In a thread about my agnostic/rebellious teenage cousin and her asshole fundamentalist parents, at least one Doper opined that she should flat-out lie to them about rejecting of their faith until she turns 18 and can move out. While I am not going to advise her to do so, that’s mostly because I feel that, for me, that would be an unethical insertion of myself into their parenting authority. In fact I think that lying about her faith (or lack thereof) is the best option for her, given the circumstances in which she lives. I do not believe that truthfulness is an absolute virtue, because I don’t believe in absolute virtues. 'm a contextual ethicist, by which I mean that you can only judge the rightness or wrongness of an action in terms of the environment in which it occurs.* I don’t think telling the truth is the moral choice in every circumstance. In many circumstances, a person has a moral obligation to do so; in some, a person has an obligation to lie; and in still others, lying is neither good nor bad.
That brings me to the stop if this thread–which, by the way, is NOT my young cousin’s situation. Rather, I would like to discuss under what circumstances you guys feel lying to be morally or ethically justified, and how how you make that decision.
*I say “contextual” rather than “situational” because I’m not comfortable with the connotations of the phrase “situational ethics.” But that’s another thread.
If someone spent a lot of time preparing a meal for me that I didn’t like I’d probably pretend I liked it. Especially if I didn’t like it because it contained a food I don’t care for, rather than being poorly prepared.
It’s all about context. I don’t think anything is always wrong, even killing.
Parents often tell their children that lying is a sin. But “thou shall not bear false witness” does not proscribe all lies. Just those that get people in trouble.
Most lies people tell are good or neutral. For instance, when was the last time you told someone you were feeling fine when you actually weren’t? When was the last time you pretended to like something just so you didn’t hurt someone’s feelings? Polite society requires lying.
So yes, I think there are many circumstances that call for lying. And as long as there are no negative consequences for other people, I don’t see what’s wrong with lying for self-preservation. A child lying about her agnosticism falls into that category. Parents in general deserve respect and sincerity, but they aren’t entitled to know absolutely everything about their children.
If the truth is likely to cause more harm than a lie, then I’ll go with the lie.
That is, if a person asks me if her ass looks fat in these pants and we’re going out to see a movie, I’ll tell her no. If she’s going to a job interview at a fashion house, I’ll tell her yes.
So, of course, there’s a lot of personal estimation and determination of “harm” there, and I don’t always get it right. That’s the pitfall of being personally responsible for my actions, rather than relying on a simple rule or moral. But I think relying on the simple rule or moral, “never tell a lie” is likely to cause more harm than using my personal judgement. Is that a tautology? So be it.
I don’t think it’s a tautology. I think it’s a significantly more sophisticated reading of the meaning of “harm” than persons who say that lying is categorically wrong and truthtelling categorically good.
In general, I agree with the OP. In many cases, lying is the moral thing to do. However, I think people underestimate how important trustworthiness can be. Each lie you tell runs the risk that down the road, someone won’t believe you when it matters much more. For that reason, it’s important to weigh the long term risks of not being believed versus the benefits of the lie. Yeah, lying to the Gestapo is pretty obviously the right thing to do, but when you pretend to like things that you really don’t, you may be found out and then your future compliments will be largely ignored. It’s a tough balancing act.
Far from a tautology, you’re hitting on a major philosophical schism: nonconsequentialism relies on the notion that since you “don’t always get it right” you’re in a position ahead of time to know that what you’re doing could have worse outcomes – therefore, basing a ethical framework on guessing is weaker then basing it on rational rules.
But isn’t that only the case if basing it on rational rules (by which I assume you mean, in this case, “Don’t ever lie”) never results in harm? Or at least, results in harm less often than using my method does? Because that’s where it stands, for me. I’ve observed more harm coming from unconditionally telling the truth than from exercising the option to judiciously lie.
The reason I’m in a position ahead of time to make fairly good assumptions about the consequences of my actions is that I’ve been here before. This is not the first time I’ve been asked if your ass looks big in these pants. I’ve played this scene before, and I know a number of ways it can play out. In other words, I’m a lot better at avoiding harm at 34 than I was at 24, and I see no reason why I won’t be even better at it when I’m 64. Experience does count for something.
(Which makes me sound like a compulsive liar, but I’m not, really. In reality, I’m much more of a “refrain from mentioning” kind of liar. If called directly to speak, I’m more likely to be politic and say something creative and constructive than outright lying. “Those pants are cut a little strangely - why don’t you try these instead?” instead of “No, darling, you look like Keira Knightly in those trousers, really you do!”)
Setting aside the Gestapo-type situations, there are certainly some situations where the truth would be a bad idea. But that does not imply that a lie is a good idea, either. In most such situations, the best course of action is a nonresponse. “Do these jeans make me look fat?” “I love you no matter what you’re wearing.” Or arranging to have one’s mouth full when asked how the food is. Or in the OP’s situation, just going along quietly to church, without saying anything about what it means to the person. Or sometimes even just a frank “I’d rather not answer that.”.
Right, but sometimes the non-answer is an answer. Let’s say someone asks me if I am upset about something. I am, but I don’t want to talk about it because it’s none of their business. If I say “Yes”, it’s inviting further conversation. If I say “I’d rather not talk about it”, I’m probably perceived as coyly inviting further conversation, and even if they follow my wishes and don’t push it, I am still impart private information about my mental state, which I may well rather not do. By saying “No, I’m fine, I was just thinking about a movie” or something, I am definitely lying, but I am preserving my privacy and not denying the other person anything to which they have a right. I also have no problem being lied to in a situation like that, because I don’t have the right to know what is in someone else’s mind.
Wow, talk about sacrificing your self preservation.
I vote that lying is often ethically preferable to telling the truth, and so is the nonresponse or evasive response.
Two problems with lying, though.
First, it is a more ambitious position than telling the truth or evading the question. Generally, to choose which of these things is the most ethical, you have to use past and present appreciation for the situation and perhaps read into it various subtleties, including the not exactly measureable state of mind of others. Many of us would find it more objectionable to make an error regarding these things when lying than doing so when telling the truth.
Second, there is a slippery slope issue, if the lying is motivated wholly or partly by self interest. Your judgement is likely biased by the self interest (possibly in either direction). This makes it harder to consistently deliver good decisions. How much do you tweak things to make them suit you?
Both of these are things to consider and do your best with, not reasons to never lie.
The thing is, many “moralistic” people treat truthfulness as an end in itself, no matter how much damage it causes. Speak the truth, no matter what the consequences. But I believe truthfulness is important because it keeps us connected to reality, not because it’s some sort of “higher” good. It’s our connection to reality that’s important . . . but under what circumstances can that connection be sacrificed to an even greater good? When someone’s life or quality of life is at stake . . . because human beings ***are ***an end in themselves. One example of course would be the Nazis at the door. Another example would be if your spouse, on her deathbed, asks whether you’d always been faithful. If your honest answer “no” would only serve to hurt . . . then lying is not only permissible, but the only ethical choice.
I didn’t speak in that thread but I felt she should have kept her mouth shut, too. I wished I had kept my mouth shut at home at least until my parents had finished paying for my education. I thought about commenting, but everyone was so proud of her and I didn’t want to be the downer.
I don’t believe truthfulness is an absolute virtue - but I believe in honesty, and there is a difference. Honesty is “I love you anyway, no matter what.” Truthfulness is “You look fat as hell in that outfit.”
However, when truth and lies are going to cause the same amount of pain, I always vote for truth, if only because when the lies come out, it will hurt twice as much.
It’s off topic, but if her folks’ church is anything like the one I was brought up in (and it is the same denomination), keeping her mouth shut would have backfired. It would have resulted in an organized effort to force her to choose a verse, and if she had simply refused, an organized effort to make her repent. And I mean THAT DAY. And it would not have been pleasant.
This is going to sound weird given how absolutist I am on the no killing thing, but I think sometimes it’s OK to lie. The thing that matters (to me) is the intent of the lie. I mean, if I’ve been invited over for supper and you ask me how your (terrible) food is, I’d probably still try not to lie, and rather say something like “I like what you did with the tripe and honey” or something. You know, look for the most complimentary thing to say. But if you flat-out asked me if I like it overall, I might lie and say I like it a little to spare your feelings. But if I knew you were planning on serving the same thing to your prospective fiancée next week, I’d be duty-bound to tell you what a horrible mistake that would be, hurt feelings be damned.
“How are you?” a co-worker asks in passing. Possible answers:
A) “Fine.”
B) “Well, I’m a little sore, and kind of tired, and a little hungry, and kind of irritated at Bob from accounting, and worried about my mom who’s sick, and still a little bummed that my grandpa died four months ago, and did I mention the economy?..”
My mentor in business once asked me how I was and I started explaining. He stopped me and corrected me, saying it is not a literal question and the only proper answer is Fine (or words to that same effect). Lesson learned, in my mind.
Weird thing, though, is that when I visit a doctor we usually trade How, Fine, And you, Fine before I start complaining.
Waaaaay back in one of my early years in college, I took an ethics class. Full disclosue, it was taught by a Jesuit priest.
In it, the class was educated as to the difference, ethically and morally, between a lie and a simple untruth. Not that these disticntions ever matter to those on the receiving end, but in the grad scheme of things, there are three requirements for it to count as a lie:
It is an untruth – that is, it is objectively false.
It is a deliberate attempt to deceive – If I tell you the sky is green, or set up a joke, this does not qualify. Nor am I lying if I unknowingly pass on a falshood in good faith.
It is offered to someone with a moral right to the truth.
In the example of “No jews in the attic” we were offered a very similar case in class, and were told that it would not be lying to state that, on the grounds that the Gestapo – being an organization bent on achieving an unethical end – had no moral right to the truth in that situation.
Of course it gets sticky, because who is to judge who has a moral right to the truth? It’s a bit subjective. However, I offer it for consideration here. By my own ethical code, I wouldn’t lie about something simply to spare myself unnecessary grief that I would have to eventually deal with.
So be it.