Lying and truth-telling

Link: Lying and truth-telling

Philosophers on lying
Some philosophers, most famously the German Immanuel Kant (1724-1804), believed that, that lying was always wrong.

He based this on his general principle that we should treat each human being as an end in itself, and never as a mere means.

Lying to someone is not treating them as an end in themselves, but merely as a means for the liar to get what they want.

Kant also taught 'Act so that the maxim of thy will can always at the same time hold good as a principle of universal legislation.'  

This roughly means that something is only good if it could become a universal law.

If there was a universal law that it was generally OK to tell lies then life would rapidly become very difficult as everyone would feel free to lie or tell the truth as they chose, it would be impossible to take any statement seriously without corroboration, and society would collapse.


Every liar says the opposite of what he thinks in his heart, with purpose to deceive.

St Augustine, The Enchiridon

Christian theologian St. Augustine (354-430) taught that lying was always wrong, but accepted that this would be very difficult to live up to and that in real life people needed a get-out clause.
St Augustine said that:

God gave human beings speech so that they could make their thoughts known to each other; therefore using speech to deceive people is a sin, because it's using speech to do the opposite of what God intended

The true sin of lying is contained in the desire to deceive Augustine believed that some lies could be pardoned, and that there were in fact occasions when lying would be the right thing to do.
  
He grouped lies into 8 classes, depending on how difficult it was to pardon them.  Here's his list, with the least forgivable lies at the top:

Lies told in teaching religion
Lies which hurt someone and help nobody
Lies which hurt someone but benefit someone else
Lies told for the pleasure of deceiving someone
Lies told to please others in conversation
Lies which hurt nobody and benefit someone
Lies which hurt nobody and benefit someone by keeping open the possibility of their repentance

Lies which hurt nobody and protect a person from physical 'defilement'

Thomas Aquinas
Thomas Aquinas also thought that all lies were wrong, but that there was a hierarchy of lies and those at the bottom could be forgiven.  His list was:

Malicious lies: lies told to do harm
Malicious lies are mortal sins
'Jocose lies': lies told in fun
These are pardonable
'Officious' or helpful lies
These are pardonable

Lying under serious threat
The reason for lying that gets most sympathy from people is lying because something terrible will happen if you don't lie.  Examples include lying to protect a murderer's intended victim and lying to save oneself from death or serious injury.

These lies are thought less bad than other lies because they prevent a greater harm occurring; they are basically like other actions of justified self-defence or defence of an innocent victim.

The reasons why we think lies in such situations are acceptable are:
The good consequences of the lie are much greater than the bad consequences

Such lies are told to protect innocent persons who would otherwise suffer injustice

Such lies are told to prevent irreversible harm being done
Such situations are very rare, so lying in them doesn't damage the general presumption that it's wrong to lie

Since such lies are often told in emergencies, another justification is that the person telling the lie often has not time to think of any alternative course of action.

Threatening situations don't just occur as emergencies; there can be long-term threat situations where lying will give a person a greater chance of survival.  In the Gulag or in concentration camps prisoners can gain an advantage by lying about their abilities, the misbehaviour of fellow-prisoners, whether they've been fed, and so on. In a famine lying about whether you have any food hidden away may be vital for the survival of your family.

Lying to enemies
When two countries are at war, the obligation to tell the truth is thought to be heavily reduced and deliberate deception is generally accepted as part of the way each side will try to send its opponent in the wrong direction, or fool the enemy into not taking particular actions.

In the same way each side accepts that there will be spies and that spies will lie under interrogation (this acceptance of spying doesn't benefit the individual spies much, as they are usually shot at the end of the day).

There are two main moral arguments for lying to enemies:
Enemies do not deserve the same treatment as friends or neutrals, because enemies intend to do us harm and can't grumble if we harm them in return by lying to them

Lying to enemies will prevent harm to many people, so the good consequences outweigh the bad ones.