Is lying intrinsically bad?
If no, then in which situations is it not?
Are we obligated to tell others the truth at all times?
(As someone who is against attention-trolls and the sort of people that use venues like this as creative writing exercises, perhaps this is an interesting question to ask. I would hope that we are honest on Hubski with each other, or at least that if we aren't, instead of lying we skirt topics or choose not to discuss them if that is what we wish. I suppose some lies wouldn't hurt Hubski (as I see it; my ideal). I expect trust will come up in this discussion if it takes off; lying is a breach of trust, isn't it? But what obligation do we have to - strangers, acquaintances, friends, and on down the rail - to a) trust them with our truths and then b) tolerate their trust of us?)
I am just curious. I think there would be a range of responses to this. Is all lying bad? Can't be, right? Surprise parties. Maybe is most? Does it depend on intent - but I don't think that's a good argument; we lie to protect people (as well as ourselves) but that doesn't mean that they should or want to be protected.
The fundamental problem is that most people view "lying" as a simple concept when it's anything but. There's a great book about childhood development called Brain Rules for Baby. In it, the author explains that a "lie" to a small child is any outcome that does not meet predictions, not just a willful deception. If you tell your daughter that you'll take her to the park but then it rains or the car breaks down, you "lied." You told her something and it turned out to be untrue. The extenuating circumstances that lead to disappointment, rather than betrayal, develop with time. However, the ability to lie is inherent in people. Children lie regularly and without motive. There is something in our psychology that gets us to practice lying early and often. More than that, the better a liar you are the more likely you are to succeed in the future- those who can lie generally have a great deal of empathy, and empathy is even more positively correlated with success than intelligence. In this instance, a "lie" is a deliberate mistruth. The distinction is important because a "deliberate mistruth" is very different from a "malicious deception." Intent matters in any interpersonal interaction, and a "lie" is more than a mistranscribed fact, a lie is a deliberate choice to cloak the truth. Behind that deliberation is any number of motivations, some pure, some impure. And that's why these conversations ultimately lead nowhere - it isn't the act of lying that people get upset about, it's the motivation behind the lie that fucks people up. Besides mine, there are five responses (and a joke). Each one of them is a debate about motivation. The "lie" itself is fundamentally irrelevant to the discussion - nobody likes to wrap their head around it, but there it is. The brighter your kid is, the more your kid lies. The better your kid relates to other kids, the better your kid lies. Success in society is directly, positively correlated with your ability to lie. If you wish to consider "lying" to be relevant then you are forced to acknowledge that every leading light in our society is morally aberrant, and statistically that doesn't work, therefore the people telling the truth are the deviant weirdos. So forget about the lying. Don't get hung up on it. Focus on the intent. People lie. They lie all the time, and they lie for a gajillion reasons, most of them harmless, some of them altruistic, a modicum of them sinister. There has been a continuous line of human civilization for twelve thousand years now, which is a pretty convincing argument that our better natures win out most of the time… which in turn makes the argument that most people are basically good. And if most people are basically good and if all people lie, "lying" cannot be that bad. A crude syllogism, but a compelling one.
The problem is, that "if" is pretty big. In fact, I'm not sure I buy it, or the "well, we're here, so we must be doing something right" reasoning behind it. Survival and morality differ. The two end up on opposing teams far more often than otherwise, and examples of this are plentiful. This is especially noticeable in the event of a disaster, like, say, the Philippines, circa right now... where formerly good, upstanding people are resorting to stealing and violence just to get by. The people who are surviving the best over there are the ones most willing and/or able (via desperation) to commit immoral acts. I don't disagree that most of the time, people mean well (or, at least, don't willingly intend any harm) when they lie, but there's an old saying in a box behind me... something about the road to hell and good intentions.if most people are basically good
Whose survival are we talking about? I'll warn you - "people are basically good" is a fundamental tenet of my life, and one that I have arrived at through extensive research and deep introspection. It informs most everything I do. Just letting you know - don't bring a knife to a gunfight. I can tangle on this one. Individual survival doesn't much matter because, genetically speaking, selfish individuals remove themselves from the gene pool automagically. This extends on down to paramecia - don't breed, don't matter. Further, one of the most compelling reasons for human survival is "grandparents" - the act of caring for your progeny's progeny. You could still argue that's "selfish" but then I'd pull out The Ultimatum Game and demonstrate that humans "punish" unfair treatment even when they harm their own results in doing so. For that matter, so do macaques. So societal egalitarianism isn't even unique to humans - it's common in primates. So: That's because you don't know enough about it. Locke didn't invent the social contract, he codified it. "Every man for himself" is not now, has not been and never shall be how societies function. "Social Darwinism" only applies when "survival of the fittest" extends to clans, rather than individuals. Which is not the same thing as families - humans and most primates organize based on a structure that is macroscopically beneficial at an individually-punitive level. Where society has, ipso facto, broken down. The immediate response from any corner with surviving society is to clamp down on the lawlessness and provide for the indigent. No one is saying "people never fight." The argument is that the natural state of humanity is one of cooperation. Cherry picking unnatural states that are acknowledged on all sides to be abnormal does not defeat this argument. A bald assertion with no supporting evidence wholly outside of the argument at hand. Not only is your statement unverifiable, it's irrelevant to the discussion and primarily serves to illustrate your unfounded pessimism. Platitudes are not argument. Don't waste my time.Survival and morality differ, in my mind.
In fact, I'm not sure I buy it, or the "well, we're here, so we must be doing something right" reasoning behind it.
This is especially noticeable in the event of a disaster, like the one in the Philippines, where formerly good, upstanding people are resorting to stealing and violence just to get by.
The people who are surviving the best over there, right now, are the ones most willing and/or able (via desperation) to commit immoral acts.
something about the road to hell and good intentions.
Why does this have to be a fight at all? o.O Who was talking about society? But while we're on the topic, if it takes a social construct to keep people in line, and they "go bad" when that construct (enforced via implied threat of violence, no less) fails... doesn't that strike you as argument against people being "basically good"? (Note, I do not claim that people are "basically bad," nor will I.) The supporting evidence was a quote from one of the survivors admitting exactly as much to a reporter. I chose to believe him, but it just occurred to me (given this thread) that he may have been lying. I don't think so, but its food for thought. You seem unnecessarily grumpy today. Is that part of being "basically good" too? Something else I just "don't understand"? ;-) EDIT: Or are you genuinely annoyed that someone doesn't buy into the idea that people, on the whole, are "basically good"? If so... I sincerely apologize for that. I didn't mean to ruffle your feathers.don't bring a knife to a gunfight. I can tangle on this one.
Where society has, ipso facto, broken down.
A bald assertion with no supporting evidence
Platitudes are not argument. Don't waste my time.
Because you're attacking a maxim: "There has been a continuous line of human civilization for twelve thousand years now, which is a pretty convincing argument that our better natures win out most of the time… which in turn makes the argument that most people are basically good." Your words: I was. You were arguing with me. You were directly contradicting the statement that 'if society >12,000 years, then people = basically good' in as many words. Not sure what you're saying here. "it takes a social construct to keep people in line" is a tautology. "in line" is the social construct. People outside of society are an identity. You're essentially saying "it takes society to make society therefore society = bad." Anecdotal evidence with an n of 1 does not a trend make. It's not food for thought, it's irrelevant to the discussion for every reason listed above. You're elevating your hand-wavey gut feelings to the logical equivalent of scholarly evidence and arguing that they're comparable. You are further doing so in pursuit of casting aspersions on my conclusions. Essentially, you're saying "you're wrong because I think you're wrong." That doesn't fly with anybody. Ever.Why does this have to be a fight at all? o.O
The problem is, that "if" is pretty big. In fact, I'm not sure I buy it, or the "well, we're here, so we must be doing something right" reasoning behind it.
Who was talking about society?
But while we're on the topic, if it takes a social construct to keep people in line, and they "go bad" when that construct (enforced via implied threat of violence, no less) fails... doesn't that strike you as argument against people being "basically good"?
The supporting evidence was a quote from one of the survivors admitting exactly as much to a reporter.
You seem unnecessarily grumpy today. Is that part of being "basically good" too? Something else I just "don't understand"? ;-)
And I'm "attacking" it... ...actually, no, I'm not. I'm disagreeing with it, and refuse to let you paint it otherwise. ...and I'm disagreeing with it because it is not a convincing argument about our better natures. In fact, it isn't even AN argument to that end at all, as you don't even attempt to support the connection between "being here a real long time" and "because of our morally good cores". For that matter, you take it as a given that our continued existence is, in itself, "good" in some kind of objective way, and that's something else you don't support. Immorality (such as violence, thievery, selfishness-at-the-expense-of-others, etc.) has as much to do with our continued presence as a race as "our good sides shining through". Depending on how you view history, it is even arguable -- convincingly so -- that our "bad" traits have more to do with us still being here than otherwise (though I don't entirely buy that, either). I think that's a very poor interpretation, and I'm trying to keep in check the feeling that it was done purposefully. I am actually "essentially" saying the same thing I've been saying all along: that I disagree with the idea that people are "basically good", because it is unsupported by the weight of the evidence you've presented, and because there is evidence that seems to indicate exactly otherwise. Such as in situations where people act differently when their wants and needs are not met and they no longer fear the societal counterweight of physical punishment for a "bad" act. I don't see how you can paint that as a nonsensical tautology, but... shrug. "You can't prove that!" "The guy admitted as much." "Well now its irrelevant!" ...really? earlier Pot, Kettle wants a word. Then you understand the source of my disagreement. We agree on something, at least.Because you're attacking a maxim: "There has been a continuous line of human civilization for twelve thousand years now, which is a pretty convincing argument that our better natures win out most of the time… which in turn makes the argument that most people are basically good."
"You're essentially saying "it takes society to make society therefore society = bad."
Anecdotal evidence with an n of 1 does not a trend make. It's not food for thought, it's irrelevant to the discussion for every reason listed above.
You're elevating your hand-wavey gut feelings to the logical equivalent of scholarly evidence
There has been a continuous line of human civilization for twelve thousand years now, which is a pretty convincing argument that our better natures win out most of the time
That doesn't fly with anybody. Ever.
I find that people with inadequate debate skills tend to skirt the central argument when they've lost. Rather than graciously bow out and acknowledge their defeat, they will willfully disregard the central point of discussion and hammer at the margins in hopes that a thousand skirmishes will somehow outweigh a unitary defeat. These skirmishes are usually accompanied by ad-hominem attacks ("Pot, Kettle wants a word") which, in the words of a mentor of mine, are the angry flailings of someone who knows he's lost. In that spirit, know that my further participation does not in any way indicate that you have an argument. To the contrary, you've got nothing left to say. I'm only here for cautery so that the wound doesn't fester. Shall we begin? My statement was that "there has been a continuous line of human civilization for twelve thousand years now, which is a pretty convincing argument that our better natures win out most of the time." It was a flippant statement meant to nullify the argument that "lying is bad" but, upon challenge, I backed it up with a Scientific American article and a link to the broad science of social economics. I further asserted that, flippant statement aside, the fundamental makeup of society was not something I felt particularly flippant about and that if you treated it flippantly, there would be blood. You countered by arguing that you "feel" my facts and scientifically rigorous theories are invalid and used as evidence a stranger you saw on TV saying something. When I pointed out that the stranger you saw on TV does not have the factual weight of an entire branch of science, you argued (insultingly) that somehow, "science of behavioral economics" and "guy you saw on TV" are so similar that my refusal to acknowledge their parity demonstrates my hypocrisy. With your assertions now completely discredited, you argue that they aren't really assertions - you're not "attacking" my statements, you're " disagreeing " with them (emphasis yours) in yet another attempt to put your emotions and my scientifically rigorous theories at parity. Doubling down, you put forth the gambit that, well, maybe the continued existence of society is not a good thing because you - "feel" - that people are bad. Let's be clear about something: There is literally nothing in your life that is not societally circumscribed. You eat, sleep, shit, piss and fuck to the tune of society's rules. Everyone on the planet does, including hermits in the mountains and uncontacteds in the Amazon. You have never done a single thing in your life that does not fall within the social contract. When I argue that "lying" is a vital part of the social contract as evidence of its good, the counterargument is not "society is bad" the counter-argument is "oblivion." In order to make your argument, you must advance beyond nihilism and into the pokey fires of apocalypticism, at which point "good" and "bad" become moot. But not even that matters, as you started out our debate with this: So if "formerly" good people "resort to stealing and violence" that implies that "good" people do not normally partake in stealing and violence. Your own baseline argument is that "society" is good in order to assert that "people" are not necessarily good. * * * I warned you. I told you that "people are fundamentally good" is an assertion I feel strongly about and that I am well-prepared to defend. You have continued on, all the while taking as baseline that your "feelings" are a match for my evidence. To put it in perspective, it's as if I'd said "I feel pretty strongly that the world is round and have spent no small amount of time researching the earth's roundness" and you'd chosen to respond with "yeah, but you're wrong because it feels pretty flat to me." When I whip out a picture of the Earth from the moon you respond with "but lots of people think the world's flat - what's your point?" You're wrong. It's that simple. I suspect you aren't used to being wrong - in your cohort of friends you're probably the clever one. On the Internet, however, there's always somebody smarter than you. Which gives you two choices - double down with your wrongness and think you're right (and that the other guy is an asshole for bursting your bubble) or learn to be wrong in a constructive way so that you can learn something and, as a consequence, be wrong less often. The choice is yours.This is especially noticeable in the event of a disaster, like, say, the Philippines, circa right now... where formerly good, upstanding people are resorting to stealing and violence just to get by.
You've just described what I think about your last two replies. And "Pot, Kettle wants a word" is not an ad hominem, its pointing out that your posited argument is guilty of that which you accused mine of. I suppose I could have written just that, but I thought you'd understand as much. You do realize you're the only one in this conversation who is attempting to "win" anything, right? And therefore, the only one who has any real fear of "losing"? I'm just trying to have a conversation. Or, I was. If you're trying to fight -- and I suspect you are -- you should have just let me know that, so I could go ahead, "lose", and go do something constructive and fun... like actually have an adult conversation with someone who isn't convinced that "conversation" is only about getting a good one in at every possible turn. --- reads the rest of your post --- ...and yup, it does indeed seem to be the case. You provide an intellectually dishonest -- and that's being generous -- recap of what has occurred, followed with continued assertions that you're using "science" when you have yet to privide any sort of scientific link between "here for a long time" and "morally good cores of human beings". (Still waiting on that, by the way). Heck, you have yet to even realize that whether or not we're here due to our fundamentally "good" natures isn't even a discussion that can adequately be addressed by science... ... and all the while -- this is the funny part! -- you go ahead, accuse ME of being emotionally driven, accuse yourself of being all intellectual all day, while out of the other side of your mouth you flagrantly admit that this is a concept you're so emotionally in bed with that "there will be blood" if anyone treats it "flippantly". Finally, you close with a string of eloquently phrased -- but still base, rude, unnecessary and utterly uncalled-for -- insults about my character, the character of my friends, and how much smaller you think my intellect is in comparison to yours. "I know you are but what am I?", though cheap, is the most succinct way to phrase my reaction to every single complaint you've levied at me. I feel dirty even putting it out there, because of how immature it sounds, but the hypocrisy on display from your side of the discussion is unbelievably conspicuous. There's really nothing other to say; you're projecting so hard that people reading your last salvo must think they're at a drive-in movie. And let us NOT forget, all this -- ALL THIS -- so that you can justify to yourself that it's really OK to be a liar. This is what you do with your self-admitted vast intellect: turn some internet stranger who was disagreeing with you into a whipping post to make yourself feel bigger and better about being a person of willingly dishonest character. And you WONDER why I disagree about the fundamental "good" nature of humanity. That would be the funniest part if it weren't so goddamn sad. --- But hey, whatever. You win, tiger. Have your internet points. I am soundly "defeated". There. ...was it as good for you as I suspect? ...did you get what you needed? ...do you need a tissue now, or perhaps a cigarette? You threw a whole lot of punches here, but one day, I suspect you'll realize you were shadowboxing, and that maybe I'm not the one you're so desperately trying to convince. That's what I'm hoping, anyway.I find that people with inadequate debate skills tend to skirt the central argument when they've lost. Rather than graciously bow out and acknowledge their defeat, they will willfully disregard the central point of discussion and hammer at the margins in hopes that a thousand skirmishes will somehow outweigh a unitary defeat.
the angry flailings of someone who knows he's lost.
Whether people are good or bad is a pretty complex question that has been debated for a long time by philosophers. I find that there is not real objective answer to that question (maybe for now? ) and that opinion and ideology actually ARE an argument in this debate. I'm personally of the opinion that humanity is nor good nor bad. Can't we say that societies of monkeys have existed for a long time, thus they are good? They have pretty complex social constructs and I have trouble with the idea we actually are THAT different from monkeys. But eh, what do I know? I'm sure i haven't spent nearly as much time as you studying the question, so i'll leave it at that.
The Problem of Evil deals specifically with the paradox of an omnibenevolent god and the existence of evil in a world created by such. "Are people good or evil" isn't one for debate by anyone other than Philosophy 101 students, usually right before diving into qualia. Once more, with feeling: the science says otherwise. There are firm physiological underpinnings for altruism and fair behavior. There are mechanisms that explain their presence and there are biological structures responsible for them. That's fine, so long as you understand that your opinions are contraindicated with fact.Whether people are good or bad is a pretty complex question that has been debated for a long time by philosophers.
I find that there is not real objective answer to that question (maybe for now? ) and that opinion and ideology actually ARE an argument in this debate.
I'm personally of the opinion that humanity is nor good nor bad.
Proof that there is "good" is not proof that there is nothing BUT "good" or even that it is dominant. Can't we just be a mixture of both "good" and "bad"? How about the Milgram experiment? Or Zimbardo? Testing the "bad" is quite hard to do in an ethical manner and what's the incentive anyways? I'm not surprised there is not much evidence. And how to account for all the "evil" in the world then? Is it the product of circumstances and not human nature? Is it just outweight by all the "good"? Or does is simply not exist? And I'm curious, how do sociopaths fit in your worldview? They certainly can't be considered "good". So many questions... :P
Somehow, "people are fundamentally good" gets heard as "all people are all good always." Nowhere did I say that, nowhere would I imply that. On balance, however, "people are fundamentally good." Milgram proves not that people are bad, but that people respect authority over their own moral codes. That, believe it or not, also implies altruism - in other words, the fundamental "good" of people can be used for fundamentally bad ends. Ask yourself - did the Nazis think they were evil? Zimbardo, likewise, proves that people value clan over country - hardly novel. It again illustrates that the altruism of individuals can be used to nefarious ends. Sociopaths are, by definition, mentally ill. As far as "evil in a world full of good" I need only point to Dunbar's Number - the count of relationships a person can maintain with other humans before those humans cease to be human. This does not imply that we are fundamentally bad to people outside Dunbar's number - it implies that we are fundamentally indifferent towards them. So - people within my Monkeysphere - fundamentally good towards. People outside my Monkeysphere - fundamentally indifferent towards. 1+0 = 1. You can NOT get a negative number out of that, no matter how hard you wish there to be one.
Yeah... I guess I was thinking of the big picture, humanity as a whole. I guess that's where my belief of a neutral "fundamentally indifferent" humanity comes from. As for the Monkeysphere, all it really comes down to is empathy. So humans have empathy = humans are good. I'll think on that, you have pretty good arguments when you lay them down nicely :)
Not for any other reason than you beat me too the point, but I'll agree with your position that challenges the "people are basically good". Rather than say that people are basically good or bad, they will tend (slippery slope, i know) to do what is basically good for the collective group. Humans, like their cousins, are social animals. We live together in communities, survive together, and prosper together. We have evolved this way. It is in the best interest of the human race that we do so. 12,000 years of human prosperity isn't as much goodwill as it is instinct. I'm curious how theadvancedapes sees this one...
I don't disagree, but with a caveat that amounts to two single letters: People tend to do what is basically good for their collective group. At best, other groups are useful. A lot of the time, other groups don't matter. At worst, they are dangerous threats that must be defended against or even attacked preemptively. Societies exist because of enlightened self interest like that. This is not a condemnation -- I view it as a given, and morally neutral... the "instinct" you refer to. In my understanding of things, it is actually this -- far more, and far more often -- than fundamental good will that has carried us this far, for this long. And yes, I'll admit: I think "morally neutral" is where most people tend to fall in the spectrum. Who is @theadvancedapes, does he talk about stuff like this often?
I can agree with morally neutral. If you had asked me as a teenager, I would said otherwise, but I have grown--I have evolved. I can't recall seeing much from him on philosophical positions. In fact, just about everything that I have read in posts are backed up by imperical information. My assertion is that we have survived and prospered for millennia because of biological evolution--a topic for which there is no better expert in this forum than @theadvancedapes.Who is @theadvancedapes, does he talk about stuff like this often?
Reminds me of the joke, job interviewer says "Tell me your biggest weakness." Applicant says "Honesty, I guess" "I don't think that's really a weakness" "I don't give a fuck what you think"
I like the Werner Herzog take on truth, that facts are the domain of accountants and phone books. Of course, he's talking about making movies and 'documentaries' and not specifically about how to interact with other humans. When dealing with people I don't care about, I have no problem lying in many cases. For example, if I'm taking a day off of work and I don't think it's anyone business why. In that instance, and many similar ones, the lie isn't necessarily made in order to deceive, but rather to avoid an unnecessary conversation. On the other hand, nefarious lies never feel good, even in cases when telling the truth would be perhaps more harmful. Anyone who has ever been betrayed by a trusted loved one knows the hurt that a below board action and the subsequent lie to cover it up can cause. I've been on both sides of it, and it's certainly not enjoyable in any way. But my short answer to your question is that the question itself is kind of nonsense. We can't tell the truth all the time; it's not just impractical, but rather impossible. Should we be fully expected to answer honestly when asked, "What are you thinking about?" I suppose "none of your business" is an appropriate answer, but seems a bit off putting and unsociable. There's no moral high ground in always telling the truth. There is, however, moral high ground in treating people with respect and dignity, especially loved ones, and often times telling lies becomes the vehicle through which we violate that principle.
I think it's worth noting that English has a large range of words dealing with honesty, truth and lies. In its simplest form, a lie is simply not telling the truth. In common usage, it has a connotation of being dishonest with malicious intent. However, some of the words we use to characterize different kinds of lies, reveal our relationships to the truth and how telling/not telling the truth can be detrimental/beneficial given a wide variety of circumstances.
Yes, lying is bad.* Human communication is a small miracle by which thoughts in one mind are reproduced in the mind of another. Watch this: "The Arctic Tern flies from its Arctic breeding grounds to the Antarctic and back again each year." citation You were just looking at some marks on a screen and now you have thoughts of a bird. Putting thoughts which you do not know to be true in someone else's mind is irresponsible and unkind. Before we learn that adults are not to be trusted, as children we are crammed full of ideas that we only later learn were false. Giving confident bad directions is worse than giving no directions. Putting thoughts which you know to be untrue in someone else's mind is malicious. You are causing a person's world view to be less accurate. That said, behavior occurs amid a sea of competing values, and we make choices as best we can. Making the birthday party a pleasant surprise may be more important to us than being honest about our plans. *To be honest, I'm not really sure. It's a good question.
Do you tell your children about Santa? Some few consider that to be bad, but not most.
I've been thinking about this "santa" thing and it's treated pretty flippantly. When we were young my sister and I knew that "santa" was deeply implausible. Our parents never tried to convince us otherwise. They kept up the charade, though, because it was fun - we put out cookies, Santa did certain things, and there was stuff we didn't know about and there were things we couldn't explain. Mostly because "mom and dad did it" was a boring answer that sucked all the fun out of it, so we deliberately didn't give the answer much credo. "Santa" is a deliberate choice by all parties involved to pretend about. The parents know, the kids know, yet the parents "lie" and the kids "choose to believe the lie." My daughter is not quite a year old. She has a favorite puppet. His name is Gus. He's a baby sloth. My daughter knows that I am Gus, that Gus does nothing without me making him do it, and that when Gus makes noises, my lips move. Yet she hugs Gus, she makes faces at Gus, she plays with Gus, and she treats Gus like he were a puppy she were playing with. Every now and then, she looks up and grins at me. We're playing Pretend and we both know it, and it's fun for both of us. The Santa thing is no different. Saying parents "lie about Santa" does a disservice to play and the imagination.
My three year old daughter heard a song about Santa the other day- it got to a verse about "Santa comes down the chimney yadda yadda yadda" and my daughter goes "That's silly- Santa can't fit down a chimney." I couldn't for the life of me bring myself to say otherwise. Fucking chimney. Who thought up this shit?
Washington Irving.and as of yore, in the better days of man, the deities were wont to visit him on earth and bless his rural habitations, so we are told, in the sylvan days of New Amsterdam, the good St. Nicholas would often make his appearance in his beloved city, of a holiday afternoon, riding jollily among the treetops, or over the roofs of houses, now and then drawing forth magnificent presents from his breeches pockets, and dropping them down the chimneys of his favorites. Whereas, in these degenerate days of iron and brass he never shows us the light of his countenance, nor ever visits us, save one night in the year; when he rattles down the chimneys of the descendants of the patriarchs, confining his presents merely to the children, in token of the degeneracy of the parents.
So not only did he give us the chimney nonsense, but he had to make Christmas a "fall from grace" thing, too. Buzzkill. "Well, Hazel, you see, it might seem silly that Santa comes down the chimney, but it makes total sense. For one, he's a demigod, with all the magical power that entails. So there's that. Moreover, daddy's a filthy sinner, so... you know. Chimney. Makes sense." Nope, not gonna do it. We don't even have a goddamn chimney. Santa's walking through the door this year.
That's nothing. Clarke Clement Moore wrote 'Twas the night before Christmas' on commission for the NYPD because they were sick of all the immigrants rioting and looting and getting into fights and wanted some psyops to flip Christmas from "drunken debauchery a la Mardi Gras" to "family-friendly God-fearing event." I'll likely post this again after Thanksgiving, but have a head start - the single best program The History Channel has ever run.
That's all true, and I agree - my childhood Santa memories are much the same. I think it's especially sweet when kids get old enough to know it's pretend, but they go along with it, indeed want to go along with it - for the sake of those younger than themselves. It's a tiny step in growing up. Learning to lie for a good reason.
This came up over the weekend. I brought a package in and a few hours later there were some presents under the tree. "Who brought those presents?" the kid asked. "Fedex brought them." "I'm going to clip her up." (Note: "clipping up" is a positive reinforcement at the kindergarten -- get clipped up a few times, and you get a prize from the treasure chest.) But a little while later, he asked me if Santa hadn't really brought them. I equivocated, but it became obvious that he understood pretty well that Santa is in the same category as the talking Frog and Toad. He wants the story, so I'll give it to him. But I won't use it as a deceitful mechanism of threatening consequences for misbehavior. At least, not if I can come up with something else that works.
I despise lying. Is it bad? I think the question should be "Is it good?" What good comes from lying? Santa, the Easter bunny, and the pet goldfish that never dies...What good could come of those lies? That isn't some rite of passage nonsense, its bullshit and lazy parenting in my opinion. When the inevitable question comes up, I'll ask them what they think and then we'll have a conversation about their thoughts. Intent is not an adequate way to differentiate between acceptable and unacceptable forms of lying. People are too quick to rationalize and shirk responsibility. What is that saying about having the best intentions?
Ah, but your examples come from it from the sole angle of parenting lies. Lies are much broader-sweeping. What about: - someone has gone to place a but is supposed to be at place x. Person B lies to cover up for "someone" when another person inquires why they aren't at place x. (I suppose it depends on the reasons why "someone" has gone to "place a." If they are cheating on their wife, probably a bad lie. What if they are desperately needed at place a?) - I eat my roommate's food. Before she returns, I replace it all. I do not tell her. Is this a lie? Is it bad? - I want to go somewhere, but I don't want to go with (person x). Instead of telling person x I want to go there but don't want them to come, I lie and say I am going somewhere else/not going out. etc. So if intent is not the adequate way, what is?
I used the examples of parental lying mostly because they were already being discussed in the comments section and I wanted to address a few points all at once. Also, because almost anyone can relate to being lied to as a child by an adult. It’s often viewed as harmless fun or a way to teach children a valuable lesson. I call it scare tactics. Why did you eat your roommate’s food and still have time to replace it before she noticed? If she wouldn’t care that you borrowed something from her then you have no need to lie. If she would care, and you obviously have no rights to her food, then eating and replacing her food is not ok—especially if you have time to go to the store and buy what you’ve used before she gets back to notice. Just tell her the truth. If your roommate gets angry because you ate her food—then she gets angry. I think the whole debate comes down to respect and communication. If you respected her, you would tell the truth and if she resected you, she would forgive you for your small offense. To me, there is no acceptable form of lying. To each their own, but I’m very black and white on the topic. Essentially what you’re saying (the collective we, not necessarily you specifically) is that if you chose to lie—and it is a choice—then the consequences for telling the truth must be worse than the lie. I think that is a matter of perspective. Who are the consequences worse for when lie is told? Probably the person being told the lie.
A counterargument. Sometimes, there are facts about oneself that one does not actively advertise. Maybe you're gay and you work in an openly discriminatory environment. It's not an option to come out and as a result sometimes, when people ask you what you did over the weekend, you can't say what you actually did. What gives anyone the right to know anything about you if they ask? Saying all lying is bad means that one must tell the truth to everyone, all the time, on demand. There are situations where that can be used against someone, and not because they have done anything "wrong" or that harms anyone else - just perhaps offends morality or is different. What if you are protecting someone from prosecution by a regime is unjust? Have you seen - what was it, Fargo or Argo - the movie where they smuggle a group of people out of a country pretending they are all actors. You're saying that that's unacceptable? Sometimes people have to lie to save lives. Are you arguing that it is better to tell the truth and allow people to die/be prosecuted/become targets than to lie? The conclusion to your argument is that somehow the prosecutors would be worse off if they didn't get to victimize people because the people lied about their status than the victim would be. On a more minute level what gives anyone the right to know what I am thinking at any given period? In ways lying protects privacy. If I am unhappy with someone but not ready to discuss it with them, and they ask me how I am feeling or what I am thinking about, don't I have the right to conceal it from them until I feel ready to broach the topic? If my credit card is declined because I'm over the limit, is it not OK to lie and say "the company must have done something, I know I have money in the account" to the cashier because I'm embarrassed?there is no acceptable form of lying
I make an exception for surprise parties. I do so only grudgingly. So while I'm not 100% black and white on it, I'm with you 99% of the way. People rationalize it away because lying makes their lives easier, and they are willing to pay for that using honor and respect as currency. Bleh.To me, there is no acceptable form of lying.
My exception is sarcasm, and you'll find none of that here: Genuinely, I think the root of the debate is honesty, and not the act of lying, but that is really a semantic debate. I have a long a deeply personal story about why I'm so passionate about dishonesty, aka lying, but the crux of the issue for me is that 1. I do not have an open door policy with trust--that is to say it is earned and not given. 2. I am uncomfortable with telling lies because it makes me feel dishonorable to do so. When I was 16, I went to a funeral where I heard something that stuck with me. I met a woman that told me a story about the man who's wake we were attending. She said that she had known the man for more years than I have been alive today, and that in those years she had never known him to tell a lie. I don't take her account at face value, however, I do hope that someday when it all ends, someone might be at my funeral to tell my grandson that I was an honest man. If I have no other legacy than that, I'll be ok.
I would be OK hearing that history. I really would. Mine is equally personal, and it is a subject I am clearly passionate about. My mother was mentally ill, and would routinely beat my brother and me for crimes such as "touching the floor" and "not washing your hands for the requisite ten minutes after you took off your shoes." No bones broken; no blood drawn. But also, not simple whippings. "Beating" is the accurate term. Tools were often involved, and when mom got tired, Dad would grudgingly step in, because matrimonial and parental solidarity. Lying became a way of life to escape violence. It sucked, every time. Sucked worse when I was caught or could not sufficiently prove that I did not do what I was accused of. That would make the beatings worse. I would be called a "habitual liar" at high volume, and more often than not, the charge was true. (Funny story, but I was genuinely more afraid when mom said that, because the word "bitch" was in there, and if she was cussing, she must be really pissed off. I was, like, six. I wouldn't learn the definition of the word "habitual" -- and that it wasn't actually a variation of "bitch" -- for some years yet.) But if there's a silver lining here, its that I became attenuated to the damage lying does. It is difficult to maintain a web of lies, and it almost always falls apart completely with a single sweep of the arm. Everyone a person lies to -- everyone -- suffers from it. If not immediately, than eventually. Lies poison everything they touch, and hurt just about everyone they affect. Sometimes this even includes the recipient of a surprise party, though I've only seen that once. Lying is the antithesis of trust and respect. And to bastardize a quote from a certain Mr. Raymond, the truth seems to have a mind of its own, and it always wants to be known. Lies are simply a matter of time; a delay tactic. ...anyway, once I left home, I decided to just tell the truth all the time. One quickly learns to take care regarding phrasing and delivery, for sure, but there's a line there in my life, and it is inscribed deeply. So deeply, that I have, in time, come to consider "sins of omission" or "lies of silence" as equivalent to purposeful and outright falsehood. I figure as long as you aren't getting beaten for it, you'll come out ahead. And I admit: It's a gamble. It may make you lose some "friends," but I've found that the ones that go? Years later, it often becomes clear that they are not people you would have wanted to keep in the first place. The ones that stay, respect the hell out of you so much that it is almost absurd. When viewed from this perspective, truth-telling is very much a win-win situation: I have the kind of friends, and the intensity of friendship, that other people wish for. I've no doubt that they are fewer in number, but I'm more grateful for them by an order of magnitude, and the amount of "failures" this attitude has caused in nearly 40 years of life amount to exactly two. And those two... over time, have not proven to be shining bastions of humanity and ethical behavior. A person who is a friend of lies and lying has almost always proven to be a negative force in my life, and the lives of many others. Is this in my own myopic, biased, personal (and uneducated, if the word of some is to be taken as fact) experience -- given, of course, a freedom from the threat of violence as a motivator? Sure. Of course it is. But I think, perhaps erroneously, that this counts for something. Lying is no longer something I will even consider as a viable option myself, a very few exceptions notwithstanding. And yes, I do almost reflexively consider opposing viewpoints as morally bankrupt, a fact I cannot really, at this stage, help. Perhaps this makes me a poor conversationalist on the topic. In fact, it may be likely. But I just don't have it in me to be apologetic about that. Edit: seriously, fuck lies.
I apologize in advance to the OP for derailing this post so blatantly... It is odd how simliar our lives have been to shape our thoughts and behaviors. The beatings started when I was 5. My perpetrator was a violent stepfather. He was ex-military and I don’t remember much else of him except for the fact that he was a very cruel man. My sister and I would be beaten for any number of reasons. If we neglected to do a chore or other biding, he would dole out the punishments, usually in some form such as writing the sentence ”I will not forget to do all of my chores before playing” 200 or so times. If we failed to complete the 200 sentences before the due date, we were beaten and the sentences were doubled, tripled, quadrupled….you get the point. This motherfucker was a sadist. At some point, my ill-equipped mother had the decency to leave him. So, she married a sociopath. No, I’m not kidding you—a self-described sociopath. What’s fascinating about his dysfunction was that he would scream in my face, call me a liar-repeatedly- and accuse me of having ulterior motives all while he was embezzling money and having an affair with an unknown number of women. As I mentioned before, when I was 16 I attended the funeral of my grandfather. Less than 1 month beforehand, my second stepfather (the sociopath) was released from a minimum security prison for his white-collar crime. Within a week of his homecoming he tore apart my room, empting dresser drawers and closets into a giant heap in the middle of the floor and then commanding that I clean it up. Why? He thought I might be doing drugs or worse, fornicating with my high school girlfriend. Well, I was fucking—but I was a good kid otherwise, no drugs, no cigarettes, no criminal activity. So about a month or two later, my grandpa dies. I hear this lady’s story and think: fuck him, fuck her, I’m going to do Me. I haven’t looked back since.
I too only have a few close friends. What is freaky is that, until this moment, I have never analyzed the people I trust. My best friend: Father abandoned his family. Other very close friend: Father absent. My wife: Father died young and tragically. Like you said, at this point it is too late for things to be different for you. Your viewpoints and positions have been shaped by the ”lessons” you have learned. I'm not apologetic either, except to the extent that I hope to be a better person today than I was yesterday. I am who I am, but I'm trying to be better is my weird motto.
I doubt that. He may never understand your value of truth, but he will understand what it means to be an honorable and truthful man. He will certainly form his own position of what truth means to him, but your influence will add depth to that position. For all my mother's faults, she always said that family was the most important thing to her. While she didn't always live her life that way, that notion also stuck with me. It may not have been a dream she was able to realize, but I'm trying to live that dream for her.
Suppose my mother-in-law is a terrible knitter. But suppose she loves knitting. She loves to knit me sweaters I hate every year. Suppose I've mentioned that it's too warm in LA for a sweater every year since I've moved here. Suppose I've also mentioned that I'm rarely out in any occasions where a sweater makes sense. Yet suppose the sweaters keep coming. Now suppose I'm a terrible liar, and that I hate having to tell people things that are untrue. I can do one of two things: 1) Tell my mother in law that I love this year's sweater. 2) Tell my mother in law that I don't like this year's sweater. Condition (1), for me, involves lying. I don't enjoy lying. It involves me wearing a sweater I don't like. Condition (2), for me, involves telling the truth. I enjoy telling the truth. It also frees me from this and all future sweaters. Condition (1), for my mother in law, involves the joy of giving. It involves recognition for her labor. It validates our relationship. Condition (2), for my mother-in-law, negates the joy of giving. It invalidates her efforts. It further calls into question all the effort she has put into her knitting for me up to this point and requires her to do something else for me in the future that she will not enjoy as much. I'm going to pick (1) every time because I'm willing to sacrifice my comfort and "moral code" in order to make my mother-in-law happy. It's all cost to me and all benefit to her, and I don't even have to think about it. "Not lying" in this instance makes my life so much easier, but I'm not going to do it. Most people wouldn't.lying makes their lives easier,
Another way to view this: You do not enjoy feeling guilty, and because you believe the truth would hurt your mother in law's feelings, you've decided that avoiding this pain is worth more than giving her that truth -- even though that truth might actually, in the long run, cause her to improve her knitting skills. I'm not saying that the above is true, and if it is, I'd bet dollars to doughnuts that you wouldn't be doing it on a conscious, purposeful level. But it is, certainly, a way to see it. I suspect both stories are true to some degree.
Your statement was "People rationalize it away because lying makes their lives easier." My counterexample was one in which my lying makes my life demonstrably harder. You disregard that and instead decide that I "do not enjoy feeling guilty" and further, I lack the self-awareness to make this choice on a "conscious, purposeful level." In doing so, you disregard my statement that "I don't enjoy lying." I'm in a lose-lose position - By your assertion, I do not enjoy feeling guilty. By my assertion, I do not enjoy lying. To further use your assertion, I probably feel guilty that I'm not "causing her to improve her knitting skills." No matter how you slice it - my arguments, your arguments, anyone's arguments - I lose. The only question is by how much. From an emotional standpoint, however, my mother-in-law either loses or wins. So I choose "big loss" for me in exchange for "mother-in-law wins." Lying doesn't make my life easier. It makes it harder. You are, again, wrong.
It's like you have five interpretations of everything I say, and are just determined to pick the one that is the most insulting to you, and then frame it as what I actually said. Why do you enjoy doing this so much? That depends on when you choose to end the story. If you end it in the moments after you tell her how much her sweaters suck, then sure. However: You don't think it is possible that immediate pain would give way to eventual (but far greater) pleasure, when she no longer is a bad knitter, or has, instead, found something she really is good at? You don't think it's possible that she may eventually, at some point down the road, come to thank you for setting her straight, and bond with you more securely due to your honesty? If not, then... well, that's interesting, I guess. Yes yes, I know how much you enjoy saying that. Good on you, here's some more internet points. Gotta admit, though, I am surprised you are so ready after such a relatively short cool-down period.You disregard that and instead decide that I "do not enjoy feeling guilty" and further, I lack the self-awareness to make this choice on a "conscious, purposeful level."
From an emotional standpoint, however, my mother-in-law either loses or wins.
You are, again, wrong.
Let's say someone hijacks a plane and says he's going to throw all (ethnic, religious, sexual whatever group you belong to) people off the plane. You can fill in the blank. He goes from passenger to passenger asking each one if they were of that group. You feel your membership in the group is identity-defining. You love your ethnic religious sexual group and are proud to be one. What would you say? Telling the truth in this situation would be intrinsically bad. Of course, how often does that happen? I try to live by the words of Steve Goodman's song "Lookin' For Trouble."If no, then in which situations is it not?
Here's a nice version of that song. The first time you shade the truth
You want to run and hide
Your tongue gets tied
Your throat gets dry
Then you start thinkin' maybe no one knows you lied
And now you're shady all the time