dictionaries and anywhere in between.

If you want to quibble over the semantics of the term "lie of omission" and whether it really constitutes a lie, you'll find the encyclopedia entry to be of particular interest. It devotes an entire section to it.

i agree with Virgil, here.  lie of omission is not an oxymoron.  it is covered by the phrase "the whole truth" when you commit to sworn testimony.  it is not leaving out facts that are relevant to the question in an effort to avoid the appearance of impropriety. 

[Deleted]

Oct 5, 2016 8:57:10 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

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.

I'm shocked.

Is pretending lying?  

[happyhoix]

Oct 5, 2016 8:57:10 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

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.

I do the same thing when DH tells me something about baseball.

Not on purpose, I just cannot make myself pay attention to baseball talk. My mind does this Homer Simpson thing where it starts humming a tune or something.

It's ok. We've been married 30 plus years so it must be working

[billisonboard]

Oct 5, 2016 13:59:12 GMT -5 @joey said:

Oct 5, 2016 8:57:10 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

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.

I'm shocked.

Is pretending lying?  

Not sure. We need to ask an expert. I wonder if there is one around.

[Deleted]

Oct 5, 2016 10:00:41 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

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

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.

I can believe that. I think the overlap is only that way because they needed space for the word "Morality" and they took their cues from that spacing. I don't think it's "percentile accurate".

[Deleted]

Oct 5, 2016 12:00:53 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

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

You need a diagram


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

I'm aware of that. I'm using "lawful" here in the sense of Biblical law, which is the only standard on which I base morality judgments. I figured you'd assume this was the case.

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?

It's not a fantasy term. You can find it in anywhere from Wiki to Oxford Encyclopedia to US legal dictionaries and anywhere in between.

If you want to quibble over the semantics of the term "lie of omission" and whether it really constitutes a lie, you'll find the encyclopedia entry to be of particular interest. It devotes an entire section to it.

I don't assume that anyone uses the Bible for anything anymore. Been wrong too many times to take that chance again (I've come across way too many "cafeteria Christians" apparently... LOL). But, be that as it may, isn't one of "the big ten": "Thou shalt not lie"? If you want to go with Biblical law... I'm totally cool with that, as it's immoral and a sin... according to Biblical law.

"Lie of omission" is as much a fantasy term as "Dragons" and "Faeries" (both of which are also in the dictionary, by the way). You can't lie if you don't say something. It's an oxymoron.

[Virgil Showlion]

Oct 5, 2016 19:48:10 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

Oct 5, 2016 12:00:53 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

I'm aware of that. I'm using "lawful" here in the sense of Biblical law, which is the only standard on which I base morality judgments. I figured you'd assume this was the case.

It's not a fantasy term. You can find it in anywhere from Wiki to Oxford Encyclopedia to US legal dictionaries and anywhere in between.

If you want to quibble over the semantics of the term "lie of omission" and whether it really constitutes a lie, you'll find the encyclopedia entry to be of particular interest. It devotes an entire section to it.

I don't assume that anyone uses the Bible for anything anymore. Been wrong too many times to take that chance again (I've come across way too many "cafeteria Christians" apparently... LOL). But, be that as it may, isn't one of "the big ten": "Thou shalt not lie"? If you want to go with Biblical law... I'm totally cool with that, as it's immoral and a sin... according to Biblical law.

"Lie of omission" is as much a fantasy term as "Dragons" and "Faeries" (both of which are also in the dictionary, by the way). You can't lie if you don't say something. It's an oxymoron.

"Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour" is part of the Decalogue. Scripture speaks about lying more generally in hundreds of places, which includes examples of individuals--even kings--who aren't condemned for lying due to the circumstances. Suffice it to say it's a detailed subject.

As for "lie of omission", you're just going to have to make peace with the term. I didn't invent it or insinuate it into the language. If you think it's an oxymoron, take it up with Oxford.

[steff]

Ok we've gone into religion, isn't this a no no?    Yes, I'm a tattletale when it comes to this kinds crap.   

[Deleted]

Oct 5, 2016 20:44:47 GMT -5 steff said:

Ok we've gone into religion, isn't this a no no?    Yes, I'm a tattletale when it comes to this kinds crap.   

It's Virgil Showlion's fault... he made me point out that the Bible says lying is a no-no.

[steff]

I don't care whose fault it is.   I tattled on both of you.  

[Opti]

Oct 5, 2016 20:47:51 GMT -5 steff said:

I don't care whose fault it is.   I tattled on both of you.  

[mmhmm]

Virgil is taking care of this. The religious arc will be moved to Religious Discussions.

[tallguy]

Oct 5, 2016 5:17:45 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

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

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.

Seriously?  All of us are commonly faced with situations where there can be a range of consequences depending on our course of action.  The "moral" choice is the one that avoids the more immoral consequence.  A lie could be integral to that choice, and that result.  And it could show up in almost any area.  Parenting, international diplomacy, law enforcement, any number of others.  You want one?  How about the families that sheltered Jews in Nazi Germany?  Or in places like The Netherlands, with the family of Anne Frank?  Are you really contending that the "moral" choice would have been to say, "Why yes, Mr. SS officer!  They're right over here behind this bookcase.  Please take them along with myself and my family."  Or more precisely to match your statements, that it would have been immoral NOT to say such a thing?  Seems a stretch.      

[Deleted]

Oct 5, 2016 22:36:51 GMT -5 tallguy said:

Oct 5, 2016 5:17:45 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

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.

Seriously?  All of us are commonly faced with situations where there can be a range of consequences depending on our course of action.  The "moral" choice is the one that avoids the more immoral consequence.  A lie could be integral to that choice, and that result.  And it could show up in almost any area.  Parenting, international diplomacy, law enforcement, any number of others.  You want one?  How about the families that sheltered Jews in Nazi Germany?  Or in places like The Netherlands, with the family of Anne Frank?  Are you really contending that the "moral" choice would have been to say, "Why yes, Mr. SS officer!  They're right over here behind this bookcase.  Please take them along with myself and my family."  Or more precisely to match your statements, that it would have been immoral NOT to say such a thing?  Seems a stretch.      

It's not a lie to keep the truth to one's self. Using your example they could have said nothing. They could have just looked scared. Or they could have given an honest answer that didn't lead the SS to the hiding Jews... but did answer the question.

[tallguy]

Oct 5, 2016 22:46:51 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

Oct 5, 2016 22:36:51 GMT -5 tallguy said:

Seriously?  All of us are commonly faced with situations where there can be a range of consequences depending on our course of action.  The "moral" choice is the one that avoids the more immoral consequence.  A lie could be integral to that choice, and that result.  And it could show up in almost any area.  Parenting, international diplomacy, law enforcement, any number of others.  You want one?  How about the families that sheltered Jews in Nazi Germany?  Or in places like The Netherlands, with the family of Anne Frank?  Are you really contending that the "moral" choice would have been to say, "Why yes, Mr. SS officer!  They're right over here behind this bookcase.  Please take them along with myself and my family."  Or more precisely to match your statements, that it would have been immoral NOT to say such a thing?  Seems a stretch.      

It's not a lie to keep the truth to one's self. Using your example they could have said nothing. They could have just looked scared. Or they could have given an honest answer that didn't lead the SS to the hiding Jews... but did answer the question.

Yeah, I can imagine how well that would have gone over....

[Virgil Showlion]

(Germany, 1941)

"Halt! Frauline! Haf you seen zee svine Jews?"
"Oh yes, mine herr. I haf seen many Jews ven I vas a kinder."
"Dumbkoff! Haf you seen zee svine Jews today?"
"If by 'today' you mean zee last stunde, nein, nein."
"In zee last full day."
"In zee last full day, vot, mine herr?"
"Haf you seen zee svine Jews in zee last full day?"
"Haf I seen zem doing vot, mine herr? Huch! Look at zee funny hund in zee road!"

(*BLAM!*  *BLAM!* ... *thud*)



Alas, the brave efforts of Jew shelterer GretchenInDE--all 38 seconds worth--would be forever lost to history.

[Deleted]

How about:

(in English, because mein sprechen der Deutschen ist nicht so gut)

Nazi: "Halt! Have you seen any Jews today?"
Hider of the Jews: "Yes! There were many running from the market."
Nazi: "Do you know where they went?"
Hider of the Jews (honestly): "No! I do not." (perfectly honest IF the Hider of the Jews does not know where ALL OF THEM went)
Nazi: "Very well... carry on."

[Virgil Showlion]

Oct 5, 2016 23:42:24 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

How about:

(in English, because mein sprechen der Deutschen ist nicht so gut)

Nazi: "Halt! Have you seen any Jews today?"
Hider of the Jews: "Yes! There were many running from the market."
Nazi: "Do you know where they went?"
Hider of the Jews (honestly): "No! I do not." (perfectly honest IF the Hider of the Jews does not know where ALL OF THEM went)
Nazi: "Very well... carry on."

You seriously believe the statement is "honest" because of an absurd technicality?

Not a chance. I'm calling you out right here. You're just yanking our chains now.

"Bradley, did you eat the cookies on the counter?"
"No, mom." (perfectly honest if one of them fell on the floor and he didn't actually eat it)

"Are you cheating on me?"
"Absolutely not, honey." (perfectly honest if he isn't cheating on her RIGHT NOW; also perfectly honest if he isn't cheating on her AT BACKGAMMON)

"Will drinking this kill me?"
"It's safe as can be." (perfectly honest if she doesn't drink more than 2 mL)


Remind me to never shop at "Honest Richard's" pawn shop.

"Does this camcorder have six hours of battery life."
"The batteries will last for days." (perfectly honest if the camcorder isn't running at any point during that time)

[Deleted]

Oct 6, 2016 12:11:29 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Oct 5, 2016 23:42:24 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

How about:

(in English, because mein sprechen der Deutschen ist nicht so gut)

Nazi: "Halt! Have you seen any Jews today?"
Hider of the Jews: "Yes! There were many running from the market."
Nazi: "Do you know where they went?"
Hider of the Jews (honestly): "No! I do not." (perfectly honest IF the Hider of the Jews does not know where ALL OF THEM went)
Nazi: "Very well... carry on."

You seriously believe the statement is "honest" because of an absurd technicality?

Not a chance. I'm calling you out right here. You're just yanking our chains now.

"Bradley, did you eat the cookies on the counter?"
"No, mom." (perfectly honest if one of them fell on the floor and he didn't actually eat it)

"Are you cheating on me?"
"Absolutely not, honey." (perfectly honest if he isn't cheating on her RIGHT NOW; also perfectly honest if he isn't cheating on her AT BACKGAMMON)

"Will drinking this kill me?"
"It's safe as can be." (perfectly honest if she doesn't drink more than 2 mL)


Remind me to never shop at "Honest Richard's" pawn shop.

"Does this camcorder have six hours of battery life."
"The batteries will last for days." (perfectly honest if the camcorder isn't running at any point during that time)

It's honest because the theoretical Jew Savior doesn't know where they ALL went. You may call it a technicality if you like, but it's still not lying.

Remember though, this should only be used in cases of "the greater good"... like saving people's lives.

In all the cases you mentioned in your rebuttal there's no "greater good" in play.

[steff]

I straight up lied to my kiddo yesterday.

He was asking me if I saw the Bon Jovi tour announcement & did I want to go.  I don't want him to have to spend money buying me concert tickets (and he would).  so I downplayed it all.  It's too expensive, I didn't go last tour, I'm good, no big deal.   All while I was texting my BFF letting her know & deciding if she was coming to me or if I was going to Houston again for the show.  

I don't feel bad about it either.  No reason he should spend his money on it for me.  

For the record, we decided she'd come here.  

[NoNamePerson]

I'd be lying if I said I had never lied. 

[cronewitch]

Lies can be a good thing when they do no harm and some good. My great aunt was elderly and blind and couldn't do her hair, someone bought her a wig. She asks a friend if it looked good and the friend said it didn't. She wanted to look good and go to church but her friend made her feel ugly for no reason. The friend didn't offer to replace the wig or come do her hair every week just ruined the one she had for her.

[Virgil Showlion]

Oct 7, 2016 3:10:05 GMT -5 cronewitch said:

Lies can be a good thing when they do no harm and some good. My great aunt was elderly and blind and couldn't do her hair, someone bought her a wig. She asks a friend if it looked good and the friend said it didn't. She wanted to look good and go to church but her friend made her feel ugly for no reason. The friend didn't offer to replace the wig or come do her hair every week just ruined the one she had for her.

Agreed.

Candor is sometimes the enemy of peace. I could wish it was a more black and white issue, seeing as how people (politicians especially) so grievously abuse the public trust "for the greater good". Nevertheless, there are circumstances where a lie truly can be harmless, even necessary. The issue has to be broken down to a granularity finer than "lying" to reach the black and white stage.

[Tiny]

My favorite "lie of omission":

Me to co-worker: "Did you move the processes and update the tables? The beta test group will start in a couple of hours and that last update needs to be there when they start."
co-worker: "Yes."
Me: "ok, I'll send out the email letting them know they are good to go."

The omitted part was that the co-worker had NOT updated all the tables because they weren't authorized to some of them. Apparently I didn't ask the correct question about what my coworker had moved and updated. I foolishly ASSUMED that my coworker would have done their job and if there was a problem would have send something. Thankfully, I am paranoid, I took one last look at everything and noticed that not all the tables had been updated... I did the update and the beta test commenced without a hitch.

My coworker didn't lie directly - Of the list of processes/tables he was responsible for, he had moved the processes/updated the tables he had access to... and then did nothing with what he didn't have access to -- even though they were on his list of responsibilities.   he knew exactly what he was doing when he said "yes" - he wanted to leave at 5:00pm that day and if he said he had had problems he might have had to stay... actually if he had said something earlier in the day - the issue would have been resolved and he would have still been able to leave at 5:00pm.  Instead he did nothing and ALMOST put the project in peril (beta testers would have come to a dead halt early in the test).    

It seems from his point of view the responsibility was mine - since I asked him the WRONG question.

So, yeah, the coworker didn't lie - but it did make him a jerk/a$$h0le or any other derogatory term you'd like to use.   


And people wonder why I have trust issues.