The Philosophy Forums at OnlinePhilosophyClub.com aim to be an oasis of intelligent in-depth civil debate and discussion. Topics discussed extend far beyond philosophy and philosophers. What makes us a philosophy forum is more about our approach to the discussions than what subject is being debated. Common topics include but are absolutely not limited to neuroscience, psychology, sociology, cosmology, religion, political theory, ethics, and so much more.
This is a humans-only philosophy club. We strictly prohibit bots and AIs from joining.
LuckyR wrote: ↑November 22nd, 2021, 1:50 pm
Is there an ethical difference between telling an untruth and lying by omission (which does not technically include telling an untruth)?
No. If the intent is to mislead, then there is a lie whether by commission or by omission.
Therefore PC’s various suggested replies, while practical, are actually untruths in the sense that they are intended to deflect for the sake of misleading someone.
Neither of your examples necessitate lying.
You simply tell the child how good their achivement is but also tell them next time to use less cinnamon.
When the bad person asks for the location of your friend you are not under any obligation to let them. You simply say I can't tell you because I think you are going to hurt them.
I think you might be overstating Kant. You are absolutely under an obligation to protect your friend and under no obligation to assist the murdered. And there is still no need to lie.
There is no conradiction here.
Unless you can offer a better example I not sure your question makes any sense.
Your point is strong on the 1st example, but on the 2nd I feel in this situation, there would be a few moments to react. Suppose your friend is in the operating room of the ICU and you are down the hall. The person barges in, seeks your friend and already displays high levels of violence. The operating room your friend is in is within eyeshot. You have no way of alerting them so neither is aware of the other's situation. Your friend could just as easily emerge whether you try and deter the person or not. If you lie and they come out, the jig is up. If you tell the truth, your friend will be in danger and not know it. It is undeniably true that you are obligated to protect your friend but with no awareness of the situation on both fronts, lying could be ideal to stalling the agitated individual seeing how little time you have to warn anyone.
The example is gettin quite far fetched.
This example does not change the fact.
You are under an obligation to protect your friend and in no obligation to say anything to anyone. Silence is not lying.
Why do people think lying is wicked? On what grounds?
Obviously. some forms of lying are rightly contemned: fraud, bearing false witness, self engrandizing deceit. But it seems to me that they are contemptable not because they are a form of lying, but for other reasons. Fraud and bearing false witness hurt other people, Bearing false witness is dishonorable because it means breaking a solemn oath. Self engrandizing lies are not so bad -- but they are egotistical and pathetic. Nonetheless, none of this suggests that lying is evil ipso facto. Why would it be? If a lie doesn't hurt anyone, what's wrong with it? Suppose a lie not only doesn't hurt anyone, but helps people. I won't even mention (because it's been mentioned already in this thread) lies that protect oneself or others. But what about embellishing a story or memoir to make it more entertaining, or meaningful, or emotionally resonant? Surely that doesn't do any harm, and it benefits other people by entertaining and amusing them. Mark Twain said, "Show me a man that don't lie, and I'll show you a man who ain't got much to say."
Fiction, after all, is a form of "lying". So what? Surely we shouldn't abandon tall tales, novels, fictionalized memoirs and other literary forms just because some philosophy prudes think (for reasons that remain unclear) that lying is somehow evil!
Lady Bracknell (The Importance of Being Earnest) said (from memory): "Women should never tell the truth about their age; it seems so... calculating."
LuckyR wrote: ↑November 22nd, 2021, 1:50 pm
Is there an ethical difference between telling an untruth and lying by omission (which does not technically include telling an untruth)?
No. If the intent is to mislead, then there is a lie whether by commission or by omission.
Therefore PC’s various suggested replies, while practical, are actually untruths in the sense that they are intended to deflect for the sake of misleading someone.
I am not saying you are correct, but if you are then anything not 100% truthful would be a form of lying. In that situation, since the vast majority of folks I converse with don't deserve my 100% truth, lying would not necessarily be a negative, it would be a form of doing business.
LuckyR wrote: ↑November 22nd, 2021, 1:50 pm
Is there an ethical difference between telling an untruth and lying by omission (which does not technically include telling an untruth)?
I believe withholding the truth depending on how serious the repercussions is as bad as an untruth. Knowing grief could have been prevented and the person who experiences that grief learns about your omitting through you or another source will cause problems.
LuckyR wrote: ↑November 22nd, 2021, 1:50 pm
Is there an ethical difference between telling an untruth and lying by omission (which does not technically include telling an untruth)?
I believe withholding the truth depending on how serious the repercussions is as bad as an untruth. Knowing grief could have been prevented and the person who experiences that grief learns about your omitting through you or another source will cause problems.
Lying by omission can do the other person a disservice too.
I we were to regard communication in a purely functional way then we'd judge our communications purely in terms of the extent to which they're likely to further our goals. In that case, the question of whether the communication contained factually true or false statements would be a secondary consideration. If the goal was to impart factual information, then the secondary consideration would always coincide with the primary one. But if the goal was, for example, to make someone happy, then it wouldn't necessarily coincide.
LuckyR wrote: ↑November 22nd, 2021, 1:50 pm
Is there an ethical difference between telling an untruth and lying by omission (which does not technically include telling an untruth)?
I believe withholding the truth depending on how serious the repercussions is as bad as an untruth. Knowing grief could have been prevented and the person who experiences that grief learns about your omitting through you or another source will cause problems.
Lying by omission can do the other person a disservice too.
LuckyR wrote: ↑November 22nd, 2021, 1:50 pm
Is there an ethical difference between telling an untruth and lying by omission (which does not technically include telling an untruth)?
No. If the intent is to mislead, then there is a lie whether by commission or by omission.
Therefore PC’s various suggested replies, while practical, are actually untruths in the sense that they are intended to deflect for the sake of misleading someone.
I am not saying you are correct, but if you are then anything not 100% truthful would be a form of lying. In that situation, since the vast majority of folks I converse with don't deserve my 100% truth, lying would not necessarily be a negative, it would be a form of doing business.
Yes, that is true. Lying is considered a necessary social skill in New York. It is, in fact, not necessarily evil.
Anything not 100% truthful would be a lie if its intent is to deceive. Withholding information is only a lie if the intent is to deceive.
LuckyR wrote: ↑November 22nd, 2021, 1:50 pm
Is there an ethical difference between telling an untruth and lying by omission (which does not technically include telling an untruth)?
I believe withholding the truth depending on how serious the repercussions is as bad as an untruth. Knowing grief could have been prevented and the person who experiences that grief learns about your omitting through you or another source will cause problems.
Lying by omission can do the other person a disservice too.
Give an example of "lying by omission", please.
My wife put one over on the used car salesman who was buying her car. When he asked her if the car burned much, she answered that it didn’t. What she omitted to tell him was that the car leaked oil so badly that there was never any burning.
LuckyR wrote: ↑November 22nd, 2021, 1:50 pm
Is there an ethical difference between telling an untruth and lying by omission (which does not technically include telling an untruth)?
No. If the intent is to mislead, then there is a lie whether by commission or by omission.
Therefore PC’s various suggested replies, while practical, are actually untruths in the sense that they are intended to deflect for the sake of misleading someone.
I am not saying you are correct, but if you are then anything not 100% truthful would be a form of lying. In that situation, since the vast majority of folks I converse with don't deserve my 100% truth, lying would not necessarily be a negative, it would be a form of doing business.
Yes, that is true. Lying is considered a necessary social skill in New York. It is, in fact, not necessarily evil.
Anything not 100% truthful would be a lie if its intent is to deceive. Withholding information is only a lie if the intent is to deceive.
But is not giving information that another seeks, deceit?
I believe withholding the truth depending on how serious the repercussions is as bad as an untruth. Knowing grief could have been prevented and the person who experiences that grief learns about your omitting through you or another source will cause problems.
Lying by omission can do the other person a disservice too.
Give an example of "lying by omission", please.
My wife put one over on the used car salesman who was buying her car. When he asked her if the car burned much, she answered that it didn’t. What she omitted to tell him was that the car leaked oil so badly that there was never any burning.
That is no lying.
And "much" is subjective anyway.
No. If the intent is to mislead, then there is a lie whether by commission or by omission.
Therefore PC’s various suggested replies, while practical, are actually untruths in the sense that they are intended to deflect for the sake of misleading someone.
I am not saying you are correct, but if you are then anything not 100% truthful would be a form of lying. In that situation, since the vast majority of folks I converse with don't deserve my 100% truth, lying would not necessarily be a negative, it would be a form of doing business.
Yes, that is true. Lying is considered a necessary social skill in New York. It is, in fact, not necessarily evil.
Anything not 100% truthful would be a lie if its intent is to deceive. Withholding information is only a lie if the intent is to deceive.
But is not giving information that another seeks, deceit?
It's deceit when when the person who is widely expected to inform as a duty and can do so fails to do so. E.g parents, MPs, doctors, priests, teachers, newspaper columnists, historians, news reporters.
A reputation for honesty (see above professions) has a commercial value, and anyone who trades on their honesty and fails to deliver honesty is a thief.
AverageBozo wrote:My wife put one over on the used car salesman who was buying her car. When he asked her if the car burned much, she answered that it didn’t. What she omitted to tell him was that the car leaked oil so badly that there was never any burning.
So it leaked oil so quickly that there was none left to burn? Jeez. Still, when buying and selling cars I guess it's caveat emptor. I traded in my car recently and told the salesman that the front brake discs and pads both needed urgently changing (because I didn't want to be responsible for anyone getting killed) but omitted to tell him that it spontaneously jumps out of 4th gear. I don't think that'll kill anyone. Just surprise them. That's my car selling ethical code. Try not to kill anyone.
No. If the intent is to mislead, then there is a lie whether by commission or by omission.
Therefore PC’s various suggested replies, while practical, are actually untruths in the sense that they are intended to deflect for the sake of misleading someone.
I am not saying you are correct, but if you are then anything not 100% truthful would be a form of lying. In that situation, since the vast majority of folks I converse with don't deserve my 100% truth, lying would not necessarily be a negative, it would be a form of doing business.
Yes, that is true. Lying is considered a necessary social skill in New York. It is, in fact, not necessarily evil.
Anything not 100% truthful would be a lie if its intent is to deceive. Withholding information is only a lie if the intent is to deceive.
But is not giving information that another seeks, deceit?
Yea, if asked a direct question I withhold information that would directly answer the question, that is usually intentional. However, there are some who unintentionally are not intelligent enough to properly answer a question. I would call that ignorance rather than deceit.