Is Lying Immoral (Sinful, Illegal)?

coberst · Post by **coberst** » Sat Feb 28, 2009 3:54 am

Is Lying Immoral (Sinful, Illegal)?

I was raised in a Catholic family and went to Catholic schools and was taught by nuns that lying was a sin. To me and my fellow Catholic kids lying was the most serious sin we could imagine. We were taught that we had to â€œexamine our conscienceâ€ before confession and to tell the priest of our sins in the confessional.

How does a kid tell the difference between a â€œwhite lieâ€ and a â€œsin lieâ€ or any of the other forms of â€œliesâ€ that we saw adults indulge in? Surly Mom and Dad did not lie! It was all a great puzzlement!

The nuns taught us all about moral concepts; of course, they did not use such big words. I have later learned that the nuns taught us in accordance with a classical, also called objectivist, theory of categorical structure.

â€œAccording to the classical or objectivist theory of categorical structure, there must be a set of necessary and sufficient conditions the possession of which alone makes a speech act a lieâ€¦As a Moral Law theorist and an absolutist, Alan Donagan defines the essential features of a lie as â€œany free linguistic utterance expressing something contrary to the speakerâ€™s mindâ€.â€

Linda Coleman and Paul Kay have discovered facts that indicate that â€œthe category of lie exhibits prototype effects; that is, there are certain central instances of speech acts that speakers easily and noncontroversial recognize as lies.â€

What are these prototype effects that Coleman and Kay speak of?

Lie is a concept that displays a core structure surrounded by a â€œfuzzyâ€ penumbra (fringe) of less clear-cut cases about which the speaker may be justifiably unsure as to their moral objectionability: such a penumbra might contain such things as mistakes, jokes, exaggerations, white lies, social lies, and over simplifications.

Coleman and Kay found that these core cases that everyone could easily agree upon as being lies, i.e. those prototypical cases of clear-cut lies, fulfilled all three of the following conditions: 1) the speaker is confident that the statement is erroneous, 2) the speaker is intent upon deceiving the listener, and 3) the statement is in fact erroneous.

The less prototypical instances of lying fulfilled one or two conditions but not all three. Furthermore, tests were run and it was discovered that subjects typically rated the conditions in order of â€œimportanceâ€: 1) being most important and 3) being the least important. Subjects seemed to agree on the relative weights given to the individual elements.

We see here that lie does not follow the classical objectivist strict categorization. A fixed set of essential conditions do not exist and there is considerable internal structure to the concept that are of a great deal of importance in determining whether a statement qualifies as a lie or not.

Quotes from Moral Imagination by Mark Johnson

Hamster · Post by **Hamster** » Sat Feb 28, 2009 4:10 am

Personally speaking I would not ever lie to someone even to protect their feelings. A "white lie" is just as damaging as any other lie to me. It has the same effect of building mistrust between two people; the only difference to me is that a white lie may take longer to be found out.

I do not subscribe to sin and/or religious views of lying but it is against my moral code for certain. I try to treat others as I would have them treat me.

Chezzie · Post by **Chezzie** » Sat Feb 28, 2009 4:12 am

Hamster;1147543 wrote: Personally speaking I would not ever lie to someone even to protect their feelings. A "white lie" is just as damaging as any other lie to me. It has the same effect of building mistrust between two people; the only difference to me is that a white lie may take longer to be found out.

I do not subscribe to sin and/or religious views of lying but it is against my moral code for certain. I try to treat others as I would have them treat me.

Do you tell your kids about Father Christmas?:sneaky:

To me they are only white lies but its lying all the same lol..

My eldest who is 11 tells me every year that I am lying and he doesnt exsist:(:o

Hamster · Post by **Hamster** » Sat Feb 28, 2009 4:14 am

Chezzie;1147545 wrote: Do you tell your kids about Father Christmas?:sneaky:

To me they are only white lies but its lying all the same lol..

My eldest who is 11 tells me every year that I am lying and he doesnt exsist:(:o

Very true Chezzie..I never thought of that one..you got me. Yes it is lying

Chezzie · Post by **Chezzie** » Sat Feb 28, 2009 4:23 am

Hamster;1147546 wrote: Very true Chezzie..I never thought of that one..you got me. Yes it is lying

To be honest I think we white lie alot. I go to the hairdressers and she finishes and I secretly thing arghhh she cut too much off my fringe, she gets the mirror and says, "Is that ok for you?" YES lovely thanks I say:-5

To me the difference is damage control.

If I tell a lie that makes someone feel better and does not benefit me. For instance, I tell my hubs that he looks fine even though he needs a shave but has no time to do so, even though he doesn't, and that makes him happy. Thats ok.

I tell a lie that has no impact on anyone else, but benefits myself. For example, I forgot to fill out a form for my boss, but when she asks about it, I tell her it's already done, but I have to go get it. I run to my desk, quickly fill out the form and then hand it to her. She has the form in the same amount of time, and I do not appear to be forgetful or irresponsible.

To me they are acceptable.

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Sat Feb 28, 2009 4:27 am

Chezzie;1147552 wrote: she cut too much off my fringe,
YOU GOT A FRINGE????? :yh_rotfl:yh_rotfl:yh_rotfl:yh_rotfl

Chezzie · Post by **Chezzie** » Sat Feb 28, 2009 4:30 am

oscar;1147554 wrote: YOU GOT A FRINGE????? :yh_rotfl:yh_rotfl:yh_rotfl:yh_rotfl

Ahem:wah:

OpenMind · Post by **OpenMind** » Sat Feb 28, 2009 4:57 am

I think it depends on the intention behind the lie. If it is designed to mislead or misinform other people, this is seriously injurious. If it is said to protect another person, then it may be acceptable.

I personally cannot lie simply because of my poor memory. As a kid a found that I would forget what lies I had said and would very quickly be caught out. On top of that, there are clues that are revealed in the face. So, I simply cannot lie and am in the habit of telling the truth anyway. It goes against my spirit to lie.

Then there is withholding information which is akin to lying. For instance, someone I know who can't stand smoking never told me until it was too late. Withholding information that another person should know can also be harmful.

coberst · Post by **coberst** » Sat Feb 28, 2009 8:06 am

I often wonder if anyone reads the OP beyond the title!

OpenMind · Post by **OpenMind** » Sat Feb 28, 2009 8:18 am

coberst;1147689 wrote: I often wonder if anyone reads the OP beyond the title!

Would you care to summarise your OP for us then, Coberst?

Nomad · Post by **Nomad** » Sat Feb 28, 2009 8:47 am

Hamster;1147546 wrote: Very true Chezzie..I never thought of that one..you got me. Yes it is lying

:wah:

That didnt last long.

flopstock · Post by **flopstock** » Sat Feb 28, 2009 10:26 am

coberst;1147689 wrote: I often wonder if anyone reads the OP beyond the title!

I'd be lying if I said I had on this one..:sneaky::yh_rotfl

qsducks · Post by **qsducks** » Sat Feb 28, 2009 10:49 am

I never lie

coberst · Post by **coberst** » Sat Feb 28, 2009 12:11 pm

The purpose of this OP was to compare the nature of categorization in traditional objectivist thinking and the thinking that is recognized by new cognitive science theories.

Traditional objectivist, one might call it positivist, thinking considers that the world is made up of things that fit neatly and completely within containers and that these categories express that which is necessary and sufficient for any object that fits into that category.

SGCS (Second Generation Cognitive Science) has developed revolutionary new theories about the functioning of the mind. SGCS informs us that in many cases categories do not fit neatly into containers. Lying is one such category fits sloppily within containers. There exists fuzzy overlap and difficult things that must be considered.

All this is to say that if SGCS is correct then we are all very far off base when we think of categories as always fitting neatly within containers.

One has to read the OP and think about it a bit in order to get the idea. The idea is very important. Reading is fundamental.

The purpose of this OP was to compare the nature of categorization in traditional objectivist thinking and the thinking that is recognized by new cognitive science theories.

Traditional objectivist, one might call it positivist, thinking considers that the world is made up of things that fit neatly and completely within containers and that these categories express that which is necessary and sufficient for any object that fits into that category.

SGCS (Second Generation Cognitive Science) has developed revolutionary new theories about the functioning of the mind. SGCS informs us that in many cases categories do not fit neatly into containers. Lying is one such category fits sloppily within containers. There exists fuzzy overlap and difficult things that must be considered.

All this is to say that if SGCS is correct then we are all very far off base when we think of categories as always fitting neatly within containers.

One has to read the OP and think about it a bit in order to get the idea. The idea is very important. Reading is fundamental.

Lon · Post by **Lon** » Sat Feb 28, 2009 12:44 pm

coberst;1147689 wrote: I often wonder if anyone reads the OP beyond the title!

Most times----------------no

Chezzie · Post by **Chezzie** » Sat Feb 28, 2009 12:45 pm

qsducks;1147831 wrote: I never lie

Is that you Pinocchio :yh_rotfl:yh_rotfl:yh_rotfl

OpenMind · Post by **OpenMind** » Sat Feb 28, 2009 3:32 pm

coberst;1147884 wrote: The purpose of this OP was to compare the nature of categorization in traditional objectivist thinking and the thinking that is recognized by new cognitive science theories.

Traditional objectivist, one might call it positivist, thinking considers that the world is made up of things that fit neatly and completely within containers and that these categories express that which is necessary and sufficient for any object that fits into that category.

SGCS (Second Generation Cognitive Science) has developed revolutionary new theories about the functioning of the mind. SGCS informs us that in many cases categories do not fit neatly into containers. Lying is one such category fits sloppily within containers. There exists fuzzy overlap and difficult things that must be considered.

All this is to say that if SGCS is correct then we are all very far off base when we think of categories as always fitting neatly within containers.

One has to read the OP and think about it a bit in order to get the idea. The idea is very important. Reading is fundamental.

The purpose of this OP was to compare the nature of categorization in traditional objectivist thinking and the thinking that is recognized by new cognitive science theories.

Traditional objectivist, one might call it positivist, thinking considers that the world is made up of things that fit neatly and completely within containers and that these categories express that which is necessary and sufficient for any object that fits into that category.

SGCS (Second Generation Cognitive Science) has developed revolutionary new theories about the functioning of the mind. SGCS informs us that in many cases categories do not fit neatly into containers. Lying is one such category fits sloppily within containers. There exists fuzzy overlap and difficult things that must be considered.

All this is to say that if SGCS is correct then we are all very far off base when we think of categories as always fitting neatly within containers.

One has to read the OP and think about it a bit in order to get the idea. The idea is very important. Reading is fundamental.

This is your summary of your own OP. I find your summary more confusing than your OP. It might help if you actually learnt how to present your objective.

You present us with a question and then launch into a text that is nothing more than a thesis on what constitutes a lie.

Alan Donagan defines the essential features of a lie as â€œany free linguistic utterance expressing something contrary to the speakerâ€™s mind

The above extract tells me that a lie is only a lie if the speaker of said lie knows it's a lie.

coberst · Post by **coberst** » Sun Mar 01, 2009 4:07 am

OpenMind;1148016 wrote: This is your summary of your own OP. I find your summary more confusing than your OP. It might help if you actually learnt how to present your objective.

You present us with a question and then launch into a text that is nothing more than a thesis on what constitutes a lie.

Alan Donagan defines the essential features of a lie as â€œany free linguistic utterance expressing something contrary to the speakerâ€™s mind

The above extract tells me that a lie is only a lie if the speaker of said lie knows it's a lie.

We can comprehend only what we are prepared to comprehend.

New social theories move very slowly into the culture because they are seldom taught in our schools and colleges unless they help us get a good job.

The only way that people can prepare them self to comprehend the world and the self is to learn whatever new theories might be available. All this requires curiosity, concentration, and caring.

I try to introduce new ideas in the hope that the reader will be influenced sufficiently to go to the books and learn what is necessary to become sufficiently sophisticated intellectually so as to comprehend our ever changing world.

Daniyal · Post by **Daniyal** » Sun Mar 01, 2009 1:21 pm

That the truth is not found in a liar as it states 1 John 2 ; 2 - 6 , and John 8 ; 44