Is there a moral argument for lying?

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;101827 wrote:

It is certainly possible just to refuse to tell him, isn't it? I think that Socrates simply said you had no obligation to give him the weapons. (It wasn't about lying. It was about whether it is always right to return to someone what he owns. And Socrates offered this case as a counterexample to the principle that it is always right to return what a person owns).

This is why I changed it to the murderer chasing your brother. You could use the arguement that instead of lying you could just not answer the murderer. But if you are actually interested in deterring the murderer, you would want to keep him as far away from your brother as possible. Therefore, a lie telling the murderer to go in an opposite direction would give your brother the best chance for survival. Is upholding the prohibition on lying more important than the increased odds of your brother's survival?

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;101827 wrote:

It is certainly possible just to refuse to tell him, isn't it? I think that Socrates simply said you had no obligation to give him the weapons. (It wasn't about lying. It was about whether it is always right to return to someone what he owns. And Socrates offered this case as a counterexample to the principle that it is always right to return what a person owns).

Yes, you're right, but there are countless situations along similar lines of reasoning, where it could be morally correct to lie. i.e., you are being held as a hostage and tortured for valuable information that you have...the information will be used to nefarious ends that could harm all of humanity. You cannot refuse to give an answer, so isn't it better to lie?

@Pangloss,

Pangloss;101835 wrote:

Yes, you're right, but there are countless situations along similar lines of reasoning, where it could be morally correct to lie. i.e., you are being held as a hostage and tortured for valuable information that you have...the information will be used to nefarious ends that could harm all of humanity. You cannot refuse to give an answer, so isn't it better to lie?

I think so, and so do you. But how does that matter? The question is, what is the argument for lying, and for not lying. One of Kant's argument for the absolute prohibition on lying is that once you lie, you can have no control on what happens. He argued that if you lie to the murderer, and you tell him that your brother went in a certain direction, then if, unknown to you, your brother decided to go in the direction you indicated, and so, because of you, he was found by the murderer, then you would be to blame for his death. Kant's point is that if you tell the truth, you know you have done what is right. If you lie, you cannot know what the consequences will be.

@kennethamy,

I disagree with Kant on this, because through this logic any action through which you intend a positive result is wrong provided there is the possibility of a negative result, no matter how slim. Here's another example: You fall in love and decide to get married, but it is possible that the marraige will result in a divorce, tearing apart your family and negatively affecting your children for the rest of their lives. Is the marraige therefore morally wrong because the future is out of your control? The problem with moral absolutes is that sometimes a perceived immoral act WILL provide the best outcome. As agents of reason, we tend to choose the action that has the best chance of a favorable outcome, which could be lying.

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;101842 wrote:

The question is, what is the argument for lying, and for not lying. One of Kant's argument for the absolute prohibition on lying is that once you lie, you can have no control on what happens. He argued that if you lie to the murderer, and you tell him that your brother went in a certain direction, then if, unknown to you, your brother decided to go in the direction you indicated, and so, because of you, he was found by the murderer, then you would be to blame for his death. Kant's point is that if you tell the truth, you know you have done what is right. If you lie, you cannot know what the consequences will be.

Well, I gave you an argument for lying. It's useful and morally justified to lie when the dispersal of information contained in the 'truth' could lead to the harm of others.

I've not read Kant's argument, but from what you've written, it sounds like not such a good one. I have no control of what happens as the result of others' actions, regardless of whether I lie or do not lie. I wouldn't be at fault for murder if I was not myself the murderer or co-conspirator...it is not up to me. Though I could be partly to blame if I had the power to stop it by lying, and I chose not to do so. All I can do in the situation is use my best knowledge to prevent a murder from taking place, but if the murderer succeeds anyway, it's not going to be on my conscience. Of course if this situation happened in real life, we would never prosecute the liar for being a party to murder...we all know he is not at fault. And, in fact, under the law, if I had told the truth in this situation and the murderer succeeded, then I could be at fault here, because the event of the murder was foreseeable, and I did nothing about it, even though I did have the power to act.

I do not know for sure what consequences will take place if I lie, or if I tell the truth, but I can still make a decision about which course of action will lead to the best results for all involved. And I can certainly think of many instances where, if I told the truth, I would not know that what I have done was right.

@Kroni,

Pangloss wrote:

I do not know what consequences will take place if I lie, or if I tell the truth. And I can certainly think of many instances where, if I told the truth, I would not know that what I have done was right.

Not to mention, sometimes you don't even know whether you're lying or telling the truth.

Very confusing matter indeed.

@Zetherin,

Zetherin;101855 wrote:

Not to mention, sometimes you don't even know whether you're lying or telling the truth.

Very confusing matter indeed.

Well, I think that lying requires an intent to deceive. So a person always knows that they are lying, though even by lying, they could in fact be saying what is 'true'. The truth value of the information does not determine a lie, but an intent to deceive with this information does.

@Zetherin,

Zetherin;101855 wrote:

Not to mention, sometimes you don't even know whether you're lying or telling the truth.

Why do you say that? A lie is intentionally stating what you believe to be false. Of course, what you believe to be false may turn out to be true. But you are still not being truthful, although you happen to be telling the truth. One of the main jobs of philosophy: To get rid of confusion. Or, as Wittgenstein put it, "To show the fly out of the fly bottle".

@Kroni,

It sounds like there is not a moral argument for lying, but there is a logical argument for lying.

@Kroni,

According to my interpretation of morality, I think there's a very good moral argument for lying, as I've stated. But this thread inevitably just begs the question, "What is morality?", and that's a whole new can of worms to be opened...

@Kroni,

kennethamy wrote:

Why do you say that? A lie is intentionally stating what you believe to be false. Of course, what you believe to be false may turn out to be true. But you are still not being truthful, although you happen to be telling the truth. One of the main jobs of philosophy: To get rid of confusion. Or, as Wittgenstein put it, "To show the fly out of the fly bottle".

Pangloss wrote:

Well, I think that lying requires an intent to deceive. So a person always knows that they are lying, though even by lying, they could in fact be saying what is 'true'. The truth value of the information does not determine a lie, but an intent to deceive with this information does.

I did not know this. I thought a lie had to do with the truth value, not of intent.

I thought there was such a thing as an intentional and unintentional lie.

I guess I am incorrect.

@chad3006,

chad3006;101873 wrote:

It sounds like there is not a moral argument for lying, but there is a logical argument for lying.

All arguments, moral or not, should be logical.

---------- Post added 11-04-2009 at 05:03 PM ----------

Zetherin;101875 wrote:

I did not know this. I thought a lie had to do with the truth value, not of intent.

I thought there was such a thing as an intentional and unintentional lie.

I guess I am incorrect.

I think it is the same difference. Only different terms.

@Kroni,

A lot of it depends on what ethical theory you hold to. A Utilitarian would have a very different understanding of morals than a person who believes in categorical imperatives. While the utilitarian would say that it is morally right to lie and protect your brother, a follower of absolute moral rule would say that it is morally wrong to break that rule.

@Zetherin,

Zetherin;101875 wrote:

I did not know this. I thought a lie had to do with the truth value, not of intent.

I thought there was such a thing as an intentional and unintentional lie.

I guess I am incorrect.

Wikipedia states the following on the term, which I agree with:

Quote:

"To lie is to state something that one knows to be false or that one does not honestly believe to be true with the intention that a person will take it for the truth."

@Pangloss,

I think it's clear that lying is not inherently immoral. If the result of the lie is a positive then it isn't a bad thing that you lied, as in the examples that have been posted.

In general it is a risky behavior though. Kant makes a good point that you don't know what the effect of your lie is going to be. But I don't think the answer is to not lie, just to make your best guess.

Lying is something our moral instincts are almost perfectly capable of dealing with though. People lie all the time, and we're pretty good at judging whether it was wrong or not.

I don't think you can have an absolute rule, maybe some guiding principles. It would have to be decided on a case by case basis.

@Kroni,

K.
I don't see how moral arguments can be logical.

On the issue: it's an idealistic soul indeed who gets thru this life without finding a lie justified. Smile

@Reconstructo,

Reconstructo;109730 wrote:

K.
I don't see how moral arguments can be logical.

On the issue: it's an idealistic soul indeed who gets thru this life without finding a lie justified.

I don't know what you mean by "logical".

1. If John breaks his promise, then he will doing something wrong.
2. John will break his promise.
Therefore, 3, John will do something wrong.

A moral argument that is logical.

@Kroni,

Define "wrong" with logic. I implore you. Smile

@Reconstructo,

Reconstructo;109736 wrote:

Define "wrong" with logic. I implore you.

I don't define any term with logic. I like to use the dictionary. What it would mean to define a term with logic, I have no idea. But I did present you with an example of a logical argument about morality. Didn't you write that you did not see how a moral argument could be logical?

@Kroni,

Sure, an argument can include terms such as "wrong." But that isn't doing much to determine what is wrong. Morals are a zone where emotion is very much involved. We argue/persuade because of such emotion.

Philosophy Forum

Is there a moral argument for lying?

Quick Links

My Account

able2know