- Jean-Charles Longuet
- Lille
- France
This conversation is closed. Start a new conversation
or join one »
Telling the truth: are there limits?
Two recent talks focused on "Truth" as something good/moral. Practically, however, some information may cause havoc: the Wikileaks diplomatic data disclosure, for example, coulad have put some people at risk.
How should we manage the decision to disclose (or not) such information? Or manage the moral dilemma when telling a lie may have a positive outcome?
_____
[update 2012/11/25] The conversation initially mixed a few things : Truth is something that is not as obvious as it seems, and Lies are more related to a deceiving/manipulative intention that to the hiding of some Truth.
Anyway, all points of views are welcome.
ROBB BOUEY
Bin Park
I have believed that the truth is always the best, because of the outcome of affecting experience during childhood.
With weird reason, of course I do not remember it right now, I lied to my mom but was sharply scolded when the truth got out. What's even worse, it was not just the problem between me and my mom but also exerting a strong influence on somebody who is related to this happening. I caused trouble with no definite idea, but it was serious to somebody.
I have marked her for life as a result. I still feel too guilty about hurting her to say what happened. However, it might give good results in that I decided I would lie on no condition.
Of course, my case isn't definitely fit to your question, but I truly want you to be honest:)
Even though telling a lie may have a positive outcome, it often brings about more havoc and risks than we tell the truth.
Sometimes TRUe information cause troubles, but I believe the saying "Honesty is the best policy."
Jean-Charles Longuet
Do not misread me : I am convinced that honesty is an important value, and as you say, that it is the best policy on a daily basis. But there are some cases when doubt is legitimate. I found out that the question was already analyzed ages ago, but that the answer is not absolute : ie, there are some (extreme) cases where lying is legitimate. Your message is a good reminder that such situation is very rare and should be handle on a case to case basis.
William Humphrey
Aaron Barringer
Michael Jelly
Mark Meijer 100+
http://www.ted.com/talks/ernesto_sirolli_want_to_help_someone_shut_up_and_listen.html
Mark Meijer 100+
Jason Huffman
This is why it is wise for people to gain insight into as many experiences and perspectives as possible, albeit with open minds, in order to derive what is the most probable for one's self. This relates directly to telling the truth or telling a lie in that what may seem absolute for one person may be far-fetched or seem lacking in any validity at all. This is not to say that all is relative, for if that is the case then there is no cause for order- if murder is relatively acceptable for someone and that perspective must be respected by society, then expect a chaotic society. The rule of law inhibits those perspectives with good cause, as doe’s society with certain norms. It is with the evolution of these laws and norms that a sensible society can sort through what rules should exist as being more probably acceptable and therefore more "true."
Lying is all about perspective, and carries an undue negative connotation. If deception is used for a cause that is deemed by the enlightened mind to be of worth (more probably good than bad) then, perhaps it is simply a tool in the tool belt of the good willed. Regardless of your personal perspective of Jesus Christ, it can be said that he was quite benevolent- having said that we must remember that, even he deceived the Romans. Perhaps, we would be better to call it being savvy or witty or able to paint a good narrative. Just like anything else, lying is not a bad thing unless used by bad people toward mal ends.
Krisztián Pintér 200+
Jason Huffman
Of course there are things that knowledge tells us are, indeed, fact. However, when we examine the trend of human consciousness time itself tends to displace old "facts" because of new discoveries. That is the evolution of probability. The more a person has contemplated and explored a contention the more probable that person is to be right concerning it. This is why wisdom must be sought with each new day and our beliefs must be reinforced daily.
Rhona Pavis 50+
Colleen Steen 500+
Yes....I LOVE the morning....well....I LOVE the afternoon, evening and night equally as well...that is the truth:>)
I know you know about the ripple effect...or the butterfly effect:>)
"Life begets life,
Energy creates energy
It is by spending oneself that one becomes rich"
(Sarah Bernhardt)
To "spend" our energy in sharing positive ideas feeds us as individuals, as well as all of humankind...I know you know that:>)
Rhona Pavis 50+
Colleen Steen 500+
Who else could I be without telling a lie???
Thank you too my friend, for being you and sharing the gift here on TED:>)
Rhona Pavis 50+
Krisztián Pintér 200+
i assert that lying and being lazy are very similar in their moral and consequential nature. but for some reason, laziness is easier to assess.
Jean-Charles Longuet
However, there seem to be slight differences between both :
- lying is a deliberate act, while being lazy is more inaction than action
- lies outcomes are not accidental, but usually chosen (and explaining the lying action).
This passiveness and unplanned consequences may explain that laziness is perceived as less "evil" than a lie.
Now, lies (usually asserted as evil) may be done while positive consequences as a target : hiding someone from being hurt, for example. I was trying to point out the moral dilemma between the wrongness of lying compared to the goodness of the outcome. I do not see cases where that apply to laziness to extend your parallel in this rare case, however... Any idea ?
Krisztián Pintér 200+
action vs inaction. it is just an apparent difference, not a real one. inaction is action. we choose between two possible paths.
deliberate vs unintentional: that is partially true, but many lies are also unintentional, in the sense that they come automatically, not after conscious consideration.
but i agree that lie can be aimed to improve things (although the actual gain is questionable), while laziness can not.
Ghina Zand Alhadid
So I always keep things to myself unless someone is wondering or asking me to share my point of view, a.k.a. reality. They would have the motivation to modify their realities since it is not fitting their experience. Everyone is right. Everything is true. There is ALWAYS a way to justify things and to see things from others perspectives.
Rhona Pavis 50+
Jean-Charles Longuet
That argument seems quite flawed to me : you claim that "Truth is neutral", so associating "truth" to positivity is as flawed as associating it with negativity. Why should one opinion be better than the other ? You could apply the same positive/negative people distinction based on any belief then.
And "Honesty" is not "Truth". Truth is not only expressed by facts : our perception is involved, our communication too, or way to represent the world... The sentence "Green is a beautiful color" is true for some people and false for other.
Rhona Pavis 50+
Colleen Steen 500+
I agree....agree....agree...people KNOW when they are expressing a lie...it takes extra energy and stress to lie...truth is neutral...how we interpret the information may take it out of the "neutral" state....which truth we express is a choice...we choose what we focus on...silence is always an option...all very well said my friend!
Kerry Reid
Vincenzo Sergi
Luke Hobbs
I have always felt that all lying does is defer the pain caused by the truth, and simply prolongs the illness. Telling the truth is initially hard but with much better long-term results.
Obey No1kinobe 50+
Christopher Fisher
Jean-Charles Longuet
Christopher Fisher
Obey No1kinobe 50+
My point is there are exceptions, depending on the situation and likely outcomes of different courses of action. As per the WW2 example, deceiving the murderers at the door seems reasonable overall from an outcome perspective.
Doing things that require lying or silence to maintain the status quo might generally be a negative if harm is being done. Lying to prevent harm to others may be reasonable in other cases.
Suggest most ethical dilemmas are situational. The best course of action will depend on the situation. Blanket statements such as don't kill or lie, refined to generally don't kill or don't lie is a good starting starting point for ethical examination. Then see if it makes sense.
But again, I would kill to defend my family or in self defence. I would help a relative or friend end their life if in extreme pain.
The most difficult ethical dilemmas involve a clash or values - religious freedom versus protection of the child or freedom of speech etc.
Colleen Steen 500+
I actually had a real life similar situation to your scenario Obey..."the neighbours wife turned up bruised one night..."
Years ago, my home was a "safe house" for women fleeing abusive relationships, and the location of where the women were was NOT supposed to be known. One time, the abusive boyfriend found out where his "woman" was, and showed up with a gun. I sent the woman in the other room just before the boyfriend barged in and said he wanted to take "his woman".
He knew she was there, and I told him that I was the only one here (meaning the kitchen) now, so we are going to talk. I also told him that I "think the police are on their way". Unfortunately, I did not have time to call the police before he barged in, so if they were in fact, on their way, it would have been an ESP communication....I was 'thinking" that it would be really nice if they were on their way!!! It was truth that I was the only one in the kitchen with him, and it was truth that I was thinking that the police may be on their way.
We are seeing lots of justifications on this thread about when it is ok to lie, and when we may need to lie...bla.....bla....bla. If people already have in their mindset that lying is needed in some situations, then they will create a lie to accomodate themselves. If we are threatened, as thinking, feeling, intelligent humans, we can tell the absolute truth NO MATTER WHAT! To do that, however, we need to have embraced the idea of always telling the truth, RATHER then justifying lying in some circumstances....make any sense?
Obey No1kinobe 50+
I see in some comments a desire not to lie, but rather deceive by avoid by "no comment"or deliberately misinterpreting the question or answering it in a way so as to providing the facts requested that if given would create problems.
So which is worse - lying deliberately fabricating facts - she is not here
Or answering or self interpreting in a way that you can consider factual but not disclosing - she is not here (in the doorway)
I suggest in both cases the listener would consider the speaker as being deliberately misleading and deceptive.
It's a personal choice, but I would not go through the mental manipulations in order to feel I stated facts yet still deceive, and am prepared to lie to prevent harm in some situations.
You could say, this could too easy be extended to prevent harm to your self to hide theft etc. But so could the avoidance or answering factually in a way to deceive.
I believe there are usually rare circumstances where to deceive is preferred to reduce harm, for positive reasons, however you do it.
I see little difference in intent or outcome in the various approaches above. With my approach, its simpler and honest to yourself - I'm not going to let him know his abused wife is here.
Colleen Steen 500+
There is indeed a "cold hard reality". We don't ever really know what the listener would consider, and to me, it feels better to tell the truth. For me personally, there is no "mental manipulations" because it is natural for me to tell the truth. Yes....we could say this....we could say that.....I prefer truth. I believe any deception whatsoever, is for the comfort of the one who deceives.
Rick Tuinenburg
Jean-Charles Longuet
http://wordyenglish.com/lit/language_and_human_nature.html
Feel free to comment it.
Mitch SMith 50+
However, to Dominance, Reciprocity and Communality, I would add leadership.
Perhaps the unballancing of the dominance mode came to us by way of the Roman Latin which gave a place for the imperative, but no place for natural respect.
Either way, the talk by Pinker has to do with "honesty" not truth.
Theodore A. Hoppe 200+
"Various theories and views of truth continue to be debated among scholars and philosophers. Language and words are a means by which humans convey information to one another and the method used to recognize a "truth" is termed a criterion of truth. There are differing claims on such questions as what constitutes truth: what things are truthbearers capable of being true or false; how to define and identify truth; the roles that revealed and acquired knowledge play; and whether truth is subjective or objective, relative or absolute."
What is true exists in the abstract, but the question remains whether we are capable of knowing it.
I would argue that we can only hold a mere perceptive of what is true.
dph dh
Kareem Fahim
vlad dobre
BUT IF you know a person's "decision making abilities" are flawed & by giving him bad info you lead him to a decision that's better for him... it's good or bad to lie?
IF one lies to save a jew Hunted by nazis in Germany during Holocaust - is he good or bad?
But if one lies to save a fugitive hunted by police in modern day USA is good or Bad?
If one lies to save an afghan rebel hunted by the USA army for an attack on an USA camp in Afghanistan - is the liar good or bad?
What if one lies to save an USA soldier hunted by rebels in the same Afghanistan? Is the lier good or bad?
Gozde Destan
I believe that lying is like yin and yang. Every bed thing carries something good inside and every good thing carries something bad inside. Depends on what is you aim to say it.
If your purpose is help someone or make the situation better. I think lying would be very moral as well.
vlad dobre
like all actions/decisions - telling the truth or a lie can both be good or bad - depending on the purpose.
Clarification (short):
1) the same action can be considered "good" or "bad" depending on purpose = "god" action or "bad" action are dependant on pourpose = good/bad are relative terms to a pourpose (nothing is pure good/pure bad)
simple example: eating french fries (action) is good if purpouse is to stop your hunger/quench a craving. is bad if purpose is to lose weight & you're on a diet
2) considering good/bad = relative terms (to a purpose) - we can postulate that depending the influence it can have on the (most important) purpose - both truth/lies can be good or bad.
simple example of "good lie/bad truth":
you're a soldier comming from batle. your mate Dan died in battle 1 hour ago. You meet Dan's mother - she's sick & will die in a few minutes. She asks you if Dan is OK. If u tell the truth (Dan is dead) she'll be very sad & hurt & will spend her last minutes alve very unhappy.
If you lie to her (Dan is OK) you can make her happy for the last few minutes of her life.
So: if your purpouse is for you to feel "good & honest" = you tell the truth = she dies unhappy. You hurt another person - but you were honest while doing it. Selfish? fair? Honest?
if your purpouse is the happiness of others = you lie to her. She dies happy, you amde her happy - by lying. Dishonest? bad?
This is just a simple example - usualy most situations are more complicated.
Conclusion: if telling the truth / lying is good or bad one must analyse the whole situation & the cosnequences for all involved.
Gerry McClelland
Arkady Grudzinsky 50+
http://www.ted.com/talks/dan_ariely_on_our_buggy_moral_code.html
Jean-Charles Longuet
Arkady Grudzinsky 50+
http://www.psychologicalscience.org/index.php/video/sometimes-indirect-speech-is-the-most-direct-course-of-action.html#.ULKX0KKmfLw
And here is an animated version of it which is more fun to watch:
http://wordyenglish.com/lit/language_and_human_nature.html
It's not exactly about lying. He speaks of why we "dress" our speech in euphemisms, explaining it by the type of social relationship which we try to maintain, namely, communality, reciprocity, or dominance, according to a theory by anthropologist Alan Fiske.
Christopher Fisher
Elizabeth Gu 30+
To journalists, "No, there's no limit. You should do your best to tell the truth to the readers."
To the pathological truth-tellers(such as who can never lie..even white lie), "Telling the truth and being so uniquely obsessed with telling facts are different. So there are limits in this case."
To anyone, let’s not being manipulative when it comes to telling the truth.