Honesty: Question on lying to "snoopers"

[DarkWaters]

I was wondering if some of the members here could please provide me with some insight on the following line in the chapter Virtue in OPAR (page 276):

"For example, lying is necessary and proper in certain cases to protect one's privacy from snoopers."

Could someone please characterize what all of the "certain cases" are and provide some examples of circumstances where lying to protect oneself from snoopers is okay and lying to protect oneself from snoopers is not okay. Snoopers probably needs to be defined here.

I would also be interested if someone could extend this discussion to public officials who are periodically (re-)elected.

On an interesting note, I found another forum that contains a quote on this sentence that is allegedly from Andrew Bernstein. I particularly like this response.

In general, I imagine that these certain circumstances are ones where one has good reason to believe that the inquirer wants to use the information to inflict harm. But are we justified in lying to individuals who seemingly have no malicious intent or is lying to them wrong when politely declining will suffice?

Edited September 18, 2006 by DarkWaters

[Groovenstein]

An issue arises in many snooping questions because declining to answer might be interpreted as an affirmative response.

For example, let's say you are a closet homosexual. You have a coworker with whom your relationship is strictly business. That person asks if you are a homosexual (let's assume she asks out of innocent curiosity and not malice). This is clearly an inappropriate question. Problem is, if you politely decline to answer, that might be interpreted as an admission. If you weren't homosexual, wouldn't you just say no? After all, people generally don't hide their straight orientation.

So in this case, where (1) the question is inappropriate, and (2) declining to answer might be interpreted as an answer one way or the other, you are well within your province to lie.

If either or those criteria are not true, then I think lying is wrong, and you should either answer or decline to answer, depending on the context.

A situation where the question is inappropriate, but declining to answer would not be interpreted as an answer, could be where a stranger asks how much money you make. Saying "none of your business" does not suggest an answer. You could be broke or wealthy and answer the question that way. So you should not lie.

A situation where declining to answer could be interpreted as an answer, but the question is appropriate, could be as follows. Say you are applying for a job as a security person at a bank, and the interviewer asks if you have any convictions for crimes involving dishonesty (e.g. fraud). If you decline to answer, that could be interpreted as a yes. But the question is clearly appropriate, as it is reasonably related to a legitimate concern of the employer (who is considering you for a position requiring a great degree of trust). Therefore, it is wrong of you to lie.

[Groovenstein]

Snoopers probably needs to be defined here.

I'll get it started. "Snooping" means asking a personal question that is inappropriate in light of the situation and the parties' relationship.

I include "in light of the situation" because a situation might arise between total strangers where an otherwise inappropriate personal question becomes appropriate. Example: A person sees a stranger collapse on the street next to the stranger's wife. The stranger's wife asks the person to administer life-saving treatment. The person says he will do so, but first asks if the stranger has any medical conditions that might interfere with the treatment. This type of question between strangers is usually inappropriate, but here it is okay because it is relevant to the life-saving treatment.

I would also be interested if someone could extend this discussion to public officials who are periodically (re-)elected.

I think someone holding or running for public office opens himself up for inquiry into anything reasonably related to the office he holds or for which he is running. For example, it is important to know whether a judicial candidate (a would-be law applier) has shown respect for the law he is going to be entrusted to apply. Thus, I think inquiry into his criminal record by news media, legislative committees, et al. is appropriate, and the candidate should answer honestly.

An inquiry into a criminal record that would not be appropriate could be if a stranger in a bar comes up and asks you if you have a criminal record. Then you can lie.

[IAmMetaphysical]

One thing that helps me wrap my mind around it is this: it is ok to lie to avoid a disvalue, but never ok to lie to gain a value.

From there you have to decide which situations fit which label of value/disvalue.

[bobsponge]

In general, I imagine that these certain circumstances are ones where one has good reason to believe that the inquirer wants to use the information to inflict harm.

Sort of how it's potentially a 5th amendment call on whether or not you should send in your tax return? Because it could be used to incriminate you?

[Maarten]

One thing that helps me wrap my mind around it is this: it is ok to lie to avoid a disvalue, but never ok to lie to gain a value.

From there you have to decide which situations fit which label of value/disvalue.

Is lying to avoid a disvalue not the exact same as lying to protect your values? Would it be possible to say that generally lying to gain a value is bad, but lying to keep a value that is already yours is permissible?

I think that most situations where it is okay to lie fall under this category, but I am not sure if I am now accidentaly including situations where it's not proper to lie.

[DavidOdden]

One thing that helps me wrap my mind around it is this: it is ok to lie to avoid a disvalue, but never ok to lie to gain a value.

I don't understand what a disvalue is. Suppose I were having an affair, and somehow my wife gets the idea that I might be, so she asks "Are you sleeping with Suzie?". If I admit to the affair, I will get a major disvalue in my life (hypothetically speaking) and if I lie, I simply keep the values that I had. This seems to be Maarten's point as well.

We can obviously exclude issues that involve force, so saving your life by lying to a crimininal is fully moral. Lying on a job application is wrong -- it is a species of fraud. It is not all clear to me that it is appropriate to lie to a co-worker about being homosexual. It's true that if the co-worker has the impudence to ask such a question and you say "That's not an appropriate question to ask and I won't answer it", the co-worker will probably conclude "Aha! He's gay!" But so what? If you're trying to preserve an otherwise reasonable relationship with this person (who happens to be a flamingly anti-gay militant homophobe), then this is like denying the affair to your wife -- you are misrepresenting reality in order to keep a value (as opposed to gaining a value that you don't yet have).

[DarkWaters]

An issue arises in many snooping questions because declining to answer might be interpreted as an affirmative response.

These answers have all been very helpful. I am curious as to how the reasoning here would be affected if lying puts one at risk of perjury.

Suppose:

• You are a witness in a court of law and are not being charged with a crime.
  
• You are asked an invasive question that the judge is allowing.
  
• You believe that your truthful answer is not necessary for justice to take place, despite the inquiry.
  
• You know that providing a truthful answer may put your values in jeopardy.
  
• You know that declining to answer may be interpreted as an affirmative response.
  

Is it morally wrong to lie under this circumstance?

For the purposes of the thought experiment, please assume that this is a legitimate, moral court and not that of Judge Roy Bean or the Iranian Council of Guardians.

[Groovenstein]

It is not all clear to me that it is appropriate to lie to a co-worker about being homosexual. It's true that if the co-worker has the impudence to ask such a question and you say "That's not an appropriate question to ask and I won't answer it", the co-worker will probably conclude "Aha! He's gay!" But so what? If you're trying to preserve an otherwise reasonable relationship with this person (who happens to be a flamingly anti-gay militant homophobe), then this is like denying the affair to your wife -- you are misrepresenting reality in order to keep a value (as opposed to gaining a value that you don't yet have).

I think the fact that it's none of his business is essential here. Maybe sexual orientation is a bit of a distant subject, but I can easily think of others that might not be. What if he asks if you're impotent? About your genitals? About your preferred sexual positions? The point is that he has no business asking the question, and thus, when declining to answer is insufficient, he has no reasonable expectation of an honest answer.

[Maarten]

Okay, scratch that attempt at forming a principle. David, how would you state the general rule on when it's okay to lie? Do you think it is only proper when the use of force is involved, or also situations where it's simply none of the other person's business (and where refraining to answer might be detrimental)? If your wife asks about an affair that is obviously her business, so that would not fall under this category of situations.

[DavidOdden]

I think the fact that it's none of his business is essential here. Maybe sexual orientation is a bit of a distant subject, but I can easily think of others that might not be. What if he asks if you're impotent? About your genitals? About your preferred sexual positions? The point is that he has no business asking the question, and thus, when declining to answer is insufficient, he has no reasonable expectation of an honest answer.

When does someone have a business asking a question, and how does that relate to whether it is right for you to lie? As a co-worker I may not have a legal or business interest that entitles me to know the truth, but still I may have some level of personal interest in the guys affairs (pun intended? You be the judge!).

The option of refusing to answer is always available (offer void where prohibited by law). The inference mechanism that allows you to get from "That's none of your business" to "Yes, I am having an affair" only works when in fact the answer is to some extent the person's business, specifically because they have some mind of personal relationship that (at least) weakly warrants the belief that you would answer the question. One way to test this connection between existing relationship and a reply to snooping question is to ask a total stranger on the street whether they are having an affair. I'm betting that you would get relatively few answers other than "That's none of your business".

The principle I'm trying to push here is that lying is only proper as a defense against force, and that if you don't want someone to know the truth of some matter, you should just refuse to answer. Actually, I think you should refuse to answer more generally, so as to establish that you believe that you have a right to not testify against yourself. In Rand's novels, the heroes frequently refuse to answer rather than lie when they don't want private information revealed.

[Groovenstein]

When does someone have a business asking a question

I suggested a starting point in an earlier post. Consider the question "in light of the situation and the parties' relationship." Perhaps we can work to putting some more meat on this very basic principle, if you accept the principle. First, though, do you think there is such a thing as an inappropriate question? If so, then do you think my very general principle is an accurate starting point for determining appropriateness?

As an example, your wife has every right to ask you if you're having an affair. Your waiter probably doesn't.

The inference mechanism that allows you to get from "That's none of your business" to "Yes, I am having an affair" only works when in fact the answer is to some extent the person's business, specifically because they have some mind of personal relationship that (at least) weakly warrants the belief that you would answer the question.

They might subjectively have some level of relationship in mind, but that doesn't necessarily mean it's objectively reasonable. Say your waiter is into S&M and has absolutely dreadful manners. You're lunching with a business acquaintance and the waiter decides it's a good idea to ask you in front of God and everyone if you're into S&M and you want to join his little party. Your acquaintance might interpret a "none of your business" to the waiter as a yes, and all of a sudden it's the hot topic at the office that you wear leather in your spare time.

So here, I don't see how the question is to any extent the waiter's business. I also see that your acquaintance might draw an inference you don't want him to. Am I missing something?

I understand these scenarios are tough to fathom, because they involve idiots who totally lack decorum. But sadly, sometimes one must protect oneself from idiots.

In Rand's novels, the heroes frequently refuse to answer rather than lie when they don't want private information revealed.

You say "frequently" rather than "always." Can you refresh my memory about some such situations where they chose to lie? Also, I'm interested to hear situations where they refused to answer.

If you disagree with me here, that's okay, we'll disagree. I'm just not comfortable saying that you should have to reveal information you don't want to reveal because someone exceeded the scope of his relationship with you. And I think sometimes refusing to answer is not a practical option, when refusing to answer is actually answering.

[DavidOdden]

My argument is that the relationships where "MYOB" is tantamount to a confession of your sins are exactly the relations where honesty is really called for. Maybe I don't hang out with the right kind of people, but if some waiter in shiny leather pants were to ask me if I'd care for a spanking, pretty much everybody I know would interpret my outraged insistence that he has no business asking such a thing as actually meaning that I thought the waiter had horrible manners and was asking totally inappropriate questions -- and not that I'm really into S&M and was just too shy to admit it. Especially if I demanded to see the manager and demanded that the rude waiter be fired on the spot.

The thing is, even if I were to lie and say "Yes", the acquaintance might still draw an inference that I don't want him to. That's the problem with inferences. If I turn down a free drink, my acquaintance might conclude that I'm a recovering alcoholic. It's a stupid inference, but a possible one. And in the S&M waiter context, an outraged assertion of my right to privacy would lead a reasonable person to infer that I am annoyed at the waiter's impudence, even though a less reasonable inference is possible.

You say "frequently" rather than "always." Can you refresh my memory about some such situations where they chose to lie? Also, I'm interested to hear situations where they refused to answer.

I was thinking "If I say 'always', some clever person who has a better memory and a Ph D in Rand's fiction is gonna pillory me". However, examples... [AS p. 252] Hank & Dagny:

"Who was he?"

She drew back, lying against his arm; he leaned closer, his face taut; she held his eyes. "I won't answer you."

"Did you love him?"

"I won't answer."

"Did you like sleeping with him?"

"Yes!"

(Don't ask me to explain why she answered the last question). p. 400 (Lillian & Hank):

"Who is she, Henry?"

"I won't answer that."

"I want to know."

"You're not going to."

Simply not responding at all is commonly used the novels. Saying nothing is a recognition that the other person's nosiness isn't a valid claim on your life.

[JMeganSnow]

Matt, you can't conceivably control (or even necessarily predict) the inferences someone might make from a question you've answered, so trying to take that into account when determining when it might be moral to lie is a futile exercise. For example, someone might come up to you and ask: "Is this your handwriting?" For all you know they could believe in handwriting analysis and decide that your admission proves you're a psychopath.

It's not necessary to lie to anyone about anything. What is necessary is learning how to use the subtleties of communication to convey the truth as effectively as possible.

[ggdwill]

As for this situation with the S&M waiter, David's point that by seeming outraged when you exclaim "that's none of your business" seems to be tantamount to - assuming you secretly would enjoy joining him - lying since you're only including the "outrage" in order to encourage a desired inference from your acquaintence. Do things like body language and tone, since they can be faked, constitute lying even if one's words are appropriate?

I tend to think that since metacommunication is (at least still) such a nebulous field, an individual with whom you do not yet have any vested interest should be taken at his word. If I'm right about that, then I think that it's proper when a waiter asks an inappropriate question to simply say "that's none of your business" and assume that your acquaintence will be rational enough to understand why you said what you said. Besides, if he takes your flat response to be "yes, I'd like to join you", your going to have an excellent opportunity to pass judgement upon him since he's likely to emit some kind of body language himself.

- Grant

Edited September 19, 2006 by ggdwill

[DavidOdden]

As for this situation with the S&M waiter, David's point that by seeming outraged when you exclaim "that's none of your business" seems to be tantamount to - assuming you secretly would enjoy joining him - lying since you're only including the "outrage" in order to encourage a desired inference from your acquaintence.

My point is that you should tell the truth, but not necessarily provide information about what the waiter requested. Make that truth entirely obvious to the waiter and the world -- the truth that you should tell is that it is not his concern whether you do or don't enjoy S&M, and that he has no business asking such a question in public. If you really do want the world to know that you enjoy S&M, then any answer other than "Yes, sign me up" is a dishonest answer and you should not do anything to cover up this truth that is burning to get out of you.

Do things like body language and tone, since they can be faked, constitute lying even if one's words are appropriate?

No: see Bronston v. US, which, in fact, even involved words and not just 'body language'. The credo that men of honor and honesty should live by is "Your words must be literally true" -- not "Your words must be helpful" or "Your gestures and glances must not suggest something untrue to any observer". Gestures and glances don't have a literal meaning, so they can't be true or false. An inference drawn from a person's words can't be true or false, because the person never said such a thing.

[Groovenstein]

Hmm. D.O., you do present some good points, and I think I need to stew on them for a bit before I can get any further.

Also, please understand that the scenarios I envision are on the exceptional side of life. I hope you know that I am not at all suggesting that one should make a regular practice of dishonesty.

[DarkWaters]

It's not necessary to lie to anyone about anything. What is necessary is learning how to use the subtleties of communication to convey the truth as effectively as possible.

It sounds like you disagree with Dr. Peikoff on this issue. Would you go so far as to say that it is immoral for an individual to lie (to protect a value) to avoid the hassle of having to deal with a fusillade of subsequent questions from the snooper?

[IAmMetaphysical]

I think my "principle" still stands because in the case of lying to your wife to keep a value, you aren't really keeping that value, because the value(her wanting to be with you) doesn't exist because you are not what she wants. Lying about your affair is essentially explicitly defending a lie already commited. The false relationship you have with your wife is NOT a value.

Oh yeah and "disvalue" would be a loss of a value.

Edited September 20, 2006 by IAmMetaphysical

[thejohngaltline]

I remember hearing in one of Peikoff's lectures--I think it was "My Thirty Years With Ayn Rand", if anyone has the CD maybe they can search for it--him describing a conversation he had with Rand regarding lying. He asked her if it was ever okay to lie and she prompted him to think of a lie which he thought might be moral. He came up with scenario after scenario and to each she responded with a series of chain events that that original lie would incur, i.e. a business man making a seemingly white lie that Rand illustrated could conceivably lead to the eventual downfall of his business. I've always found that synopsis helpful in evaluating the invalidity of lying.

[DarkWaters]

I remember hearing in one of Peikoff's lectures--I think it was "My Thirty Years With Ayn Rand", if anyone has the CD maybe they can search for it--him describing a conversation he had with Rand regarding lying. He asked her if it was ever okay to lie and she prompted him to think of a lie which he thought might be moral. He came up with scenario after scenario and to each she responded with a series of chain events that that original lie would incur, i.e. a business man making a seemingly white lie that Rand illustrated could conceivably lead to the eventual downfall of his business. I've always found that synopsis helpful in evaluating the invalidity of lying.

This is interesting. According to here Dr. Peikoff's lecture took place in 1987, if this is indeed the source of this discussion on lying, while OPAR seems to be printed in 1991 (although it was based on a course given by Dr. Peikoff in 1976). Thus, there seems to be some time window where Dr. Peikoff could have conceivably removed the quote that started this thread. I wonder if it was intentionally left in the book.

[softwareNerd]

I haven't gone back to OPAR to look for the wider context of that example. However, it seems that the "none of your business" type of response is changing the terms of the example. The hypothetical assumes a situation where a "none of your business" type of answer will -- in your own best judgement -- be taken as an implication of a more specific answer. I don't think one can ignore inferences that someone else is going to draw. I don't think one should ignore one's own judgment about the factual content you expect others to derive from your communication.

Take a very different situation, one in which honesty demands that one does reveal certain facts to someone. The right thing to do is to communicate those facts. If, instead, one can "get away" with a right set of true words, mixed in with some distractions, and some mumbling, which in ones own judgment will be misunderstood, then one is being dishonest. (I'm, not speaking of legal responsibility here, just ordinary day-to-day morality). There may also be situations where not being pro-active in telling someone some facts (without them asking) is immoral (though I don't know if the term "dishonest" would be right in this case).

Back to the example at hand... the underlying assumption is that morality demands that one hide a certain fact. The right thing to do is to hide it. If "none of your business" can achieve this end just as well as a lie, then it has the advantage that the person is reprimanded for his inappropriate question. However, if it will not achieve the purpose in ones own judgment, then some other means is called for, and a lie may be one them.

I see the objection against this hypothetical to be this: one cannot be (or at least should not be) in a situation where no force is being applied, and yet morality demands the hiding of some fact.

I actually have a hard time coming up with a really good example. My fuzzy recollection of some lecture (errors are all mine) is that Dr. Peikoff gave the example of a friend who asks you a question about someone else, and your friendship is such that you would usually tell them. It is such that a "none of your business" reply will clearly be construed as a specific answer, (i.e. its clear to you, you don;t have to justify it to anyone else). Let's say, Mary has confided to you that she is going to divorce Mark, and Peter asks: "Has she ever mentioned that she's thinking of divorce?"

If saying something like, "How can you ask me that! Even if she did tell me, I would keep it to myself" will not work, it might imply that one has been overly gossipy in the past. However, I think that's the type of example that Dr. Peikoff was talking about.

[DavidOdden]

I haven't gone back to OPAR to look for the wider context of that example. However, it seems that the "none of your business" type of response is changing the terms of the example.

The relevant paragraph in OPAR on 276 says (in its entirety) "There are men other than criminals or dictators to whom it is moral to lie. For example, lying is necessary and proper in certain cases to protect one's privacy from snoopers. An analysis covering such detail belongs, however, in a treatise on ethics." Peikoff doesn't say anything that I interpret as supporting or denouncing lying to avoid admitting to something that you think would cause disapproval in other people were you to tel the truth. Perhaps I'm overlooking something.

The hypothetical assumes a situation where a "none of your business" type of answer will -- in your own best judgement -- be taken as an implication of a more specific answer.

For my own reference, which hypothetical are we speaking of? I can imagine one easily, but there have been a couple of hypotheticals mooted here, and I like to replace uncertainty with certainty, when it comes to the whatcha mean question.

I don't think one can ignore inferences that someone else is going to draw. I don't think one should ignore one's own judgment about the factual content you expect others to derive from your communication.

Definitely not: on the other hand, one should have a realistic appraisal of reality, which includes both your actions and other people's reactions. Fundamentally, the question comes down to the fact that you may act in a way that you would not like other people to know about -- for example, you may be having an affair with your secretary, you may be a closet alcoholic, or you may be a closet libertarian, all choices and actions that might shock the consciences of people who you know. An honest man would admit to himself that he is morally weak in having the affair, lacking the discipline to stop drinking, or subscribing to a corrupt nihilistic political philosophy -- even if he would not make those admissions public.

But then, why would he not make those admission public? Or, why would he not stop his immoral behaviors?

Another way to look at the question is in terms of your knowledge of people's reactions compared to your wishes. In the case of Matt's freak waiter, I am asserting that -- being very realistic -- if some anonymous jackass waiter were to make any kind of impertinent comments to me, I would not expect any rational person to interpret my taking vociferous offense at this rudeness as a clandestine confession of guilt. I would expect everyone to understand that I am angered by the inappropriate behavior of the waiter. So given that, pretending that it is okay to lie on the pretext that others would automatically interpret my "Mind your own business" response as a confession is dishonesty: you are being dishonest with yourself. The best hope that I see for the liar's brigade, here, is to claim that in reality, people do generally interpret a man's claim (literal or implied) to a right to privacy as, actually, being a confession of guilt. If that is so (that people really do behave that way), please shoot me.

Let's say, Mary has confided to you that she is going to divorce Mark, and Peter asks: "Has she ever mentioned that she's thinking of divorce?"

I cannot imagine anyone asking me such a question, perhaps because of the stark contrast in my willingness to condemn bad behavior vs. my utter unwillingness to reveal confidential information of a truly personal nature. The proper answer is "None of your business", whether the answer be "yes" or "no" (alternatively "You should ask Mary"). Man, the stories I could tell... and yet would not. I do grant that if you have had a major change of philosophy and suddenly realise that gossiping is not rational, life-enhancing conduct, that after decades of bad behavior, you have substantial reputational stink to wash off of you. So maybe we could have a sub-thread on how to change your life -- but assuming that you have been leading a good life in the first place (not being a major evader, for example), I don't see how any lying is justified, ever, short of as a way of combatting the initiation of force.

[brian0918]

I'm listening to Peikoff's podcasts. In #35 (11/13/08), he advocates lying rather than saying, "it's none of your business", and the only reason he gives is that if you say, "it's none of your business", people will interpret it as an actual answer (depending on the context). This is the only reason he gives, and it seems like pragmatism to me. Anyone agree/disagree?

There was an earlier podcast in which he did the same thing - advocate lying in certain situations. What then of the virtue of honesty?

How are his comments in this podcast consistent with the Peikoff lecture mentioned above, in which Rand shows even the simplest white lie to be irrational? How is lying ever not "raising your victims to a position higher than reality" as Rand would put it?

Edited April 6, 2009 by brian0918

[K-Mac]

I can't remember where I read/heard this, but I thought it was from Rand. (Perhaps someone else knows the source?) The example given was that you are asked if you are sleeping/having sexual relations with a certain person. Rand (or whoever it was) said that is a rude question that shouldn't be asked and none of the questioner's business, so it is okay to lie, since the honest answer of, "it's not your business" could be left open to interpretation. Basically, the person is being rude and has put you in a bad position, so to protect your privacy, it would be okay to lie.

EDIT: Oh! Ha ha! I just realized that your question is not the first post in this thread. I probably heard the above somewhere around here.

Edited April 6, 2009 by K-Mac