Thou Shalt Not Lie, Saith The Lord!

[Hevvin Machine]

So what does the word "lie" mean?

This strikes me as a difficult problem. In the original Biblical text I believe that a more accurate translation would be "Do not say things to the Judges that you know do not accurately reflect reality". This was based on the presumption that only adult male Israelites mattered. Lying to your wife, or some Egyptian, wasn't absolutely bad. Heck, Abraham lied like crazy. He rented his wife out to some Egyptian, claiming that she was his sister(like renting out a woman is OK if she's your sister!)

So what is lying, and why does it matter?

Lying cannot be just saying something that isn't true. All guys know that the answer to the question "Do these pants make me look fat?" has nothing to do with truth. Nobody faults a novelist for inventing characters and conversations and events. Fibbing to a criminal about the whereabouts of his intended victim is considered praiseworthy. Nazis/Jews, you know the story. Then there is the most generally effective form of lying, the half-truth. If you realy want to mis-lead someone, the best way is to tell them a partial truth, and let them fill in the blanks from their own presuppositions. "I don't know what your wife was doing when she went to that motel..."

There are even more subtle ways of lying. Kenneth Lay said: "Enron is a solid company, and it's best days are ahead." right before it went bankrupt. George W Bush claimed that Iraq had WMDs and we knew where they were. They may have both believed it when they said it, but everybody knows that they were wrong, and should have known better. But if they had managed to convince themselves previously, were they lying, exactly?

Suppose I wanted somebody to believe something which wasn't true. If instead of saying it to them I told it to somebody else who knew better within their hearing, would I have lied? Have I lied if I've never directly addressed either the victim or my intended dupe?

On the other hand, suppose I say something clearly untrue for the sake of someone else? "I know, I know, honey. It'll get better", when I know what organ failure means. The patient isn't going to get better, but I know her daughter doesn't need to hear that right now, so I fib. The patient's daughter just needs some time to come to grips with reality so I say things that aren't true to give her some time to get adjusted. I know she won't remember what I said in the waiting room. I'm just trying to give her peace, so she'll have the strength to go on later.

Where does fiction end and truth begin?
Hev

[BioBeing]

So, going by the other thread... when Jesus said he would come back in the lifetime of his followers, he wasn't lying, he just really believed he would? iow - he was wrong? Not very good for a god to be either a liar or so obviously wrong ;)

But a lie is a deliberate telling of something known to be untrue. One can be mistaken and not lie. Also, a lie doesn't need to be a bad thing - white lies are told when it is kinder than telling the truth.

However, one can say they were mistaken, when all along they were really lying. Like Bush and those pesky WMDs. Or Reagan when he said he didn't recall. Very hard to prove.

[Hevvin Machine]

So, going by the other thread... when Jesus said he would come back in the lifetime of his followers, he wasn't lying, he just really believed he would? iow - he was wrong? Obviously, if Jesus had ever said "I will be back within the lifetime of my followers", nobody would know about it. No one in 1st century Judea spoke modern English. If somebody translates the words of an ancient writer inaccurately, is the subject of that writer automatically wrong?
Not very good for a god to be either a liar or so obviously wrong ;)
You haven't even clearly described what you mean by lying yet. Unless you are including Shakespeare and Thomas Jefferson and Isaac Newton in your pantheon of Liars. They all said things that are known to be untrue.

But a lie is a deliberate telling of something known to be untrue. One can be mistaken and not lie. So what's the difference? How mistaken can one be, and still be telling the truth? Or are you saying that there is a gray area between telling the truth and lying? An area where what matters is not the accuracy, but the intent?
Also, a lie doesn't need to be a bad thing - white lies are told when it is kinder than telling the truth. I agree with this. Are you willing to agree that it is better to say whatever gets the best results? Or are you going to clarify what you think makes misrepresentation, under exactly what circumstances, the best thing i.e. not a lie? What I'm asking you for here is a definition of lying that contradicticts your statement" A lie is is a deliberate telling of something known to be untrue." Obviously we both know that you were mistaken when you said it. Were you lying at the time?

However, one can say they were mistaken, when all along they were really lying. Like Bush and those pesky WMDs. Or Reagan when he said he didn't recall. Very hard to prove.Proving that someone was lying at the time requires a precise definition of the term. A person could make a statement, and then get more information later. Was he lying at the time, if he didn't have the information? What if the information was right there under his nose, but he prefered not to see it? Is he still lying? If so, what is your definition of lying?
Hev

[Valheru]

Oh boy, this shit again.

Lying is not a sin according to the bible, as long as the lie is "Just and righteous" (for example Lot lying to a bunch of faggirts that his daughters were virgins, so that they would be raped instead of two male angels. :rolleyes:.

Very just and righteous of him and his wife, true pillars of sal... err, society. :rolleyes:

The implication is that lying is right or wrong depending on your interpretation. Even telling a white lie (you'll be okay, the organ isn't failing) is fundamentally selfish because it's the liar who is trying to save mental anguish for him/herself.

[BioBeing]

So, going by the other thread... when Jesus said he would come back in the lifetime of his followers, he wasn't lying, he just really believed he would? iow - he was wrong? Obviously, if Jesus had ever said "I will be back within the lifetime of my followers", nobody would know about it. No one in 1st century Judea spoke modern English. If somebody translates the words of an ancient writer inaccurately, is the subject of that writer automatically wrong?
Well, do you have evidence to suggest it is a mistranslation? I certainly am no biblical scholar, so I have to trust people to not lie to me about things like that.


Not very good for a god to be either a liar or so obviously wrong ;)
You haven't even clearly described what you mean by lying yet. Unless you are including Shakespeare and Thomas Jefferson and Isaac Newton in your pantheon of Liars. They all said things that are known to be untrue.

OK - so let me add "with the intention to deceive or mislead" to "saying things known to be untrue."

But are you now claiming the bible is just fiction like Shakespeare?

But a lie is a deliberate telling of something known to be untrue. One can be mistaken and not lie. So what's the difference? How mistaken can one be, and still be telling the truth? Or are you saying that there is a gray area between telling the truth and lying? An area where what matters is not the accuracy, but the intent?

Obviously there is a gray area. And yes, intention counts.


Also, a lie doesn't need to be a bad thing - white lies are told when it is kinder than telling the truth. I agree with this. Are you willing to agree that it is better to say whatever gets the best results? Or are you going to clarify what you think makes misrepresentation, under exactly what circumstances, the best thing i.e. not a lie? What I'm asking you for here is a definition of lying that contradicticts your statement" A lie is is a deliberate telling of something known to be untrue." Obviously we both know that you were mistaken when you said it. Were you lying at the time?

A white lie is still a lie. It may not be hurtful, but that doesn't make it true.

And no, I will not circumscribe exact conditions, because then you will get all legalistic on me. I am quite happy saying there is a gray area. Doesn't mean there can't be cut and dried lies too though.

However, one can say they were mistaken, when all along they were really lying. Like Bush and those pesky WMDs. Or Reagan when he said he didn't recall. Very hard to prove.Proving that someone was lying at the time requires a precise definition of the term. A person could make a statement, and then get more information later. Was he lying at the time, if he didn't have the information? What if the information was right there under his nose, but he prefered not to see it? Is he still lying? If so, what is your definition of lying?
Hev

If the intention is deception, it is a lie. Knowing that contradictory evidence was available but not looking is dishonest too. If you present evidence on half the story knowing it to be only half, then yes, you are lying.

[Danhalen]

I would have to say that lying is knowingly passing along misinformation with the intent to deceive the person the misinformation is being passed to. I do not believe a lie is necessarily blameworthy. It is sometimes praiseworthy to intentionally deceive someone. It's just a matter of figuring out how to determine when it is a good or bad thing to do.

[dancer_rnb]

I'd say lying is always bad, but the consequences of telling the truth may be worse.

If I know someone is comfortable lying, I'm not going to trust them.

[tjakey]

Well, there is no god. Religion keeps insisting that there is, so I guess lying can't be wrong after all.

I don't know about this argument that, if I don't know its a lie, then it isn't wrong. First, if I don't bother to learn something, then shoot my mouth off anyway, how is that okay? Second, the last time I got stopped for speeding I explained to the fine officer or der law dat I didn't know I was doing 85 in a 45. He didn't seem to care.

[Matty]

"Do these pants make me look fat?"

"No, your flab makes you look fat. Trying to squeeze it all into those awful pants makes you look retarded. "


What? :)

[tjakey]

<wiping snorked coffee off of keyboard>

Damn Matty, I could have used a warning...

[frazier]

One of the drawbacks of religion is that it promotes a tendency to see things in black and white terms. "The has to be an absolute morality, given by God," or some such. Every situation must be evaluated and seen to be on one side or the other of some bright shining line. Sorry, life isn't like that. There are lots of gray areas, and the grayness between honesty and dishonesty is just one of those.

Most Christians seem to understand that, though they may not admit it.

"Thou shall not kill, saith the Lord." Therefore, abortion is wrong, but war and capital punishment are A-OK, since that's not really killing. Yeah, I get it.

[Hevvin Machine]

I'd say lying is always bad, but the consequences of telling the truth may be worse.
So maybe what we need to do here, to come up with a meaning for lying, is to start with the point to having the term. I see it as a term rather like murder or rape. It is the bad form of something that is not inherently bad, but sometimes is. Having sex is not bad, but some forms of it are and they generally get refered to as rape. Whether because one partner is under age or because force or intimidation is used, the word is the same.

People communicate all the time. Mostly they are exchanging information that is useful. Everybody is better off because this info has been shared. Most of the relevant responses on this thread have seemed to revolve around the precept that what makes a message a lie is intent. It doesn't matter whether what you say is accurate or not. The outcome of the message doesn't matter. What matters is what was intended. Only when you intend to cause damage to someone else does communication become a "lie", and then it must be demonstrably false. This leaves huge gray areas, like how much damage done to one person is worth benefitting another, and how much responsibility does a speaker carry for researching his opinions.
Are we on the same page here?
Hev

[DMB]

I think lying is destructive in personal relationships. It simply destroys the trust that is necessary to build anything worthwhile. But of course we can all think of situations where lying is a duty. You are hiding a Jew in Nazi-occupied Europe: you will naturally lie if you have to when someone asks questions.

So I don't think that lying is an absolute wrong. Sometimes it is the lesser of two evils.

[Danhalen]

I think lying is destructive in personal relationships. It simply destroys the trust that is necessary to build anything worthwhile. But of course we can all think of situations where lying is a duty. You are hiding a Jew in Nazi-occupied Europe: you will naturally lie if you have to when someone asks questions.

So I don't think that lying is an absolute wrong. Sometimes it is the lesser of two evils.Perhaps I'm hung up on the semantics here, but I think saying that lying is sometimes the lesser of two evils paints the wrong picture. It's like mixing deontology with consequentialism--which is not necessarily a bad thing to do (I've just never seen a hybrid theory work without major problems).

I think the better course of action is to say that lying, in the case you present, is the good thing to do. It's a simple matter in consequentialist and virtue ethics, but it gets murky under deontology.

[Hevvin Machine]

So I don't think that lying is an absolute wrong. Sometimes it is the lesser of two evils. Then what we're talking about here is really two different meanings for the word lying. Not that one is correct and one incorrect, but they are quite different.
You seem to mean one saying something one knows isn't true. That is a perfectly understandable meaning. Mine is one using one's communication skills to damage someone else for gain. To a large extent these meanings overlap, but they have some important differences too. Normally I am inclined to use the word fib for your meaning, assuming we aren't talking about fiction or hyperbole or symbol or any of the other assorted reasons people have for saying things that are not literally true. A fib might be small or large, done with good intent or bad intent. I think my meaning is better, or more sophisticated if you will. It focuses on the intent, rather than the accuracy of the communication.
Are we getting any closer on this?
Hev

[Hevvin Machine]

So, are we any closer on this, or doesn't anybody have anything to contradict me with?
Hev

[BioBeing]

So maybe what we need to do here, to come up with a meaning for lying, is to start with the point to having the term. I see it as a term rather like murder or rape. It is the bad form of something that is not inherently bad, but sometimes is. Having sex is not bad, but some forms of it are and they generally get refered to as rape. Whether because one partner is under age or because force or intimidation is used, the word is the same. No real problems with this bit, although the analogy doesn't quite work. Most people don't call "rape" "sex". If I say I had sex last night, the first thing that comes to your mind probably isn't that I went out and had a gang bang. Unless you are one sick mofo. :p

People communicate all the time. Mostly they are exchanging information that is useful. Everybody is better off because this info has been shared. Most of the relevant responses on this thread have seemed to revolve around the precept that what makes a message a lie is intent. It doesn't matter whether what you say is accurate or not. The outcome of the message doesn't matter. What matters is what was intended. Only when you intend to cause damage to someone else does communication become a "lie", and then it must be demonstrably false. This leaves huge gray areas, like how much damage done to one person is worth benefitting another, and how much responsibility does a speaker carry for researching his opinions.
Are we on the same page here?
Hev

Well, yes, the outcome does matter. If I try to deceive you, it is probably because I do not want you to know the truth. If you see through my lie, there will be consequences, depending on how big the lie was.

[nygreenguy]

Are we trying to define lying or decide if its bad?

I dont think lying is always bad at all.

[Hevvin Machine]

I'm just trying to get clarity. The words "lie" and "lying" and "liar" and "lied" all have enough different meaning, while seeming simple, to create major equivocation. I see that happen a lot, especially when discussing religion.

I say something I believe, for instance. Somebody else says I am a liar. They think that because what I said they consider false, that I am a liar. Then they go on to write things assuming that I am lying in order to cover for some pedophilic priests.

I just think that it would be a helpful clarification if we all agreed to use the same words for the same meanings. Say we all agreed to use the word fib, when we were describing a deliberate attempt to deceive someone for gain, and lie for any time someone said something they knew wasn't true, unless they clearly marked it as fiction.
Hev

[BioBeing]

If you honestly believe something and you tell someone else, then you are not lying. I don't think religious believers are liars. Deluded, yes; liars no. But lets not change the language.

But getting back to what started this (IIRC) if Jesus wasn't lying when he said he'd be back in his Disciples lifetime, he was simply mistaken. Can a God be mistaken? He might have thought he'd be back - but what stopped him?

[Hevvin Machine]

If you honestly believe something and you tell someone else, then you are not lying. Well, that's a start. But it still isn't very precise. How much research must one do before making a claim to "honestly" believe the claim? What if you didn't say anything, just let someone draw their own conclusions from your silence? Does not telling someone something qualify as a lie? Does telling someone something that you know perfectly well isn't true qualify as a lie?

I've been in the position of having access to sensitive and confidential knowledge. Suppose Mr and Mrs X are struggling to keep their marriage together following Mr X having an affair. If a neighbor, with no interest except the gossip possibilities, asked me a leading question about Mr X's faithfullness to Mrs X would I be lying if I told the neighbor something I knew wasn't true? If I told the neighbor "No, Mr X has never cheated on his wife, and I would know". I have lied, according to some definitions of the term lie. According to others, I haven't.

I don't think religious believers are liars. Deluded, yes; liars no. Not everyone thinks this way. Plenty of nontheists think I'm lying if I mention Jesus in a non-derogotory way.

But lets not change the language. I'm not trying to change the language, I'm trying to get some clarity so that the language doesn't change in the middle of a paragraph.

But getting back to what started this (IIRC) if Jesus wasn't lying when he said he'd be back in his Disciples lifetime, he was simply mistaken. Let's get back to basics. Nobody knows exactly what Jesus said about anything. All we know about is what got written down in a language that was translated from the original, but isn't spoken any more. Since it isn't spoken any more , nobody knows what the original idiomatic word usage meant. So picking one particular English version of a Greek translation of the Semitic remembrances of a follower of Jesus does not necessarily mean that Jesus ever said anything incorrect, much less lied.

Can a God be mistaken? He might have thought he'd be back - but what stopped him ?
No, God cannot be mistaken. But that doesn't mean that His human followers cannot be. Even when they are doing their level best.
Hev

[DMB]

Of course, another possibility is that Jesus was just an ordinary human being and therefore as fallible as everyone else.

[Hevvin Machine]

Of course, another possibility is that Jesus was just an ordinary human being and therefore as fallible as everyone else. This why I don't make truth claims in this regard, under certain circumstances.
Hev