I’m not starting this thread based on any real-life events, and if possible i’d prefer this was debated in theoretical rather than real-life terms - though I suppose real-life examples to an extent are alright.
To what extent do you think it is acceptable to lie about your cause in order to get people to agree with it? Let’s assume you are convinced that all bananas are actually animals, and shouldn’t be eaten. What amount of lying is appropriate?
Maybe a lot of lying; depending on how important the cause is, you might justify it based on the results. I could lie and say that there are studies showing that banana are carcinogenic, for example; clearly a huge lie, but if it saves the lives of even a few bananas, is it reasonable? Of course, you’ve also got to take into account that if your lie is discovered, that could do your cause great harm.
Under my own system of morality, lying to further a cause would be reasonable in some situations. If I thought the cause was very important, I would be unhappy about it but I would lie to get people on my side. How about you?
I think most people would in some circumstances. I’d do it on a “lesser evil” theory. That’s obviously subjective, when you get beyond the easy cases of lying to the Gestapo about who’s hiding in your basement.
As generations of schoolboy catechists have discovered to their delight, lying per se is not regarded as necessarily sinful in Western religious tradition (bearing false witness is, but even there, one could construct extreme cases (reporting the Gestapo officer to his superior for some imaginary misdeed when it was calculated to distract attention from the refugees in the basement) where the evil of false witness would be better than the alternative).
Some while ago I posted a related query – to what extent is it ethical to be disingenuous about your motives or arguments for advocating a particular salutary (from your standpoint) position or end-goal – the examples I gave were PETA campaigning against milk on the grounds that it kills kids or whatever ridiculous allegation they made, or pro-life people arguing based on alleged negative health consequences for women who had abortions – since we know that PETA is not ever going to be happy with any form of farming, and that pro-life people are not really campaigning for methods of abortion that are safer for women, I found those types of arguments unattractive at best, intellectually dishonest at worst.
If you are trying to defeat or defend against an enemy lying is perfectly acceptable. A Nazi looking for Jews in the basement or a lunatic with an axe looking for his wife, for example. Or less dramatically, if the person in question will use the truth against you unfairly ( and yes, “unfairly” is a judgement call ). In this case, lying is just a weapon.
Little white lies are a gray area, but seem to be a necessary social lubricant.
It is not justifiable to lie when you are trying to persuade people, as opposed to trying to harm them. Beyond any moral arguments, the odds are that if it’s necessary to lie that you are likely wrong, like your banana example.
Or that you may be right, but are lazy and taking a shortcut, lying to get to a desired outcome that you “know” is right but as for which sticking to the unequivocal and provable truth won’t, you infer, persuade enough people quickly enough.
Maybe one day we will all realize that it is intrinsically evil and wrong to drink milk or eat meat. We’re nowhere near that point. But we are at a point where almost everyone would take action to keep their kids from being poisoned. So by making sketchy as Hell claims that milk harms kids gravely, one gets to the “right” answer (for PETA) (end to farming), albeit by hook or by crook. Not so cool in my book.
The primary reason why it’s moral to tell the truth is that you respect reality, you respect the person you’re talking to, and you don’t want to present a “false reality” to him, especially one that he may later call to question.
The big exception to this is in the case of coercion. If you’re a police officer in a hostage situation, you are morally obligated to do or say anything that might save the hostages. Or the classic example of the Nazis looking for Jews. In this case, it’d be immoral if you ***did ***tell the truth.
Aside from coercion, the only exception I can think of is when you’re asked, “Do these jeans make my butt look big?”
Lies have a way of biting you in the ass later on. If we catch you lying about your favorite fruit then odds are we’re going to dismiss whatever else you have to say about it. Of course, that’s more of a utilitarian answer.
I can understand deliberate lies for a moral purpose such as securing food for the starving or saving a life. But I don’t understand lying just to make a point. Who wants to make a point that lacks foundation? You’re kidding yourself.
I’ve found ‘Truth’ to be subjective anyway and I’ve yet to find a universal truth that holds true for for everyone.
So IMO if your truth is not going to be their truth there is little differance between telling the truth and lying. The only person who you absolutly should not lie to is yourself and thats the only person who’s judgement you have to live with.
Well, that’s why I phrased the OP and title the way I did. I’m not talking about just lying to win an argument; i’ agree that that’s pretty pointless in and of itself. But if you’re lying to change someone’s mind, and that has some effect on your cause, then it’s a practical matter instead of a purely theoretical argument.
It was only after I posted the OP that I realised anyone who reads it is going to assume i’m lying whenever I post in GD. :smack:
Lies (for the purpose of furthering a cause) *always *undermine your position. The minute even one of the lies is uncovered, everything you’ve ever tried to sell your audience on gets called into question. From that point on, you’re working against yourself.
If your cause is right and just, stick to the truth.
