DEAR PHILOSOPHER SCOTT: ARE ALL LIES EQUAL? HOW CAN A PERSON JUSTIFY THEIR LYING WITH ‘IT’S JUST A WHITE LIE’? – ROBIN S.
Thanks for your response to the first ‘The Matter of Lying’ column a couple of weeks ago. In that article was covered the matter of whether one can be regarded as lying if, while driving, one enters the unlocking passphrase ‘N-O’ on a device that prompts with the phrase “are you driving?”
The opinion shared in that piece was that lying does not occur in that scenario, with the explanation that the function of prompts is to provide an opportunity for a user to enter a passphrase to unlock a device; and likewise, even if constructed to resemble one, passphrases are not assertions. Thus, prompts and passphrases do not meet the requirements of lying which include a deceiving intention and a mind targeted to be deceived.
In asking whether lies are ‘equal’, your question seems to imply not a matter of discerning whether certain statements we might think could be lies are not, but rather whether confirmed lies are equally egregious, or if some are relatively benign.
Moral considerations aside, the practical jeopardy for a liar is that once exposed, they may be trusted less thereafter. The value of having others default to assume one’s integrity, rather than one having to provide proof of all their claims, is incalculable. Trust is huge, and arguably among our most valued social commodities.
So with lying, there is something of considerable value at stake other than the issue motivating one’s urge to deceive. But, does the uncovering of any lie at all prove the liar permanently unworthy of being trusted?
The factors that go into a decision to lie should be relevant here. Sometimes there are stakes which seem high enough to justify gambling with one’s social standing. Many believe lying to save lives is a just cause for lying.
In cases with more complex considerations, sometimes cognitive dissonance may cause a liar to discount that theirs are even lies – for example, misrepresentations on an application when one believes that a piece of requested information may cause unreasonable prejudicing, or shouldn’t be pertinent to qualifying, but where it is expected that an accurate response could be damaging to one’s eligibility.
Another example could be feeling justified in providing false responses when asked inappropriate or invasive questions – particularly where no response might be interpreted as confirming one answer or another, such as when a celebrity is asked by a tabloid journalist to confirm they will be divorcing, or that they are dating a particular so-and-so; or if officers or politicians are asked to confirm an ongoing military strategy or state secrets.
Many people justify answering incorrectly if a question is deemed inappropriate. A point of contention may be raised here – should we regard that there is any responsibility on those making inquiries to respect another’s desire for privacy, and/or obligation or wish for secrecy, etc., or should the moral responsibility for lying always be focused on the one who lies, rather than at least partly (or sometimes entirely) on those (arguably) probing invasively or otherwise inappropriately?
It seems to be human nature to lie where the stakes are high for the liar, but low for those being lied to. e.g., telling a drunk you don’t know where their car keys are (when they are in your pocket, for the time being). Likewise, it is uncommon for someone to lie when the stakes are low for the liar, but high for those being lied to, e.g., when queried by frantic parents, denying having seen a baby anywhere in the store (when in fact you’d seen an unsupervised baby near the dressing rooms).
It’s noteworthy when human nature is violated, and for example, someone lies about something when the stakes are extremely low for them — especially if the stakes are high for others. This may be a sign of lying as pathology, and could justify a broad distrust of the liar.
Another factor to be considered is why someone is lying. The most egregious scenario is when a liar seeks to promote their own interests at the expense of those they intend to deceive, e.g., a cheat strategically deceiving their target so that they can continue to cheat them; whereas less egregious is when a liar deceives simply to avoid embarrassment, stigma, unnecessary or anti-constructive drama, delay; while perhaps the least egregious scenario occurs when a liar seeks only to protect others from discomfort or distraction – such as telling someone close to you, who has asked if you are busy, and who seems to need some of your time, that you are not busy (when actually, you are).
Many good people lie to protect a surprise, and (spoiler alert) anyone that has played along with a child’s belief in Santa Claus has, in effect, participated in a culture-wide lie.
So, to answer your question, it may be a bit black-and-white to regard all lying, from usurious deception to polite or efficiency- minded fibbing to humoring children’s imaginary friends or their belief in Santa Claus, as equally treacherous, warranting a permanent state of distrust. As a witness to deception at these varying levels, one handicaps themselves and their relationships if they fail to recognize important nuances that distinguish deceptions as more and less egregious, merely practical, in consideration of feelings, or simply in good fun.
It may make more sense to distrust a person only at the levels of lying they’ve been caught perpetrating, but it might not be reasonable to distrust them at all levels if they only seem to commit ‘white lies’ for reasons easily understood within the domain of acceptable
The Philosopher is In’ will be pleased to accept questions on any subject including politics, science, psychology, mathematics, logic, ethics, morals, love, relationships, aesthetics, art. Please feel free to submit your questions or comments directly to ThePhilosopherIsIn@outlook.com.
