Justifying Lies

Assuming not all lies are wrong, justifying becomes a dilemma. How can one justify lies, and can they all be justified away depending on point of view? Several different philosophies carry different opinions of the topic.

Aristotelian ethics often serves as the basis for modern ethical theories. In his work Nicomachean Ethics Aristotle sets out that anything done with the goal of the highest good was an ethical action. This highest good, eudemonia, could generally be considered to mean happiness. It is a goal which is desirable in itself, and other goals are desirable because they ultimately lead to achieving this highest good. When lying is taken in the context of Aristotelian ethics, it seems that as long as the goal of the lie is ultimately happiness, the lie is justified. It seems logical that most people lie for their own or others' happiness, making it seem as though Aristotelian ethics generally justify lying. On the other hand, it is necessary to consider that Aristotle also supports moderation, so lying to excess would probably not be supported.

Utilitarian moral philosophy seems to be able to justify anything is similar to Aristotelian ethics, claiming to favor what causes the "greater good". Surprisingly, this philosophy was also favored by Machiavelli political views with the phrase "the ends justify the means". Most modern utilitarians will state that their philosophy is different than Machiavelli's in that the ends does not justify all means, but in general the differences are somewhat nuanced. Using this basic credo, utilitarians can and do sometimes justify lying as a morally decent behavior. It is possible to imagine a situation where one could tell a lie that does maximize happiness, causing a net increase in good through the amount of benefit to the liar. This would be a justifiable lie to a utilitarian.

A related concept to utilitarianism is a recent moral philosophy called painism. Painism, like utilitarianism, is based off of results, but claims that the only results which should be avoided are those which cause pain. This form of utilitarianism would allow for a much larger number of justifiable lies; no longer do lies have to maximize happiness, they basically only have to do no harm.

Deontology, in direct conflict to the beliefs of Utilitarianism, holds that actions can be fundamentally right or wrong, regardless of the consequences. Kant, a proponent of deontology in ethics, had a strong belief in that lying is wrong and we are responsible for our lies. To logically back up the claim the lying is wrong, Kant claims that moral behaviors must be universalizable. A behavior or action that can be universal will not be self-destructive or contradictory. In the case of lying, the commonly used example is lying to get money. A person lies in order to attain a loan, knowing that they will be unable to pay back the money. If one person commits this act, the loaning institution would probably loan the money, whereas if the behavior were common, a loaning institution would most likely change their loan policy. If everyone committed the behavior in question it would substantially alter the behavior of society in such a way that it would no longer be possible to commit this behavior. This is meant to prove that lying is always wrong and never justifiable.

Discourse ethics, although much more detailed, can be summarized a kind of consensus ethics. In this kind of moral evaluation, a community must argue the logic behind their norms, coming to an understanding of what can be expected in terms of ethical behavior within the community. As discourse ethics is a subjective form of ethical evaluation, there could be situations where a community believes lying is justified and is the correct choice. Such cases that we have witnessed in the past include governmental lies spread during wartime to benefit the morale of a country, or telling children that the stork brought them to save their innocence from more unsavory ideas. It is reasonable to think that communities exist where lying is exclusively wrong. For instance, academic communities would not look kindly upon lies circulated as fact in academic papers. The subjective nature of discourse ethics makes it difficult to truly classify if and how lies would be justified.

Finally, there is the moral philosophy of casuistry. This philosophy generally consists of considering each ethical dilemma as a unique case. This case can be considered using other similar cases as a basis, but acknowledges that every instance of a moral dilemma is unique from every other moral dilemma that has or will exist. Moral maxims are considered along with the specifics of the case, then a decision of right or wrong can be reached. This kind of individual consideration is good in theory, but much harder to complete fully in practice. It could be used, and is used, to justify lies, but involves a great amount of mental processing.

These philosophies are just some of the many moral philosophies that exist in the world, applied to the idea of lying. Does anyone actually use any of these specifically, or does real life generally result in using a combination of these, applying different moral philosophies when convenient? How do you justify lies?

This post is based off of articles from the Encyclopedia of applied ethics and the Introduction to Ethics class taught at Brandeis University.

Is Lying Wrong?

Lying seems like a straightforward concept, but for my purposes, it could use a quick definition. Using a basis of philosophers running from 300’s to the 2000’s, I propose that that lying, when I refer to it, means a purposeful misleading statement. This statement can be made through body language, verbally, implied by silence, or signaled by radio - any kind statement will do - but the deception must be intentional. On some level the liar must know the facts being conveyed are false; simple, misinformed statements are not truly lying.

With lying well defined, the obvious question is:

Is lying always wrong?

This question has plagued modern ethicists, but has also vexed religions for hundreds of years. Some religions claimed that if statements could be made in one's head that would make a lie true, then it was not actually a lie; the intention in one's head was clear, but misinterpreted by the other party. With this kind of logic I could claim, free of heart, that I do not study engineering, while secretly adding in my head "every night." Certainly it's true that I don't study engineering every night, but anyone told this would rightfully be confused. These kind of exceptions are one, fairly extreme end of the spectrum.

On the other end of the spectrum, St. Augustine, a Catholic monk from the late 300's, wrote prolifically on various moral dilemmas facing the religious faithful and population at large. It's through his writings that we first see the assertion that lying is always wrong, without exception. The Catholic Church is still a strong believer in the sin of lies, continuing to use Augustine's definitions of mortal and venial sins with respect to lies. In other words, Augustine defined a system where all lies are wrong, but some are more wrong then others still persists today.

The thought of all lies being wrong is a bit extreme for today's modern citizen. Several times a day we seem required to do things which are misrepresentations of the truth. We feign interest in the response to "How are you doing?" in order to prevent hurt feelings or prevent future awkward situations. It's almost inconceivable to answer no to simple questions about the quality of a haircut. These are lies oft justified in a daily existence, often not even consciously considered. Although St. Augustine would not agree, the majority of our society today seems to be justifying these lies somehow.

In conflict with the moral high ground of St. Augustine, but towards the middle of the spectrum, is utilitarianism. The basic tenet of utilitarian moral philosophy is to maximize net happiness. Applying this idea to lying, one can easily justify many of the smaller, daily lies, and perhaps some of the larger lies. These lies often save someone else pain, sheltering people from insults which would serve no purpose or maintaining healthy relationships. In the situation above regarding small talk, the lie does no damage to the person, while maximizing future benefit. Everyone seems to benefit from these little lies.

Or so it seems. Although the appearance is that everyone benefits, a few more factors can be taken into account to change the utilitarian conclusion. Perception to others seems to be the reason behind many of these small lies; we wish to appear “good” or “nice” people to others. The behavior mentioned, assuming all goes well, should yield that kind of result, but has the potential to backfire. If the lie recipient ever discovers the lie, the entire act of lying was worse than useless – it could actually be damaging. Not only would the person know your true thoughts, they would also feel betrayed by you, damaging trust, perhaps irreparably. Additionally, if one considers the habit of lying, by telling these small lies, we could be setting ourselves up for larger lies, developing habits that are ultimately bad for our credibility and status. When considered from a utilitarian perspective, the habit of lying or consequences of a revealed lie could tip the scales past neutral to lying producing a net unhappiness. Perhaps lying is never justifiable after all.

Is lying always wrong? If it is, why lie? If it isn’t, when is it right?

This post is based upon readings from Sissela Bok's "Lying : Moral Choice in Public and Private Life", St. Augustine's "To Consentius, Against Lying", and Joseph Margolis' "'Lying is Wrong' and 'Lying is not Always Wrong'".

Lying and Misrepresentation

What's on your resume?

I don't ask this question because I actually want to know, but to point out a pervasive habit. It's come up more and more as the Class of 2006 prepares for the next steps in life. We find ourselves really wanting to get that job or grad school offer, so we don't outright lie, but we make some statements which could be misinterpreted. We say we're working on publishing papers, when the papers may never be published, or talk about experience with Linux, which actually means we used it for half a class during our first semester of college. Not outright lies, but not complete truth either.

Lying is a tricky little dilemma, and misrepresentation is just a form of lying.

Why are we, and presumably others, misrepresenting ourselves like this? Could it be necessary for us to lie because it’s what’s expected to get the job? Are we just driven and using our communication skills to tip the scales in our favor? Is this to compensate for other weaknesses, perceived or real, like going to a small, unknown university or sub par GPA? There must be reasons for these little lies.

Moreover, how do we feel about these lies? For some every little inflation and imperfection glossed over is a trying experience, while for others, this is a normal part of life, not even noticed consciously. Do people generally feel guilty over these little lies? Should we feel guilty? Does the size of the lie matter? Do the consequences matter? How do we quantify our lies and their ill effects?

The answers to these questions are unknown and, for the most part, are likely to remain that way. The ethicists, both classical and modern, have written about lying and philosophies that apply to lying. With their lucid guidance, perhaps a deeper understanding of lying and its’ implications in a modern lifestyle will emerge.

Why do you lie?