meritocrat

For what purpose is lying wrong? Are there some instances in which it's 'right' to lie?

winterwooskie

reasons for why it's wrong. for selfish gain, something that affects another person in a bad way.

a good reason to lie to is when someone can gain something from it if you tell the truth but them gaining it, is selfish or can affect someone badly. another would be when there is a taboo about something and someone doesn't want to be treated like crap for it and feel more comfortable not exposing themselves.

an example of lying for a good reason would be if it were germany in the 1940's and you were hiding someone who is jewish and the gestapo comes to your house asking if you are hiding anyone. lie and it is good because to tell the truth means the person who is abusing their power is not going to gain from it.

Monkeybot

Loosely speaking, I'd say lying is wrong if you are doing it to take advantage of someone. Example, "Let me borrow $1000; I'll pay it back next week." If you're lying and don't pay it back, that other person has lost $1000. Similarly, "I love you and I'd never hurt you" -- while cheating on that person all the while. In that case, you take advantage of their emotions to get what you want (sex, money, etc). The other person gives you something in good faith, and you basically abuse that.

winterswookie pretty much nailed it. We generally condone "little white lies" because they're used to pad out people's egos or make them feel better. Of course, this can be disadvantageous in some circumstances -- the one that jumps to my mind is faking orgasms. You fake orgasms, you're basically training your partner to do all the wrong things...

kctan

Lying is never wrong. It's basically a neutral act. It's up to individuals to analyst just why it's 'right' or 'wrong'. If you're the person doing the lying, most probably it'll always be right while if you're the one being lied to, most probably it'll always be wrong. If you're a person viewing the whole episode from the side, it'll depends on how well you can empathise with either of them.

BTW Kids are always lying. It seems that it's not an acquired trait. They seems to be able to lie without the need to know that they are actually 'lying'. My 3 year old is always 'lying' to me while relating her daily experience to me. The fact that her 'lying' doesn't seems to be affecting her at all has cause me to think that a 'conscience' is actually something we acquired later on in life rather then it being there at the very begining.

I think you could relate this to the fact that we are basically neutral in all things until we're subjected to peer pressure, learnings, teachings et al to have a basic understanding of what 'right' & 'wrong' is, according to the adults & society at large.

long winded fool

If any given human being's fundamental goal, in general, is survival, and if human beings accomplish this goal by acquiring more information about themselves, their environment, etc. and logically applying this information to ensure survival, then intentionally deceiving another human being would always be immoral (detrimental to the species in general) no matter what the motive. Even the littlest of white lies are as harmful to a human being as swiping a pack of gum from a gas station is to free capitalism. Just because nothing bad directly comes from one particular insignificant case doesn't make it correct behavior.

No one should be whipped for telling a little white lie, (their motives might even be commended) but they should always understand that intentional deception is a logically wrong behavior for a cooperative species to engage in.

Jamie_L

I think Long Winded Fool has a point.

All things considered, honesty is preferrable to dishonesty in a general sense. At a basic level, dishonesty prevents someone from hearing the truth when they want to. That is the specific moral violation of dishonesty.

However, like most actions in the real world, the impact of a lie on the desire to hear truth is not the only thing that one must consider when evaluating the morality of a specific lie. Different situations will involve other moral values. In the case of hiding Jewish people from Nazis, the act of telling the truth creates greater immorality than the act of lying. Thus, that particular lie is moral.

Jamie

Clutch

Well, whether you agree with him or not, the best place to start thinking about lying is with Augustine's 'On Lying'. There's a modern translation online here.

Some of it shows morally reprehensible features of his way of thinking, as in:But overall it is a careful, thoughtful and exhaustive consideration of the morality of lying.

long winded fool

An interesting example, however I don't think telling the Nazis that you are hiding Jews would be an immoral behavior. It would be a moral behavior that has undesirable consequences beyond your control resulting from unrelated immoral behavior. Lying to the Nazis (and I'm speaking strictly in a technical sense) would be an immoral behavior with desirable consequences. In both cases, the consequences lie in immoral actions taken by an outside party, not the person who is doing the lying/truth telling. If you didn't want the Jews you're hiding to be arrested, yet also didn't want to engage in immoral behavior by lying, (assuming that it is an immoral behavior,) you can always refuse to say anything. If silence is considered an admission of guilt, it is not your fault. Again, the negative consequences come from the immoral behavior of another, not you.

I think it is a common misconception that failing to prevent others from doing something immoral is an immoral act. This is not true, since all acts could then be considered immoral. (I'm brushing my teeth when I could be fighting crime!) The only consciences we ought to worry about are our own. We ought to always be moral regardless of the behavior of others. Preventing an immoral act with a moral act results in positive consequences, in the sense that it encourages morality among those who witness it, if nothing else. Preventing an immoral act with another immoral act merely shifts the negative consequences to some other area and encourages the "do whatever it takes to get my way" attitude. There are many examples where most human beings just wouldn't care, (I mean, who really cares if we had to deceive the Nazis to save persecuted Jews? Besides the Nazis, I mean. ) but two wrongs still don't technically make a right, and the bad guys will always be those doing the immoral things and never those doing moral things. In other words, the guy who tells the truth to the interrogating Nazis that he is hiding Jews in his basement is not doing something immoral. The Nazis who arrest and execute the Jews are the ones engaging in the immoral behavior. We don't judge the guy who prevents a greater wrong with a lesser wrong, we may even praise his good intentions, but we must label his lie as wrong if we are to logically understand the difference between right and wrong.

excreationist

long winded fool:
What do you think about undercover police? They lie a lot as part of their job, and even sometimes deny that they are police if asked by criminals. If what they do is immoral (lie), do you think undercover police work should be scrapped? (If they can't lie, then admitting you're a cop could cost them their lives)

You said that lying to the Nazi's about Jews is immoral, and telling the truth is moral. That implies that people "should" tell the truth to Nazi's - i.e. it is the right thing to do. Say Schindler from the WW2 movie (I haven't seen it) was asked if he knew of any Jews being hid anywhere (he hid about 1000 I think). He would have 3 choices - to say yes (the truth), say no (a lie) or not answer. Not answering implies he has something to hide (and arouse suspicion). You said the moral thing to do was to not lie - which would result in hundreds of Jews being exterminated. And you said the immoral thing to do was lie. So Schindler "ought" to avoid lying.... ?

Jamie_L

I have to disagree with you here. I think the situation effects the morality of an action. The morality of an action or chioce is determined by the impact it has on others. The impact of lying to a friend and lying to the Nazis is dramatically different. In my opinion, its not possible for a behavior to be both immoral and have desirable consequences in a big picture sense. The consequences help determine the morality.

I've got to disagree again. If one has the knowledge and ability to prevent an immoral act, and taking that action doesn't create a larger immoral situation, then one can be considered to be behaving immorally if one doesn't intervene.

We are perfectly capable of understanding the difference between right and wrong by looking at the how our desires impact the desires of others. Just because that relationship may be complex, and vary from situation to situation, does not mean it is not logical.

Jamie