There is a nicer way to ask this, but that risks my hard-hitting title which I'm sure attracted you to check this out. Even without fancy linguistics, it would still boil down to if there is ever a time when telling a lie is a good thing. But who comes up with these standards? What decides if that was the right time to lie, or what you lied about? Is it as long as you're okay with it, or must someone else know of it? What about that which you replace the truth with? All lies have a structure, some kind of foundation either weak or strong that determines if the truth will ever be revealed. Is there anything to factor for a convincing fib?


I'd rather refrain from the subject of what is truth and what constitutes truth from person to person (saying all things are relative). Let's put this into perspective: I ask a friend to borrow $20, and he asks when he can get it back. I tell him tomorrow, knowing I won't have $20 and will evade him (kinda lame story, but it works). Now think about what could go behind this. What could I be using $20 for that's so important, and that I'd need to lie for it? What if I see him the next day, I have to lie again for why I can't give it back to him. That kind of stuff I want to evaluate. When is lying acceptable?

In the case of the $20, no, lying is not acceptable there. If he is unwilling to lend you the money unless you can pay it back tomorrow then he probably needs that money for something. Lying is acceptable if, and only if, it will make the world a better place with some degree of certainty. If the SS are asking if you have Jews in your house, you may lie. If you are planning a surprise birthday party, you may lie. If you want to cheat your friend out of his money, you may not lie.

There are also times when it is acceptable to tell "white lies" If someone asks you to hang out with them, but you know they will be doing something illegal/morally unacceptable, you may lie to avoid being there, where you might be pressured to participate.

in other words...

Quote from Zed

Lying is acceptable if, and only if, it will make the world a better place with some degree of certainty.

Lying is fine as long as it results in the acquisition of copious amounts of bacon.

Sam: Jenny, your bacon is poisoned. Your bacon is poisoned Jenny. I'll take it for you.
Jenny: Thank you Sam.

Sam then places the bacon in his bacon bank repository. The world is a better place.

I believe lying is acceptable if it doesn't affect the person negatively.

Lying to an SS officer about where the Jews are hiding will affect him negatively.




Just to make things interesting:

Lying is never acceptable under any circumstances. In the example of lying to a Nazi you are denying that person their rationality. It is not for you to choose what information they get on which to base their decisions. If, when all the facts are presented to them, they choose to do something immoral then that is their responsibility and you cannot be blamed for that. In the case of planning a surprise birthday party you can deliberately not raise the subject, but if your friend asks you directly whether you're planning anything then you must answer honestly, otherwise once again you are sending him off to live his life based on false information. He will make his decisions bearing in mind what you told him and perhaps he'll find himself double-booked on the day of the party. Perhaps he'll think no one loves him and he'll kill himself if there's no party being planned.

You don't know the consequences of your actions. All you know is the action itself, and so you must act based only on the rightness of the action and not on the consequences. Lying cannot be the right action in and of itself, because if everyone did it all the time then "truth" would lose all meaning and "lying" wouldn't even be a thing any more. The only thing which could ever make lying right is if the consequences were absolutely 100% certain, but they never are and therefore there is nothing which can make lying right.

Zed but the bacon. What about the bacon.

Whenever you're tired, of course.

Jk.

Lying is not good or bad. There are no good actions or bad actions, only good or bad intentions.
For example, killing someone it's considered a bad thing almost all the time, but when a police kills a guy when other people are in danger, this police is considered a "hero".

when talking about lying is almost the same thing. It's right or wrong depending on the situation and your intentions; for example when you lie to somebody to avoid hurting their feelings. but in these cases, hiding someting is considered a betrayal. So it's really hard to tell when it's right or wrong. To me, one of the very few crealr examples about the rightness of lying is when your parents "lie" to you with Santa Claus as a kid. This is not to hurt you, but to make you feel christmass is a magic day when magic really happens. Sure, those beliefs will vanish with time, but those memories will be there forever, and that's a good thing. the same when they tell you that you were delivered to your house by a stork when you were born, is just to protect you in some way of premature sex (and also to avoid awkward explanations. *cough*)

So, long story short, there are no good or bad actions, only intentions.

Also, deciding when something is good or wrong, is another whole matter. Maybe my intentions will be bad for some people, but for others they're good. Using Zed's example, to a nazi, hiding the jews are a bad thing but for jews (or the rest of the world) is a good thing.

so yea, debating about this is pretty much useless because, well; good or evil and acceptable or not acceptable just depends on the point of view and we'll never get to a point.

How can there be bad intentions without bad actions?

Quote from Zed

How can there be bad intentions without bad actions?

I said (at least, in my opinion) there aren't neither good or bad actions. Telling the truth with intention of hurting someone's else feelings is an example.

I understood what you said but it seems indefensible. An intention is an intention to do something. How can the intention be bad if the action that you intend is not? The two are inextricably linked.

The definition of "intention" I'm using is this: "An aim that guides action; an objective." Maybe I should have said purpose, goal, end, aim, object, or objetive to be clearer.

Still the same problem. "An aim that guides an action". How can the aim be bad without the action which brings about that aim being bad?

If you try to mix the term "good/bad actions" with my reasoning then it won't have any sense to you, since I don't think actions are good or bad. To me, actions are actions and nothing more; they're not good or bad. To me, only aims can be considered good or bad