The Ethics of Lying

[Cabal]

Is it immoral to lie? Why?
Is there a different standard for different classifications of lies?
Are we morally obligated to tell the truth in all situations which are otherwise absent of violence?

 

[Pericles]

With a gentleman, I am a gentleman and a half. With a fraud, I am a fraud and a half.

Sir Francis Bacon

 

[WilliamC]

The Truth Machine, by James Halperin, has the answers.

 

[Seraphim]

That just about sums it up. Close thread!! lol

With a gentleman, I am a gentleman and a half. With a fraud, I am a fraud and a half.

Sir Francis Bacon

 

[Sam I am]

I'm lying right now

 

[fisharmor]

Is it immoral to lie?

Yes.

Why?

Because lying is malicious, whether the liar intends malice or not.

Is there a different standard for different classifications of lies?

No. Unknowingly speaking an untruth is not lying. It isn't wise, but it isn't lying.

Are we morally obligated to tell the truth in all situations which are otherwise absent of violence?

No. Remaining silent is an option. (Or it was, at one point.)

 

[Cabal]

I don't think lies are necessarily immoral. I've been thinking about it lately, and the best conclusion I've found is that we are responsible for the effects of our actions, including lies, which ought to determine the morality or lack thereof.

Similarly, scaring someone isn't necessarily immoral, but if you scare someone on the edge of a cliff and they fall off that cliff as a result; you are clearly in the wrong as you are responsible for the effects of your actions.

In this way, fraud remains immoral but white lies do not compromise one's morality. I find that this is conducive with an NAP-centric theory of ethics whilst not being at odds with property rights and still being acceptable under UPB.

 

[Southron]

What about contracts? Aren't they just legal means to enforce honesty?

 

[osan]

Is it immoral to lie?

Honesty is way misunderstood. There are those situations where it is very important, those where it is not, and those where it is harmful. Context is king.

Why?

See above.

Is there a different standard for different classifications of lies?

Completely up to the individual, IMO. Lying v. honesty is a game of cost v. benefit.

Are we morally obligated to tell the truth in all situations which are otherwise absent of violence?

We're not really morally obligated to do or not do anything. In the end, power predicates morality. Power has many faces.

 

[BuddyRey]

If a highwayman (or maybe even a government agent) asks you for the last known location of a person he intends to rob, are you duty-bound to tell him the truth? Immanuel Kant would say yes, but for me, throwing the highwayman off the trail with false intel is a definite case of "acceptable lying."

 

[Jtorsella]

Is it immoral to lie? Why?

Yes. If a person does not tell the truth, then they become the slave to an unreality. Reality is now incorrectly perceived by someone else, and the liar must live out this fakery in front of the other person.

Is there a different standard for different classifications of lies?

Practically, yes. Morally, no. I would say that a white lie still attempts to avoid reality, regardless of its intentions.

Are we morally obligated to tell the truth in all situations which are otherwise absent of violence?

I would say selective truth telling is not lying, and a person has no obligation to cooperate with someone requesting the truth. If a person needing information for a violent purpose asks something of you, you have no moral obligation to reply, or reply truthfully.

 

[Cabal]

If a highwayman (or maybe even a government agent) asks you for the last known location of a person he intends to rob, are you duty-bound to tell him the truth? Immanuel Kant would say yes, but for me, throwing the highwayman off the trail with false intel is a definite case of "acceptable lying."

I included the stipulation of 'absent of violence' for a reason. When you inject violence into the situation, attempting to judge the morality of what follows is rather useless outside of equitable justice.

For instance, if a man breaks into your home, puts a gun to your head, and demands to know where your wife is--lying to him about her location is no longer an issue of morality (if it ever was). And this is precisely why I do not accept the hardline idea that 'lying is immoral' that many seem to espouse. Of course, morality as I understand it is concerned with the initiation of force; yet I also consider fraud to be immoral due to the fact that fraud is basically a means of theft of property--and fraud is basically just lying.

This is why the idea that responsibility for the effects of actions (lies) seems most adequate in determining the immorality of a lie, as opposed to just saying lying is immoral all the time. This theory of the ethics of lying is also not in conflict with NAP, property rights, or UPB; nor does it rely on any mysticism.

 

[Travlyr]

I don't like liars. I make a lot better decisions if I KNOW what is going on. Are liars immoral? I don't think so, but I revere truth tellers over liars any day.

 

[Cabal]

Yes. If a person does not tell the truth, then they become the slave to an unreality. Reality is now incorrectly perceived by someone else, and the liar must live out this fakery in front of the other person.

No one is forcing the person being lied to to accept the other's word as truth.

Practically, yes. Morally, no. I would say that a white lie still attempts to avoid reality, regardless of its intentions.

So then lying to a murderer in order to protect the life of a loved on is immoral to you?

I would say selective truth telling is not lying, and a person has no obligation to cooperate with someone requesting the truth. If a person needing information for a violent purpose asks something of you, you have no moral obligation to reply, or reply truthfully.

So lying is now arbitrarily defined based on degree of omission? How can you say that all lying is immoral only to later add an exception? Either all lying is immoral, or all lying is not immoral--both cannot be equally accurate.

 

[Jtorsella]

So lying is now arbitrarily defined based on degree of omission? How can you say that all lying is immoral only to later add an exception? Either all lying is immoral, or all lying is not immoral--both cannot be equally accurate.

No, I am saying that omission is not lying. I define lying as making a statement, which one knows to be untrue, to another. This is not omission.

No one is forcing the person being lied to to accept the other's word as truth.

True, but lying itself constitutes an attempt to convince another of an untruth. It is irrelevant whether this attempt is successful.

 

[pcgame]

..

 

[Jtorsella]

what is NAP?

Non-agression principle.

 

[Cabal]

No, I am saying that omission is not lying. I define lying as making a statement, which one knows to be untrue, to another. This is not omission.


True, but lying itself constitutes an attempt to convince another of an untruth. It is irrelevant whether this attempt is successful.

Can omissions qualify as lies or can't they?

How is lying necessarily an attempt to convince another of untruth? Lying is simply not telling the truth--this doesn't necessarily mean it must be for the purpose of convincing of untruth. Nevertheless, what is necessarily immoral about attempting to convince another of untruth? If the effect of the lie are negligible and/or absolutely harmless, is the act of lying still immoral? If so, why?

 

[CaptUSA]

Human beings have been given an incredible gift. We have a sophisticated means of communication. This is perhaps the very reason that human beings have advanced further than any other species.

Lying is a betrayal of that gift.

If someone uses this gift in a manner to deceive, they are undermining the very essence of what it means to be human. Lying is most certainly immoral. And those who participate in such activities usually pay the price for this betrayal.

I'd suggest checking out Locke on the subject. Also, Jonathan Swift.

 

[Cabal]

Lots of species have the capacity to communicate with one another; this is hardly exclusive to human beings. Your premise is entirely false.