Devil's Advocate Posted August 6, 2012 Report Share Posted August 6, 2012 So much of this present line of reasoning seems to rely on getting into the head of the person your dealing with, and then deciding how much honesty they can handle... *sigh* Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eiuol Posted August 6, 2012 Report Share Posted August 6, 2012 To some extent, for any interaction, you need to figure out what another person would possibly think. Nearly all of the time, that requires saying what you mean, as you mean it, otherwise we'd be making guesses all the time. Giving an honest opinion about a dress is included in saying what you mean. My situation is only presuming dishonest intentions or a situation where the person will do something bad with a particular response. Of course, an extreme example is the usual Nazi at your doors is asking if you have anyone hiding in your house. Lying there is fine, because the reason you're being asked is for immoral reasons and intentions - it's the destruction of values. Fred is a less severe example, but he's after juicy gossip, and a question he surely knows better than to ask at his age. Fred is acting wrongly in the first place to ask. This isn't a common type of person, yet they exist. If you see my scenario as too benign or not severe enough to warrant lying, project a little on what would happen. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Devil's Advocate Posted August 10, 2012 Report Share Posted August 10, 2012 OK, projecting a little... Fred is acting wrongly in the first place to ask. To be clear, Jane provides the first offense by acting deceptively with her boyfriend in a manner that makes Fred suspicious, and whatever consequences follow are on Jane to resolve; not you. Being a supportive friend allows for discretion, but certainly doesn't imply any need for dishonesty on your part. Let's face it, Fred isn't some Nazi working up charges against Jane, so lying on her behalf is inappropriate. You have the opportunity to set a better example for both your friends (who apparently need to have the bar raised a bit; not lowered) by behaving honestly and with integrity. Tell Fred you're not a gossip, and tell Jane to level with her boyfriend before Fred does... expertpanda has wandered off, so I'm really just playing myself with this reply... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eiuol Posted August 10, 2012 Report Share Posted August 10, 2012 The Nazi at the door example is to illustrate that the times when lying is proper is to prevent an immoral act. Kant responded to a similar scenario with a murderer at the door, by saying you still shouldn't lie because it violates the autonomy of the murderer, on top of the claiming you're not responsible for a murderer's choice - the blood isn't on your hands. I know you're not claiming that Kant's idea was right, but you seem to be limiting the time to lie to the most heinous of crimes. What principle would you use to draw the line between lying and telling the truth to a question asked? I'm not drawing the line at "rights violation", or the benign situation of "I don't want to hurt their feelings", but "immoral act". I don't think lying to Fred if you in fact have good reason to believe he'd use his new knowledge in a destructively irrational way would really differ from a murderer at the door scenario. Your response seems to be an awful like Kant's response even if unintentional. "Sorry Jane, I had to tell the truth. Better tell your boyfriend before Fred does. I didn't want to disrespect Fred's autonomy. His actions aren't my responsibility." Yes, Jane acted immorally at first, but I deliberately threw into the scenario that Jane admitted her wrongdoing and is dead set on fixing the problem. You wouldn't be enabling Jane's wrongdoings. I'm not sure what example you'd be setting by telling the truth other than you are able to tell the truth at all times to all people at all moments. If it's wrong to lie to Fred, there's got to be a better reason than the one you gave. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Devil's Advocate Posted August 11, 2012 Report Share Posted August 11, 2012 What principle would you use to draw the line between lying and telling the truth to a question asked? Only when a life hangs in the balance, and only if the truth would pull the trigger. In Fred's case, he's already suspicious so you're damned if you do and damned if you don't. There are many ways to handle someone like Fred; lying isn't one of them. Yes, Jane acted immorally at first, but I deliberately threw into the scenario that Jane admitted her wrongdoing and is dead set on fixing the problem. You wouldn't be enabling Jane's wrongdoings. Jane's actions, e.g. cheating while in an intimate relationship, behaving with so little discretion that a busybody like Fred becomes aware of it, and placing an expectation on your friendship to lie for her while she works her boyfriend back into her schedule, calls to question her ability to fix the problem, let alone being able to keep from making the situation worse by dragging your reputation down with hers. In most cases, honest people don't lie well and dishonest people can read between the lies; they are, after all, better at deception than those who are honest. Lying to cover cheating won't dissuade a destructive gossip; you're just providing more ammunition and a greater field of targets. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.