Lying for Altruism

[WanderingGaze22]

Many people would agree that it’s wrong to lie, but there are situations where being honest is not always so simple. An example: if a child under the age of five helps bake a cake and uses way too much cinnamon, you might act as if you enjoyed it anyway, and you might feel pretty good about that keeping the truth from them.

Some situations are more serious. Imagine if a person whom you know without a doubt has lethal intentions came to your house looking for a friend of yours, and your friend was in the next room out of earshot? Would you tell the potential murderer the truth about where your friend was?
A strict deontologist (someone who studies the nature of duty and obligation) like Immanuel Kant would say that it is always wrong to lie, even to protect those around you from harm. Deontologists generally agree that we have certain duties which we are compelled to honor in order to lead moral lives. This is NOT a debate about the dichotomy of good and evil. This is about determining bypassing codes of honor and improvising for the sake of well-being of all forms.

[Neil Wallace]

This is about determining bypassing codes of honor and improvising for the sake of well-being of all forms.

I'd say from evolution Lying is about the well being of the greatest number of forms. Presumably at one point primitive beings "told the truth". They ended up dead. Those that survived were the ones capable of HIDING aspects of reality. The camoflauged moth, the lion blending into the grass.
Until such times as life no longer expoits life, lying will be a prerequisite of existence.

[Sculptor1]

Many people would agree that it’s wrong to lie, but there are situations where being honest is not always so simple. An example: if a child under the age of five helps bake a cake and uses way too much cinnamon, you might act as if you enjoyed it anyway, and you might feel pretty good about that keeping the truth from them.

Some situations are more serious. Imagine if a person whom you know without a doubt has lethal intentions came to your house looking for a friend of yours, and your friend was in the next room out of earshot? Would you tell the potential murderer the truth about where your friend was?
A strict deontologist (someone who studies the nature of duty and obligation) like Immanuel Kant would say that it is always wrong to lie, even to protect those around you from harm. Deontologists generally agree that we have certain duties which we are compelled to honor in order to lead moral lives. This is NOT a debate about the dichotomy of good and evil. This is about determining bypassing codes of honor and improvising for the sake of well-being of all forms.

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 exampe I not sure your question makes any sense.

[Pattern-chaser]

In my view, there is always a way to tell the truth, in part at least. In the case of your cake example, the adult should've fixed the over-sufficiency of cinnamon at the time, so that the little one's cake would taste good at the end. The need to lie should never have occurred.

Your murderer example is different, in that we assume (?) that the murderer will murder you if you don't tell him where your friend is, so that comes down to: will you give up your own life for your friend? A difficult decision for any of us. And we can add to this that lying under duress is not lying, in the view of many people.

Lying is avoidable, unproductive and unnecessary, IMO.

[LuckyR]

In my view, there is always a way to tell the truth, in part at least. In the case of your cake example, the adult should've fixed the over-sufficiency of cinnamon at the time, so that the little one's cake would taste good at the end. The need to lie should never have occurred.

Your murderer example is different, in that we assume (?) that the murderer will murder you if you don't tell him where your friend is, so that comes down to: will you give up your own life for your friend? A difficult decision for any of us. And we can add to this that lying under duress is not lying, in the view of many people.

Lying is avoidable, unproductive and unnecessary, IMO.

Although I agree completely that a quick thinking individual can avoid telling untruths at all times, there are two realities that this statement does not take into account. First, that there are plenty of not quick thinking folks (some would that they comprise a majority of people). Second, that one is under no obligation to reveal their truth to folks who have not earned the right to their truth.

[WanderingGaze22]

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.

[stevie]

Many people would agree that it’s wrong to lie, ...

But people considering this to be a categorical statement may be a minority, e.g. some religious fundamentalists

[WanderingGaze22]

In my view, there is always a way to tell the truth, in part at least. In the case of your cake example, the adult should've fixed the over-sufficiency of cinnamon at the time, so that the little one's cake would taste good at the end. The need to lie should never have occurred.

Your murderer example is different, in that we assume (?) that the murderer will murder you if you don't tell him where your friend is, so that comes down to: will you give up your own life for your friend? A difficult decision for any of us. And we can add to this that lying under duress is not lying, in the view of many people.

Lying is avoidable, unproductive and unnecessary, IMO.

Although I agree completely that a quick thinking individual can avoid telling untruths at all times, there are two realities that this statement does not take into account. First, that there are plenty of not quick thinking folks (some would that they comprise a majority of people). Second, that one is under no obligation to reveal their truth to folks who have not earned the right to their truth.

Fair point, however without delving into knowing who earns the right to the truth, (while I would agree on no obligation) a life-or death situation could prove to be more base. As Pattern-Chaser mentioned, considering that you could be in harm's way regardless of honesty, lying under duress may not seem as uncomplicated as it sounds.

[Gee]

When your wife asks, "How does my butt look in this dress?" you need to lie. If you don't need to lie now, as she ages you will need to lie eventually.

When someone comes up to you and says, "How are you?". Oh yes, tell the truth -- in wonderful detail. After a short period of time, you will find that no one asks how you are anymore.

It is my personal opinion that society would collapse without lies.

Gee

[Belindi]

When your wife asks, "How does my butt look in this dress?" you need to lie. If you don't need to lie now, as she ages you will need to lie eventually.

When someone comes up to you and says, "How are you?". Oh yes, tell the truth -- in wonderful detail. After a short period of time, you will find that no one asks how you are anymore.

It is my personal opinion that society would collapse without lies.

Gee

That is why the intention behind the lie is the paramount consideration as to the lie's morality.

[Pattern-chaser]

When your wife asks, "How does my butt look in this dress?" you need to lie. If you don't need to lie now, as she ages you will need to lie eventually.

I disagree. Her question could easily be answered (truthfully) thus: "You look beautiful, as you always do." If my partner is so vulnerable that they need you to lie to them about how "beautiful" they are, perhaps we should look at the culture - our culture - that led them to feel that way, in such large numbers?

[Could it really be a ploy by the fashion and cosmetics industries to sell them 'beautifying' products, and thereby make even greater profits? ]

When someone comes up to you and says, "How are you?". Oh yes, tell the truth -- in wonderful detail. After a short period of time, you will find that no one asks how you are anymore.

Yes, ask any autistic person. Try as we might, we often forget that, when an NT person asks you "how are you?", they don't have any interest at all in how you are. They just mean to say "hello". And, because we sometimes reply by telling them how we are, we are ejected and rejected - permanently; forever - from society and social culture. As you say: "After a short period of time, you will find that no one asks how you are anymore." Yep.

[Pattern-chaser]

That is why the intention behind the lie is the paramount consideration as to the lie's morality.

I still maintain that lying is unnecessary, but intent is surely central to this consideration.

[Belindi]

That is why the intention behind the lie is the paramount consideration as to the lie's morality.

I still maintain that lying is unnecessary, but intent is surely central to this consideration.

I ask myself how a good intention may be defined. Surely part of the definition would be having the other's well being at heart.But good intentions are not enough unless there is also knowledge of the other's needs or desires, and his environment. A parent may have to lie to his child to prevent the child getting into an immediate life changing danger. In such a case the lie would be the lesser of two evils.

[Pattern-chaser]

A parent may have to lie to his child to prevent the child getting into an immediate life changing danger.

"Have to"? If my child was in immediate life-threatening danger, I wouldn't be lying to them, I would be saying, or maybe shouting, according to the circumstances, the truth about the danger and how my child should avoid or get away from it IMMEDIATELY!

[LuckyR]

Is there an ethical difference between telling an untruth and lying by omission (which does not technically include telling an untruth)?