6 ms·

Is lying in-of-itself unethical? I'd be curious to probe a framework that thinks it is, while not holding that axiomatically. As someone who leans heavily into

Is lying in-of-itself unethical? I'd be curious to probe a framework that thinks it is, while not holding that axiomatically. As someone who leans heavily into consequentialism, I can think of plenty of times lying can lead to a net positive for everyone. Likewise, there are harmful truths that should be suppressed. That suggests to me that lying is, in-of-itself, amoral. The effect of the lie (or the intent, if you swing that way) determines whether it's ethical or not. Who is harmed by your assuming a fabricated identity? For the vast majority of people, who exactly you are matter little. So it's hard to suggest they are harmed by having an incorrect model of you. It may be manipulative to those trying to piece together your identity, but being doxxed can and often does lead to harm befalling your person, so your lies against them can be plainly justified under self-defense.

bobkazamakis 4y ago
You seem pretty confident in a subjective opinion.
- mlyle 4y ago
  We're having a normative discussion and we have our own beliefs. It's to be expected.
- OkayPhysicist 4y ago
  It would make little sense not to be confident in a subjective opinion. As the sole arbiter of truth concerning my subjective experience, it would be absurd to waffle about it.
altruios 4y ago
There are frameworks that have lying as axiomatically evil. But to be consistent - a painful truth must be preferable to a rewarding lie. To live a lie free life is to invite pain, and to view that pain as both functional and necessary - it is not for the weak to try.
toolz 4y ago
I agree with this line of thinking. Especially the focus on effect. If your persona is made with the pure intent of anonymity and you make an ordinary persona whose abilities aren't exaggerated and could easily be swapped with your own persona without much impact on the people you converse with, then I don't think any harm is being done and you're merely keeping your anonymity while still presenting your authentic abilities and personality to some online community.
jacobmartin 4y ago
The deontologist believes lying is against the universal maxim. If everybody lied all the time, we wouldn't have a functioning society. The virtue ethicist believes it is bad to be in a habit to lie because being predisposed to lying is opposed to the virtue of the truth. We've all known people who lie by habit and they are unpleasant and vicious to be around. I don't know if most virtue ethicists (who don't also fall into the natural lawyer camp, below) would say it is per se bad to lie, but most would say it is vicious. The natural lawyer believes that speech has as its natural end telling the truth and therefore it is contra naturam to lie. See the almost-impossibly-extended discussion here, for that: https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09469a.htm https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09469a.htm For all of these groups, there has variously been admitted something like an "equivocal statement"---a statement which has some interpretation that is technically true, but not the interpretation that the speaker knows will be taken by the listener as a falsehood. For example, my friend invites me out on Friday and rather than saying I'd rather be at home, I say, "I have something going on that night." He takes it to mean that I have other plans, but I don't. But technically, breathing is "something going on" so I haven't lied. (Whether your social relationships will stand your doing this is another matter ;)) I'm personally fall in something like the virtue ethicist camp, but I do believe sometimes, in justice, a lie must be said, and not all of those situations can be covered by an equivocation.
- prepend 4y ago
  > If everybody lied all the time, we wouldn't have a functioning society. This is true. But I don’t think anyone makes the point that someone should lie all the time. Especially not that everyone should lie all the time. I think that there’s an ethical argument for lieing for some greater purpose (eg, a spy working for the Underground Railroad).
  - fiddlerwoaroof 4y ago
    That phrasing has to do with how Kant thinks you come to discover moral truths: it’s an appeal to Kant’s idea of the categorical imperative which, for him, is the basis of all morals. So, essentially, the claim here is “since you cannot lie all the time and have a functioning society then, by my prior arguments about what morality is, you can never lie”
jfengel 4y ago
In deontology, lying-is-bad is practically the canonical example of a basic rule. Kant especially is famous for that -- leading directly to extensive arguments about whether "lying to the murderer at the door" is ethical. It goes deeper than you might expect. There are good reasons to think that it might indeed be unethical to lie, even when the consequences are bad. I don't necessarily agree with the premises involved, but it's worth researching rather than dismissing out of hand. Especially since consequentialism has problems of its own, and it's a way to get an alternative take on the criticisms of consequentialism. Personally, I'd like to see deontologists accept that lying isn't such a great example, and instead take up a different one. There can be good deontological approaches that accept that consequences can be part of rules.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
anonymousnotme 4y ago
I think lying is not ethical, but is it a lying to have an online persona that has a different name that one's legal name? I think not. One can have a legal name and a common law name that are different. As long as one does not claim one's online persona/name is one's legal name and one is not harming other people, I see no issue. If the intent of having the legal name and online name be different is to obscure one's real identitity because one is doing something illegal online, then that is clearly not ethical. If one is not harming anybody, then there should be no issue with having an online persona/name that has a different name than one's legal name and should be considered ethical. A tougher question might be whether one is doing something illegal and uses an online name that is not one's legal name. For example, say one is subject to seizures and cannabis greatly reduces the occurance from say 100 per month to less than 2 per month. Cannabis is still a schedule 1 drug and illegal at the national level. So, joining a dicussion on the net about seizures and cannabis with a persona whose name is different from one's legal name would be common. I also think this is ethical. One is not harming somebody else and is in fact making oneself more healthy (opposite of harm).

bobkazamakis 4y ago

You seem pretty confident in a subjective opinion.

mlyle 4y ago
We're having a normative discussion and we have our own beliefs. It's to be expected.
OkayPhysicist 4y ago
It would make little sense not to be confident in a subjective opinion. As the sole arbiter of truth concerning my subjective experience, it would be absurd to waffle about it.

altruios 4y ago

There are frameworks that have lying as axiomatically evil. But to be consistent - a painful truth must be preferable to a rewarding lie. To live a lie free life is to invite pain, and to view that pain as both functional and necessary - it is not for the weak to try.

toolz 4y ago

I agree with this line of thinking. Especially the focus on effect. If your persona is made with the pure intent of anonymity and you make an ordinary persona whose abilities aren't exaggerated and could easily be swapped with your own persona without much impact on the people you converse with, then I don't think any harm is being done and you're merely keeping your anonymity while still presenting your authentic abilities and personality to some online community.

jacobmartin 4y ago

The deontologist believes lying is against the universal maxim. If everybody lied all the time, we wouldn't have a functioning society. The virtue ethicist believes it is bad to be in a habit to lie because being predisposed to lying is opposed to the virtue of the truth. We've all known people who lie by habit and they are unpleasant and vicious to be around. I don't know if most virtue ethicists (who don't also fall into the natural lawyer camp, below) would say it is per se bad to lie, but most would say it is vicious. The natural lawyer believes that speech has as its natural end telling the truth and therefore it is contra naturam to lie. See the almost-impossibly-extended discussion here, for that: https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09469a.htm https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09469a.htm For all of these groups, there has variously been admitted something like an "equivocal statement"---a statement which has some interpretation that is technically true, but not the interpretation that the speaker knows will be taken by the listener as a falsehood. For example, my friend invites me out on Friday and rather than saying I'd rather be at home, I say, "I have something going on that night." He takes it to mean that I have other plans, but I don't. But technically, breathing is "something going on" so I haven't lied. (Whether your social relationships will stand your doing this is another matter ;)) I'm personally fall in something like the virtue ethicist camp, but I do believe sometimes, in justice, a lie must be said, and not all of those situations can be covered by an equivocation.

prepend 4y ago
> If everybody lied all the time, we wouldn't have a functioning society. This is true. But I don’t think anyone makes the point that someone should lie all the time. Especially not that everyone should lie all the time. I think that there’s an ethical argument for lieing for some greater purpose (eg, a spy working for the Underground Railroad).
- fiddlerwoaroof 4y ago
  That phrasing has to do with how Kant thinks you come to discover moral truths: it’s an appeal to Kant’s idea of the categorical imperative which, for him, is the basis of all morals. So, essentially, the claim here is “since you cannot lie all the time and have a functioning society then, by my prior arguments about what morality is, you can never lie”

jfengel 4y ago

In deontology, lying-is-bad is practically the canonical example of a basic rule. Kant especially is famous for that -- leading directly to extensive arguments about whether "lying to the murderer at the door" is ethical. It goes deeper than you might expect. There are good reasons to think that it might indeed be unethical to lie, even when the consequences are bad. I don't necessarily agree with the premises involved, but it's worth researching rather than dismissing out of hand. Especially since consequentialism has problems of its own, and it's a way to get an alternative take on the criticisms of consequentialism. Personally, I'd like to see deontologists accept that lying isn't such a great example, and instead take up a different one. There can be good deontological approaches that accept that consequences can be part of rules.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

anonymousnotme 4y ago

I think lying is not ethical, but is it a lying to have an online persona that has a different name that one's legal name? I think not. One can have a legal name and a common law name that are different. As long as one does not claim one's online persona/name is one's legal name and one is not harming other people, I see no issue. If the intent of having the legal name and online name be different is to obscure one's real identitity because one is doing something illegal online, then that is clearly not ethical. If one is not harming anybody, then there should be no issue with having an online persona/name that has a different name than one's legal name and should be considered ethical. A tougher question might be whether one is doing something illegal and uses an online name that is not one's legal name. For example, say one is subject to seizures and cannabis greatly reduces the occurance from say 100 per month to less than 2 per month. Cannabis is still a schedule 1 drug and illegal at the national level. So, joining a dicussion on the net about seizures and cannabis with a persona whose name is different from one's legal name would be common. I also think this is ethical. One is not harming somebody else and is in fact making oneself more healthy (opposite of harm).