White lies....Without them society would burn to the ground.

[Krazyskooter]

Got into a facebook debate about lying. A couple women straight up said they would prefer the truth to a lie, any lie. They also claim that society would be better off without lying.....I, being the Devil that I am, had to contest that point of view. I even went so far as to say that society couldn't function without the ability to lie. So, who's the bigger douche? the guy who will lie to put a smile on your face? or the one who's just honest about everything. Actually I think this would be a nice topic to use for the practice debate section.

 

[lrkun]

Re: White lies....Without them society would burn to the gro

Got into a facebook debate about lying. A couple women straight up said they would prefer the truth to a lie, any lie. They also claim that society would be better off without lying.....I, being the Devil that I am, had to contest that point of view. I even went so far as to say that society couldn't function without the ability to lie. So, who's the bigger douche? the guy who will lie to put a smile on your face? or the one who's just honest about everything. Actually I think this would be a nice topic to use for the practice debate section.

Doesn't this sound like the wikileaks issue? Even if it doesn't, I do agree with you. Why not inform one of the mods to talk about this topic.

 

[Krazyskooter]

Re: White lies....Without them society would burn to the gro

I don't know, I haven't read the wikileaks topic. I personally don't want to debate this, I prefer to spectate, but I know there are some people on this forum who are brilliant when it comes to debating a topic and I would like to see them tackle this one. Any takers?

 

[Aught3]

Re: White lies....Without them society would burn to the gro

I'd be interested in taking the 'truth only' side of the debate, but if someone else is uber-keen I don't mind letting them do it instead.

Having the topic of 'White lies....Without them society would burn to the ground' might be a little unfair to the affirmative maybe a topic like 'Lies are morally justifiable' or similar?

 

[devilsadvocate]

Re: White lies....Without them society would burn to the gro

For those who think that it is always best to speak the truth, how would justify speaking the truth in a situation where in nazi Germany gestapo is knocking on your door and there's jewish refugees hiding in the upstairs?

 

[Aught3]

Re: White lies....Without them society would burn to the gro

First, telling the truth doesn't need to be justified, what the question should be is 'why do you reject the justification for lying in this circumstance?' Clearly the response is going to depend on what the justification for lying is.

Second, you don't actually have to say anything to the Gestapo officer. You could close the door in his face.

Taking a quick pass at actually answering the question (finally ) I would say that I am only responsible for my actions not for anyone else. If I tell the truth it's up to the Gestapo officer how to act on that information, not me. However, if I lie to him then I am responsible for creating a false impression and any negative consequences that result, such as the imprisonment of me and my Jew-harbouring family when the Gestapo officer busts into my house and finds the fugitives anyway.

 

[devilsadvocate]

Re: White lies....Without them society would burn to the gro

I agree that speaking the truth should be default position from which deviation is the action that needs to be justified.

Let's put the example in more rigorous form from which it is less easy to weasel out.

1.) In the event you tell the truth to the gestapo, you'll be absolutely sure that innocent men, women and children will be put through long and agonizing death. 2.) If you refuse to say anything, gestapo will assume you're hiding something and it is certain they will find the jews 3.) If you lie it is absolutely certain that gestapo won't investigate, people are saved and no harm done to you.

Come to think of It, this is a question about virtue ethics versus consequentialism. Does the virtue (of speaking the truth in this case) override consequences leading from one's actions?

Also, I'd rather think saying "but it isn't me who is killing them" is cop-out, because in the situation you have knowledge of the consequences and the power to chance the outcome. Therefore, in my opinion, you are morally obligated to consider effects leading from your actions, even if the wrong-doing is ultimately done by someone else.

 

[Daealis]

Re: White lies....Without them society would burn to the gro

I'll lie without even blinking my eyes. It comes so naturally that I might not even think about it twice. On the other hand I try to be brutally honest in other occations, where the social norm usually requires white lies and other bullshit.

I don't see anything wrong with lying to prevent something meaningless turning into a huge obstacle. I don't want to hear my mother worrying about anything I got going so I lie to set her at ease. Someone asks me my opinion about something and says be honest, I will be honest, even if it smashes her illusion others have built up. I see neither actions particularly bad things. I'm not sure if not lying would destroy civilisations as we know it, there are a lot of ways to circumvent telling the truth, but not lying.

 

[Krazyskooter]

Re: White lies....Without them society would burn to the gro

How about the topic being "Lying.....is it necessary for a healthy society?" And the two could debate on that. Now, when I say "White Lies" I'm also referring to lies of omission as well. So in the instance of the Gestapo officer asking if you were hiding someone, you would not be able to avoid answering the question, also you have to think about all the things we would not be able to do without the ability to lie.

 

[lrkun]

Re: White lies....Without them society would burn to the gro



The topic reminds me of this movie.

 

[borrofburi]

Re: White lies....Without them society would burn to the gro

I lie extremely rarely and purposefully select my friends for honesty (subconsciously, at least). I'd rather there be an honest unhappiness than a faux perfection.

 

[Aught3]

Re: White lies....Without them society would burn to the gro

Come to think of It, this is a question about virtue ethics versus consequentialism. Does the virtue (of speaking the truth in this case) override consequences leading from one's actions?

Also, I'd rather think saying "but it isn't me who is killing them" is cop-out, because in the situation you have knowledge of the consequences and the power to chance the outcome. Therefore, in my opinion, you are morally obligated to consider effects leading from your actions, even if the wrong-doing is ultimately done by someone else.

Yes I think it is a question of consequentialism. While I think consequences are important they can be over-ridden by other considerations. At least, that's where I'm coming from. I also don't agree that we can be morally responsible for the actions of others (except maybe our children). All I can do is make my best attempt to live a good life, if others are going to behave badly there is very little I can do to completely prevent it.

1.) In the event you tell the truth to the gestapo, you'll be absolutely sure that innocent men, women and children will be put through long and agonizing death. 2.) If you refuse to say anything, gestapo will assume you're hiding something and it is certain they will find the jews 3.) If you lie it is absolutely certain that gestapo won't investigate, people are saved and no harm done to you.

Well that's certainly harder to weasel out of :lol:

I will say that in this case the best option is to lie. However, this is an extremely contrived situation, we are never absolutely certain of anything that could happen in the future. In reality we can only make our best guess about future events, and we also know from experience this guess will usually be incorrect. If you tell the truth then there are cause and effect chains that will lead to the death of the Jews you are hiding. But there are also cause and effect chains from your lie to the death of the Jewish family. In my view, if you told the truth then you are not - in any way - responsible for what the Nazis do. On the other hand, if you lie and that lie leads to bad consequences then you are partially responsible for the outcome. Since we almost never know for certain what the outcome is, it is better to tell the truth in all (realistic) circumstances.

 

[Aught3]

Re: White lies....Without them society would burn to the gro

How about the topic being "Lying.....is it necessary for a healthy society?" And the two could debate on that.

That seems fine as a jumping-off point for an interesting debate.

I would agree that a lie of omission is a kind of lie but I don't agree that saying nothing is equivalent to lying. In a lie of omission you create a false impression by leaving out crucial information, saying 'no comment' is not the same thing.

 

[FaithlessThinker]

Re: White lies....Without them society would burn to the gro

"The Invention of Lying" is a very good movie. It shows how the world can be so horrible if everyone told the truth, and how a little bit of lying can brighten things up.

But take note that the movie also shows how the world can be worse if one lies too much. It shows well how religion develops from lies, without referencing any existing religion at all (well there's a mild reference to christianity).



The key to a stable society is a balance of lies and truth.

 

[creativesoul]

Re: White lies....Without them society would burn to the gro

The OP is quite misleading on my view.

Society has often justified deliberate lies as necessary. I put it to you, that they are necessary only for their continuance, however, that does not mean that they were necessary, or justifiable to begin with. A much more genuine existence comes as a result of pursuing truthfulness in thought and/or description of reality, not to mention accuracy. Rather, the results of the justification of spreading deliberate falsehoods are astonishingly evident. Governmental institutions, employers, employees, friends, family, news media, etc. has/have no responsibility to be truthful in their testimony, and it is a direct result of self-justification of the deliberate lie. Given that that is quite evident, where does that leave trust? Humans have no choice but to trust someone. It's fait accompli.

Now rewind one's life in order to apply what has been justified as acceptable for adults in a lying society to a child who is in the process of language acquisition. In the context of an adult conversation, words are often interchanged and/or are chosen carefully in order to minimize the wrongful nature of the actual state of affairs. White lies. As an example, often is the case used that when one's significant other asks "Honey, does this dress make me look fat?" the man is justified in lying. to save the woman from being hurt justifies the lie. In other words, in order to say "No." and be justified in lying, the man must first think that she looks fat in the dress. That indicates a completely different trust issue altogether, but I'll continue on with this 'white lie' kind of thinking. Granting that the man thinks the dress does not look good on her, is lying about it the only other option?

"I like the other one better."

"Well, honey that is not a very nice way to put it. I do, however, think that you make the other dress look better."

"Honey, I love you no matter what you think about yourself. Because 'fat' is not a nice word, I do not see you like that. You always look good to me. With that in mind, the best one in my opinion is the yellow one."

Likewise, if a child is acquiring common language do we teach the child to call what is commonly called a "tree" a "car"? Of course not. Why? Because the child would not understand the meaning of the terms in the language and the result of this act, if it were to be continued, would be disasterous to the child's comprehension of the world.

Fast forward to today's American society...

How many Americans understand the purpose of establishing a society? How many Americans realize that many of the laws in place today regarding taxation, including the bill in congress at present directly and clearly contradict not only the sole purpose of society, but also the ideology which underwrites the nation's pursuit for independence, and this can be shown with clear and unambiguous language from those who established the country through elucidating that ideology? How many Americans mentally grasp the irrevocable importance of the lower middle class and poorest members of American society on an economic aspect? How many Americans think that socialism is a bad word and any actions deemed as such needs to be avoided at all costs? How many Americans think that 'private' campaign contributions are a problem which undermines the very concept of a representative government? How many Americans realize that almost one in eight qualify, need, and benefit from a social program called SNAP, which offers government subsidized funding in order to help those people buy food? How many Americans realize that without a society there can be no accruing wealth? When mutual benefit comes into question regarding the consequences of the acts of those in power, how many Americans compare the benefit of the poorest members to nothing... as in "it's better than nothing." How many Americans apprehend the fact that property rights laws regarding inheritance depend upon the concept of entitlement, but those who argue for the legitimacy of the inheritance of wealth most often oppose entitlement of the basis of "earning it"? How many Americans realize that the US government allows and even offers financial incentive for manufacturers to move their operations overseas? How many Americans realize that the building trades/manufacturing sectors are/were the primary sources of income for a very large group of Americans? How many Americans realize that the actual number of unemployed people who want to work(almost 20%) is not reflected by the 'unemployment' numbers(9.8%) shown in the daily news? How many Americans believe that unemployment insurance benefits are a "free ride?" How many Americans falsely equate taxes to an individual's entire contribution to society? How many people realize that our infrastructure(bridges, dams, roads, schools,etc.) are in dire need of repair? How many Americans realize that about $7,000.oo per year per student is spent on public education while the numbers on the amount of funding spent per federal inmate ranges between $30,000.oo and $50,000.oo per year? I mean, I could go on and on here. These things above along with many others may seem arbitrary and unconnected, but they are not, they all have a common denominators.

Humans are necessarily social creatures. That requires trust. Thought and belief guides deliberate actions. Thought/belief presuppose truth/reality correspondence... necessarily so. Belief systems grow upon previously held thought/belief, the same method which knowledge grows upon, except knowledge requires justification. For the same ground which objects to breaching the trust of an innocent child whose life/livelihood depends upon learning true things, I reject white lies and The Noble Lie as well. Lies violate these universal human conditions. Justifying lies leads to confusion regarding what is true. Confusing what is true indicates a breach between reality and thought, and leads to taking action based upon falsehood which greatly increases the liklihood of making a mistake. By mistake, I mean the results of actions taken contradict the prediction/intent. We take deliberate action based upon what we think is true... necessarily so.

Pursue truth and be unapologetic in such.