My question is this - does it really require intent to deceive for a statement made to be classified as a lie?
For example:
I am a drug company. I do no reasearch on side effects on humans for my new hair-regrowing drug. I sell this drug using advertising statements to the effect that it is guaranteed to not cause any side effects in humans.
I don’t know that my new wonder drug either will or won’t cause side effects, so is my statement in fact a lie?
Yes. The drug may cause side effects. It may not. You just don’t know. However, you are telling your potential customers that you do know. Thus, you are attempting to deceive your customers into believing that you have knowledge/information that you do not, in fact, have.
I think the wording of your phrase used to sell this hypothetical drug is important on whether it’s a lie or not.
Tests have shown there to be no adverse effects on humans - a lie - no tests have shown this.
No test has shown adverse effects on humans - deliberately misleading - technically true, so not a lie, but omits the whole truth.
Guaranteed to have no adverse effects on humans - hiding the issue - you’re not claiming you’ve tested it, just that you’re rather hoping that it’s the case, and will refund the money or similar if there are problems.
Won’t have adverse effects on humans - statement, to be later shown wrong or right - similar to the one above. You’re hoping this is the case, but if it’s not, you weren’t lying, you were simply wrong.
All of these statements in my mind are morally disturbing, but they’re not all lies.
For the record, I am explicitly ***not ** * discussing whether or not my hypothetical actions are morally correct, but only whether they meet the definition of a lie.
Sorry, I mis-stated what I was trying to ask. I should not have said guarantee… Bras0978 said what I was trying to say. I was saying that whilst I actually don’t know the truth, and hope that no one will come down with a horrible purple rash and go blind, I would prefer to use my customers as beta testers rather than blow the cash to test for side effects myself. I am happy for my customers to have the misconception that my product is harmless, regardless of the truth of that statement.
e-logic - your example is also kind of what i was trying to say, but it comes in your example down to a distinction of what the word ‘sleep’ means. In the context you describe, I would take ‘sleep’ to mean ‘have sex with’ and assume my wife would as well. Hence your statement, whilst in one definition is truthful, would in common usage be a lie.
Kind of a semi-hijack, but some of the questions here reminded me of this article:
Examining a book defining ‘bullshit’ (both verb and noun.)
The key point (paraphrasing slightly) relevant here is defining the act of bullshitting as “speaking in a manner unconnected with a concern for the truth.”
So, arguably, if you’re trying to convince people of something that you don’t care if is true or not… you’re probably not lying, but you’re bullshitting them.
Which is exactly why yours is a lie. Even without a guarantee any statement that your products won’t harm me leads me to believe that you know this unless you use some mealy-mouthed wording that makes me suspicous - “Not known to produce any harmful effects with normal use.”
Just look at the second definition and don’t be transfixed by the first one.
I would think this would be what looked at with regards to “intent to deceive.”
Since you made the drug, I would think you would have some idea of the likelihood of the drug having side effects. If your product is made from willow bark and vitamin C, then you have no reason to expect it to have side effects. If it is made of several other drugs that in the past have caused side effects, you would have to expect there very well could be side effects from your new combination.
So if you can reasonably assume there are no side effects, not a lie. You expect what you are saying is true, even though you have not tested it for a fact.
If you can reasonably assume there could be side effects, but you are representing that there are not, then I would consider that creating a false impression. You are stating something that you know is likely to be false.
If your reason for not testing was because you truly believed it to be safe, and just wanted to save money, there is no intent to deceive. If your reason not to test was because you thought the test could prove that side effects were possible and you didn’t want to know the truth, then that is misleading.
Hey, that’s not a lie at all. All your customers that came down with side effects would be covered by your advertised guarantee, and all you’d have to do to stay out of court would be to pay them enough to “make them whole” to settle each case. No problem, except financially.
Gomiboy, you asked, “does it really require intent to deceive for a statement made to be classified as a lie? “ while providing two definitions that clearly state it does. Are you asking if we agree with the definitions? I believe a lie is a lie if there is intent. If someone makes a statement in hopes of deceiving, they are lying. But the definitions you provided already clearly indicate that, so what is your real question?
Whether you know about side effects or not is irrelevant really. The statement is made in order to convey a sense of safety towards to product. A consumer can reasonably assume based on your statements that you don’t believe there to be any side effects. This is clearly misleading if you do not know, and therefore a lie.
I utterly fail to see a distinction between “creating a misleading impression” and “intending to deceive”. In both cases, your goal is for the recipient of your message to accept the message you intend to convey, and for the message itself to have a less-than-100% match-up with to the objective truth. (Assuming “objective truth” is definable, much less determinable, for the case at hand.)
As to the OP itself, I know from various slagfest pit threads I’ve seen or been involved with that there isn’t a single answer. Perhaps the best you can say is that most dictionaries and (in my experience) most people think of lying as something involving intent. There are some dictionary definitions that encompass telling falsehoods unintentionally.
I presented two definitions, only one of which specifically required intent (the wikipedia one). The other definition required either intent to deceive OR to create a false impression.
I am asking for a specific definition… and I have one. Thank you all.
I have an important question about whether a certain scenario is considered lying or not. I understand that the general definition of a lie is a deliberate false statement, but is intent to deceive always a necessity in lying?
Scenario 1: My friend asked me if he can see my phone. I ask him “Are you gonna text or call anyone?” and he says “NO”, that he wont. He takes my phone and plays around with the software because it is a new phone, and he really did want to research it without any intent to text anyone. After about 10 minutes when he is done messing around with it, he texts someone from my phone, even though he said he wouldn’t. Would this be considered a lie? He had NO INITIAL INTENTION of texting anyone when he asked me to see my phone. So he technically did not lie to me in order for me to give him my phone.
Scenario 2: For a while, my wife has wanted me to quit smoking. One Sunday, I wake up and decide that I’m going to try to quit. I have all the intention of quitting, and I swear to my wife that I will not smoke another cigarette in my life… with NO INTENT TO DECEIVE HER (it was not a lie). A month passes by, and I find myself weak and the craving of a cigarette was overbearing, so I had one. Did I lie to my wife? When I told her I wouldn’t have another cigarette, there was no intention to deceive her (I was not lying to her when I told her that).
I’d say neither are lies, because when both statements were made there was no intention to renege on them, nor even knowledge the statements would turn out to be false. Both would be instances of oathbreaking however. Back in the day, that would have been grounds for a good blood feud (or at least call for compensation)
