Lying is always bad - why???

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
There surely must be such a thing as a “white lie”.
If we can show just one example of a white lie that is so extreme that none of us is willing to dispute it then, logically, we must all agree that lying is not always bad:

If telling a little lie is the only way to trick a homicidal terrorist from pressing the red button on a doomsday machine th ...[text shortened]... e isn't a doomsday machine but a dishwasher he would then not destroy all life, is a white lie?

I remember in a conversation that only me and Robbie had long ago on this topic (as a tangential point on some thread if I recall) I raised similar scenario for precisely that purpose - Robbie's response:

I'm not going to comment on hypothetical scenarios (paraphrasing)

Originally posted by Agerg
I'm sure not only Robbie Carrobie holds that lying is always bad (because the Bible says so); my question is why??? to this end perhaps someone will point out where in these examples telling the truth would be a better solution:

Dave: "Hi Greg!...how you doing?"
Me: (having only had a couple of hours sleep, am in a hurry to get somewhere Dave isn't, ...[text shortened]... rds his mum looking for more approval of his "talents".

lol. Given his history with me, one would have to say that RC holds that "lying is always bad (unless RC is the one doing the lying)". The blatant hypocrisy of many of the Christians on this forum is truly remarkable.

But as to the crux of the matter, you might have to think "out of the box" on this one. I believe that lying is always bad because ultimately it works against lasting harmony. Any harmony based on untruths is destined to fail.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
lol. Given his history with me, one would have to say that RC holds that "lying is always bad (unless RC is the one doing the lying)". The blatant hypocrisy of many of the Christians on this forum is truly remarkable.

But as to the crux of the matter, you might have to think "out of the box" on this one. I believe that lying is always bad because ultimately it works against lasting harmony. Any harmony based on untruths is destined to fail.

I do have a thread waiting where I did think out of the box (though I would have posed it differently now than I did back then) - also, Andrew Hamilton's offering looks quite appetising!

That aside, if we consider telling a young child a white lie in order to make him happy; how intransient do we expect the kid's memory of this event to be such that it would induce any problems in the future?

Originally posted by Agerg
I remember in a conversation that only me and Robbie had long ago on this topic (as a tangential point on some thread if I recall) I raised similar scenario for precisely that purpose - Robbie's response:

I'm not going to comment on hypothetical scenarios (paraphrasing)

that is a strange response.

To never consider the hypothetical limits and strangles the imagination to the extent of totally insulting the intellect.

Only a moron would never ask “what if”.

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
that is a strange response.

To never consider the hypothetical limits and strangles the imagination to the extent of totally insulting the intellect.

Only a moron would never ask “what if”.

The thread was here:
http://www.redhotpawn.com/board/showthread.php?threadid=127783&page=&page=13


Though my phrasing of the scenario is slightly embarrasing looking back, the part of his response to which I refer was:
Alas how it pangs me!!, the situation you give to support your hypothesis is of itself entirely hypothetical in itself, and thus, i am sadly grieved to say, cannot be subject to proper analysis and evaluation on this basis, for the role of conscience is also guided by experience in the real world. It would be much better for your argument if you could provide 'real scenarios', where you have found it to be expedient to tell 'porky pies', and i shall guarantee, that in every instance, one would have been better off withholding information or simply finding an alternative to the lie, thus making my original premise, not assumptive but firmly grounded with in the realms of truth.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
some truly pathetic assertions of the most ludicrous kind,

1. pretentiousness, like you are supposed to entertain everyone you meet. why not honestly say look mate i am really tired any chance i can just chill!

2. Have you got a cigarette, no i really do not smoke, its not very good for your health! Or if you are unfortunate enough to do so, ion with no real power! a semblance of the reality, luke warm, fit for nothing but spiting out!

he has sided with the so called 'moderates, in my opinion, not Christian at all, but a kind of hybrid of secular liberalism and political correctness masquerading as Christianity. Weak and wimpy Christian who have watered down the word of God to suit their own particular spiritual fetish! a form of Godly devotion with no real power! a semblance of the reality, luke warm, fit for nothing but spiting out!

I didn't give this part of your response here any acknowledgement. I have not so much "sided" with the moderates in as much that with the exception of a couple of details (namely the sacrifice of Jesus) I have no compelling reason to oppose them.
Do I think their beliefs are plausible or evidentially substantiated? No - that's why I'm an atheist; On the otherhand, do I think their beliefs are logically tenable? - Yes...it is quite feasible to suppose that some God may be represented by a holy book which serves to approximate it's characteristics - albeit with the weakness of human language and primitive morality of it's writers. There's just no way to demonstrate this is true.

Your belief on the otherhand fails not only at being plausible, it fails to be tenable.

Originally posted by Agerg
The thread was here:
http://www.redhotpawn.com/board/showthread.php?threadid=127783&page=&page=13


Though my phrasing of the scenario is slightly embarrasing looking back, the part of his response to which I refer was:
Alas how it pangs me!!, the situation you give to support your hypothesis is of itself entirely hypothetical in itself, and thus, i am ...[text shortened]... ng my original premise, not assumptive but firmly grounded with in the realms of truth.

In response to Robbie's response, I can't see how withholding information for the greater good is not similar to lying for the greater good.

Hence why is lying, which provides false information, different from withholding information which implies false information?

Originally posted by Agerg
I'm sure not only Robbie Carrobie holds that lying is always bad (because the Bible says so); my question is why??? to this end perhaps someone will point out where in these examples telling the truth would be a better solution:

Dave: "Hi Greg!...how you doing?"
Me: (having only had a couple of hours sleep, am in a hurry to get somewhere Dave isn't, rds his mum looking for more approval of his "talents".

I'm sure not only Robbie Carrobie holds that lying is always bad (because the Bible says so)

Yes, indeed. This was quite a universal Christian teaching until recent times. The Catholic Church taught, and perhaps still does, that lying is an intrinsic evil, first because it violates the natural purpose of human communication, and second, from a consequentialist perspective, the presumption of honesty is necessary for meaningful dialogue and, without it, society would be severely hindered because no one could reasonably gain information vicariously.

There are, however, some important caveats, at least from the traditional Catholic perspective. First, a lie is not merely a false statement. It requires the intention to deceive as well. Second, lying only occurs in formal speech. Jokes and fictional stories are not lies. I would also include perlocutionary acts in the category of informal speech, like compliments, since in a casual conversation no one seriously is concerned with the truth or falsity of these -- compliments are merely acts of kindness to encourage a sense of friendliness. Third, on some occasions, the full content of the statement is not verbally expressed and, so, what looks like a lie may not be. This is infamously known as mental reservation. For example, a telemarketer rings up and asks for me, I say 'he is not present', obviously reserving the words 'present for you'. I don't think this constitutes a lie. This is simply a polite way to rebuff an unwanted and intrusive call and undoubtedly the telemarketer would understand this (there is, anyway, no intent to deceive.)

Dave: "Hi Greg!...how you doing?"
Me: (having only had a couple of hours sleep, am in a hurry to get somewhere Dave isn't, and have just had some crappy news that bears little relevance to the troubles Dave might be having or his reason for wanting to swap pleasantries) "Hi Dave, I'm not so bad thanksReveal Hidden Content

a lie

...and you?"
*small talk continues and ends in due course; neither of us have any impressions about the other they are a "miserable sod", and perhaps we should avoid them next time we see each other

Right, but these are, after all, pleasantries. They are not really expected to have any truth-value. It is a mere conversational script that every person goes through. There is no intent to deceive either. This, at least in the traditional moral sense of the word, is not lying.

Hooded stranger winding his way inside my comfort zone: "ere mate...got any cigs ah can lend off ya?"
Me: (with a couple of cigarettes left that I don't want to be giving away to strangers and not wanting to engage this person in dialogue, or *share* anything else) "No sorry mate...don't smokeReveal Hidden Content

making sure the cuboidal bulge in my pocket is obscured from his line of sight

"
Hooded manReveal Hidden Content

(who isn\'t closing the distance between myself and him as fast as he\'s walking - since I\'m now starting to back away)

: "k, safe mate"

I think in this case you could plausibly argue that there is a mental reservation, 'as far as you are concerned'. But, anyway, the intention of the speaker in this case is to ward off a suspicious and possibly dangerous man. Perhaps it could be argued that there was no explicit intention to deceive but rather to turn away the man using any verbal means.

This is perhaps a complicated point but I think that there is a difference between lying with the intention to rebuff a stranger (which would still be objectively wrong to a Christian) and using any verbal means to rebuff a stranger, although it just happens to be false. The latter, I do not think, would be a lie. When I am in the city and approached by people for money, I generally reply that I do not carry change. This is just a stock excuse I use because it is effective. I still use it, however, even when, by chance, I may be carrying change. In that case, I do not think I have committed a lie because it only happens to be false on that day. Again, I think truth-functionality comes into play again: none of these statements are expected to have any truth-value; they are simply perlocutionary.

Some four year old child, Liam, showing me it's latest crayon scrawlings: "Look it's a cat!"
Me: (noticing it looks more like a trail of spaghetti than anything which remotely bears any resemblence to an animal - let alone a cat) "Wow that's really goodReveal Hidden Content

I secretly think it\'s horrible and that drawing is probably not playing to his strengths

- are those it's whiskers!?"
Liam: (now with a beaming grin on his face): "yeah they're it's whiskers!"
Me: "Well done Liam - have you showed it your mummy?"
Four year old merrily tootles off towards his mum looking for more approval of his "talents".

In this case, however, your statement is not really truth-functional. The intention of your speech is not propositional; it is simply encouragement. It might however be a lie in certain circumstances. If you were, say, a teacher and had to award a grade for this art, then it really would be a lie. You may wish to encourage the child but if you submitted to the school that it was of good quality, when in fact it fell short of the curricular standards, that would really be an act of deception. The school would expect your grades to measure the students' ability, not to express your encouragement.


One final point I will mention is that while a Christian may hold that lying is objectively wrong, they may admit certain situations where lying is permissible. One famous example would be the German concealing Jewish refugees from the Nazis. The Nazis knock on his door and he explains that no Jews are present in the house. This is a lie. There are Jews in the house and he does want to deceive the Nazis. On the other hand, however, the man has a duty to secrecy, one which is made graver because divulging this secret would risk the lives of others. Consequently, when he answers the Nazis, he has three options: revealing where the Jews are (which immediately breaches this duty), silence (which would indirectly expose the Jews because the Nazis might then investigate further) and lying. Lying in this case, while a Christian may still hold it objectively wrong, is permissible as (by far) the least evil.

Originally posted by lausey
In response to Robbie's response, I can't see how withholding information for the greater good is not similar to lying for the greater good.

Hence why is lying, which provides false information, different from withholding information which implies false information?

thankyou lausey, indeed, simply withholding information from one who is not entitled to that information is certainly not the same as lying!

Originally posted by Conrau K
[b]I'm sure not only Robbie Carrobie holds that lying is always bad (because the Bible says so)

Yes, indeed. This was quite a universal Christian teaching until recent times. The Catholic Church taught, and perhaps still does, that lying is an intrinsic evil, first because it violates the natural purpose of human communication, and second, from a con ...[text shortened]... ong, is permissible as (by far) the least evil.[/b]

a thoroughly excellent post as ever i have read on these forums!

Originally posted by Agerg
Well that would require a pragmatic approach to the Bible as it seems you and other moderates do have; The Robbie Carrobie, RBHill, whodey, KellyJay, etc...followers [1] of this forum however seem to take a somewhat simplistic approach to scripture in that if Bible says don't do X then in ALL cases, anything which can be interpreted (by them) as X is a bad thi ...[text shortened]... ently gracing these forums with their wisdom) to represent the majority view of theists here.

The problem is 'Thinking independently' for those people is an oxymoron.

Originally posted by sonhouse
The problem is 'Thinking independently' for those people is an oxymoron.

when one exercises ones conscience in any given matter, how can it be said that one is not thinking independently, please explain. one need only look at the present crisis in which humanity finds itself to realise what so called, 'independent', thinking has achieved! Shall we talk of the misuse of science and technology, and what it has done for us, shall we?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
thankyou lausey, indeed, simply withholding information from one who is not entitled to that information is certainly not the same as lying!

Don't you think that withholding information to someone who isn't entitled to that information the same as someone who isn't entitled to the truth?

Put another way. If someone is entitled to the truth but that information is withheld from that person. The fact that a lie is told instead is irrelevant. The fact that a particular truth is not given to that person is the point. Remaining silent is equivalent to lying.

Originally posted by Agerg
[b]1. pretentiousness, like you are supposed to entertain everyone you meet. why not honestly say look mate i am really tired any chance i can just chill!
I see, so when you cross friends paths on the street you always give them the "p*ss off, I can't be ar$ed with you" greeting. I'm sure you're a real legend where you come from!

2. Have you got a ...[text shortened]... ..kids want to know their efforts are awesome, they don't want a fricking critique!!!

well, if you don't tell him the brutal truth, how will he learn? he could be 5 tomorrow and under the impression he draws exquisitely.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
1. i very rarely ever feel like i cannot be bothered, generally i have time for people, but just in case, next time ill carry my juggling balls so that when i met someone i can entertain them in the manner they have grown accustomed to.

2. I am prepared to impute good motives to people, indeed i met a hooded chav on the street not so long ago, h ...[text shortened]... ou could find to say????? pathetic, they might not need a critique but its better than the lie!!

why is it better? the lie brightens his day and doesn't hurt him. he is 4, he won't take your praise, drop out of college and become an artist.