Trecker

I believe lies always damage the one who tells them, but this is sometimes one of the compromises we must take in life.

AquaVita

I think this would get better play in MF&P....

yelyos

I voted for "As long as it is for the good of those around you" but I personally have a compulsion that prevents me from deliberately telling untruths.

I have become good at finding loopholes and technicalities to get around this compulsion; for example, implying something with silence or words with dual meanings, and answering questions with questions. (Questions can't be untruths even if they sound rhetorical.)

Alonzo Fyfe

Sorry, but language is a tool invented for communication. To know what a phrase means is to know what types of ideas are communicated within that phrase.

Any form of communication (spoken, written, a shrug, a nod of the head, a hand sign, a flashing light, a question, silence) that communicates affirmation of a proposition that one knows to be false is a lie.

Feather

What if it communicates neither affirmation nor denial, i.e. it is ambiguous? Would you say then that no communication has occurred?

It is certainly possible to speak no word that is untrue--even in spirit--and still mislead and misdirect. I wouldn't exactly call that lying, though. Or perhaps I would, because I don't know exactly what I'd call such an act of communication.

Alonzo Fyfe

A lie must actually communicate affirmation of a proposition one knows to be false. To do that, it simply needs to be customary that a person within the culture generally take the signal (be it a spoken or written statement, a hand gesture, a nod of a head, a question, silence, tapping on a desk, a facial expression, whatever) as affirming the proposition.

If a signal does not allow the listener to affirm or deny a proposition, no communication has taken place and no lie has been committed.

Silence can affirm a proposition. For example, a person may announce, "If there is no further comment, I will move on to the next item of business." Silence affirms the proposition that there is no objection to the chair moving on to the next item of business. "Silence implies consent."

The only thing that matters is: What are the signals of communication in play in a particular time and place? Any signal that communicates affirmation of a proposition one believes is false is a lie.

yelyos

The compulsion only applies to spoken and written statements in my case.

It's something I want to rid of, but as long as it's there, I want to make the best of it.

It's an anomaly; not an actual desire not to lie, but more of an extremely uncomfortable feeling that springs up whenever I say something untrue. It's not a mental feeling, but a physical feeling.

Basically, I can't say it if it is defined as a "statement" by the rules of formal logic, and I know it to be false.

Statements about the future I can make, and I can break promises, because statements about the future may turn out to be true, and the action of breaking a promise is not a false verbal or written statement. It really only prevents me from giving false accounts of past events.

I haven't met anybody else with such a compulsion.

Feather

Now that is an interesting take. Suppose A is engaged in communication with B. A asks a question and B responds with an ambigious answer. A then assumes one answer or another based on the context of the discussion (i.e. it is assumed that a known set of possible answers to A's question would apply to the discussion; A chooses one even though B did not specify).

I would not say B has lied to A, but I would say A and B have exchanged information (communicated), because A assumed an affirmation of one sort or another based on B's response. I wouldn't say B has been "completely honest," either, though.

Alonzo Fyfe

Actually, I was admittedly more concerned about the concept of a "lie" than the concept of "communication", except insofar as communication is necessary for a lie to take place. (Where there is no communication, there is no lie.)

Ultimately, I would have to agree that a lie is not a "yes/no" type of situation. There is a fuzzy boundary between them that contains half-truths, ambiguities, unreasonable assumptions, and the like.

The way that I have described a "lie" above is that the common communicator in the language (defined broadly to include all of a culture's standard rules of communication) would have inferred from the statement.

What if B knows that A has a tendency to draw a nonstandard interpretation (for example, because B knows that A has an incorrect understanding of the meaning of a specific word)? Is this a lie?

I think that conditions like this exist in a gray area.

trillian

I voted "OK if it doesnt hurt anyone" (and that includes myself)

There are lots of reasons to lie!!!! Here are a few I can think of:

-When the baby is the ugliest child you've ever seen.
-When the new haircut drops your friends attractiveness down a few points. (you can tell the truth later)
-When you want an annoying guy to quit bugging you (ie I used to be a man!)
-When people ask "How are you?" and you don't want to talk to them.
-When you are planning a surprise.
-When anyone with a gun says to you "accept my religion" or die!
-When a woman bride wears white at a wedding.

To be transparently honest would be a terrible burden.

I think you can get around it by making ambiguous statements, but if the other person infers that you meant "the lie" anyway, it really just the same as outright lying.

trillian