From some time ago, I am looking for a un-religious answer to a apparently simple question: Why lying is bad? (Please abstract social lying).
A google search of “lying is bad” only gives 630 links. I am interested in all
points of view, however I would stress the social point of view than personal one. That is, what would be the consequences for a society that tolerate in a high measure lying and why?
One of the answer acceptable to me from a personal point of view is that lying lead to a lost of confidence, however if a society tolerate lying this may not be a problem. “Wow you are really smart, you lie to your insurance company to get more money. This is my friend”
Besides, why is so difficult to find a un-religious answer to this question? May be because “lying is bad” is a kind of ethics-axiom?
(Please do not answer if you think, in any realistic sense, that “lying is bad” is false.)
Ok, from a social perspective, lying is bad because it makes coordinated action impossible. You can not make plans which depend on other people. When everybody lies, nobody trusts anybody, and it is trust that binds societies together.
If no one believes anybody, if the public has no faith in its government, in its laws, in its businesses, in its science, and most importantly, in each other, then society will collapse. You might say, “doesn’t the law elimate the need for trust?” Let me give you an example. By making contracts legally enforceable, you no longer have to place complete trust in the person you are making the contract with. However, accepting that legal protection requires you to trust that the courts will uphold their obligations in enforcing the contract. You will usually accept that because courts are accountable to higher courts… but that means you have to trust the higher courts. The law doesn’t eliminate the need for trust; it provides a way for spreading it out, diversifying your risk so to speak.
I think Blauboad took the words right out of my mouth
But I did want to mention that it is interesting to note the importance of honesty, while also asserting the myriad lies we encounter daily in our lives. It would be interesting to articulate a theory on the fine line between efficient and not efficient lying. For all of us are familiar with examples where it was/is efficient for us or for someone around us to lie instead of tell the truth. So we can admit that lying is sometimes good or beneficial. I don’t think any of us would say that lying to save one’s own life or another would be wrong and I am fully aware of the extreme example I provided. I did so only to illustrate a beginning from which to begin building a theory on which to substantiate the claim that lying is sometimes good or beneficial and to help guide the debate into a realistic medium between extremes of complete honesty and of complete dishonesty. For rarely is life so simple.
I think many of us are ready to commit to the idea that a society cannot work with complete dishonesty. On the other hand, is anyone willing to commit to the idea that complete honesty by all members of a society would work?
Yes, I do think that Blauboad have made a remarkable and unexpected comment. "Ok, from a social perspective, lying is bad because it makes coordinated action impossible. "
On the other hand, “lying without exception” is not realistic:
-Please the Post Office is in the street A or in the street B.
-Oh, it is in the street A.
-Oh, thanks now I know I have to take the street B.
To be realistic I would modify the Blauboad comment to “Ok, from a social perspective, lying is bad because in the “measure” it is big in a society, it makes coordinated action more difficult.”
The problem here is how can be measured the “level of trustness” of a given society.
The people that lie, is trying to avoid facing the reality in some way. That is why the known relationship between lying and cowardice. But this can be generalize to a society as whole. The “level of trustness” of a society is inverse to its “level” of cowardice?
Would be some interesting relationships between power and lying. I will try address this, later.
Perhaps this is why american goverment is failing for me now, i have no trust in it. This is also why i hate my job since my boss is the king of lies. He lies in the face of truth.
For exmaple I could ask him what color his shirt was he could say blue but of couse he is wearing white.
I think I agree with Kant when he says that lying (supposedly like all other “immoral” actions) is a self-defeating purpose. In a world where lying was the “norm” there would be no point to communication at all - if the lier wills a world of liers by lying (keep in mind the universal maxim) he is willing a principle that may offer brief gains in the short-term, but that is utterly self-defeating on the whole.
A lier only succeeds because we normally expect that people are - at base - truthful and honest. A lier in a world full of liers sees that his actions are negated from the outset. Thus, assuming that consistency is a key element of moral thought (ceterus parabus, one cannot assert that the same action made twice can at one point be moral and at another point be immoral) it must be concluded that to lie without willing a world full or liers (as willing a world full of liers would negate the purpose of the lie in the first place) is a morally inconsistent perspective and must therefore - on the whole - be considered immoral.
It may also be derived from the idea that people like to be in control of themselves and their environment. Being unaware of what is really going on around you is form of control. If someone was to lie to you and you find out that you’ve been used in a sense as a pawn then one may lose respect for themselves due to their inability to see through the lie. Theres also the possibility that people lose respect for someone unable to deal with the truth. Someone may lie in order to blind themself from what is really going on.
I’m just thinking of other possibilities. The major reason is probably the ineffectiveness of the concept. Survival goes hand and hand with information. The more you know the easier it is.
i don’t believe in the lying-concept(s). the “words” “coming out” of “your” mouth are only indications of the only thing that is, that which is within. It would have been a lie to say that your grandma’s grandma’s dead if the “words” “coming out” of “your” mouth lived some sort of existence on their own, because what is within isn’t a person. But then, what is within is the only “thing” that exists, so the “words” “coming out” of a mouth don’t live by themselves but are only indications of the only “thing” there is. So, there is no such “thing” as lies.
Hmm… I’m inclined to say that lying is regarded as bad because people don’t like to be lied to, and this is probably because people strive for accurate knowledge of the world around them so as to be more able to control it.
Postmodern,
I think I know what you mean, but you are taking a much to focused look at the topic. With your logic of there not being such a thing as a lie, can easily be transferred to just about anything ‘that is said’. Although, I think you point is very important, many people have written books about the misleading nature of language, words, both spoken and written and how people come to believe that words are actually the things themselves or that the words have always existed, etc. These erroneous notions is what I think you are trying to point out and implement a stop sign at them. I agree that this needs to be done. But I, I won’t speak for others, used the word ‘lie’ in my previous post because of the context in which this thread has gone into. If we take your logic then there really is no point in having a message board, since there is no such thing as [enter word]. But a ‘lie’ within context can be defined many ways. Some believe a lie can constitute someone speaking an untruth, even unintentionally. For me, a lie must be intentional or the person speaking must be aware of what theyare saying to be false or purposefully wording their statement in such a way as to give a message across to the other person for them to understand an untruth by the way it was spoken.
For example, if I know that I ate the only apple on the table in the kitchen this morning, and someone asks me “Magius, did you eat the apple that was on the table in the kitchen this morning?” and if I say “No,” this is a lie - as long as the previous qualifiers apply (that I am aware that I did so and that I am aware I am lying.).
i agree, to lie can be defined in many (untrue) ways. it’s a construction, a concept and its function is closely connected to the false idea of autonomic humans in the justification of a system that ignores what’s within and is, thus, also a false construct, concept. these constructions and concepts loose their importance when you realise they’re artificial. it’s a question of letting out what’s within and you realise you don’t care about lawyers, buildings and their denotions and connotations. all are one and there is no such thing as autonomic humans. “what comes out of people’s mouths” isn’t important, all activity indicates what is within. what’s within isn’t aggressive, there’s nothing wring with smashing a window. but one wouldn’t have done it without all these prisons of thought that create illusions about reality and inevitably lead to frustration, “lies”, “white lies” and what’s more. there is no such thing as a prison. but humans assign certain buldings that meaning. but i wouldn’t be surprised if some “prisoner” suddenly let all “thoughts” fly away and the “prison” would no longer be that to that “person”. “he/she” would feel as part of the whole universe, metaphorically speaking, and see through the falsity of “prisons” and all other false concepts (prisons, metaphorically speaking) that make up the imaginary world many “people” don’t see through, because one couldn’t do that from a “person”'s perspective, could “one”? so people get into these illusions/ways of seeing things (and one can’t see what’s within, can one?)… and then it’s hard to realise that all that is can’t be seen in our typographic culture, categorising, “misleading” culture…
when people fight against each other it’s because of ideologies, false concepts. it just reflects the way of SEEING each other typically in western culture that has been transferred to rwanda, cambodja and so on. instead of searching within, importance is put upon inventing theories that legitimises illusionary hierarchical structures. it’s all in the mind and nothing to do with what’s within or reality. actually, what is only is. and it feels great. it’s beyond moralism and all such concepts.
one says something and one feels bad afterwards. “because it’s a lie”. but maybe it just happens to be because one’s afraid that it would be known and the possible weakening of relations. the weakening of the imaginary world of autonomic humans one gets so frustrated by. well, such “crises” are good. “I never knew that things exploded, I only found it out when I was down upon my knees”. It’s the crisis of the autonomic human - concept with all its denotions and connotations. and it’s brilliant if it leads to a genuin understanding of reality, because then one won’t have such “bad” moments again. to realise that the world one meets in media and elsewhere is an illusionary one. and bad moments are part of that illusion. all there is is is. one assigns meaning to actions as if they were made by autonomic humans and fail to see beyond the bodies. why is it that one loves living creatures? is it what’s within or is it their bodies? if it’s the latter, then there might be something to the autonomic human - concept.
