Well-Intentioned Lying Doesn't Account for Unintended, Unpredicted Consequences
A look at rationalizing the lies we tell
Some people will assert that situational lying can be considered acceptable, that the variables determine whether deceiving someone is permissible, even if not ideal.
“Perhaps there are a narrow set of lies that most people view as the good or the moral lies,” says Christian L. Hart, Ph.D., writing at Psychology Today.
“Are there any exceptions? Are there lies that are good both in the moment and in the long view?” Hart rhetorically asks, before adding, “There is a classic thought experiment used to explore this question.”
He sets out to stimulate thinking to show that lying might be beneficial, desirable,. respected and expected here and there for the moral good.
Thomas Aquinas splits lying into three types of lies; malicious, ‘jocose’ (lies said in jest) and ‘officious’ (lies that are helpful).
These three types of lies all have different motivation: malicious lies are told to do harm, ‘jocose’ lies are told light-heartedly to little positive or negative impact and ‘officious’ lies are told to help another.
Aquinas said all lies were wrong (pro tanto wrong in this context), but some were pardonable (specifically the latter two). Source: unknown
These scenarios are likely to be widely agreed upon yet otherwise, lying is almost always condemned and supporting lies is deemed intolerable and insufferable.
“Once you start thinking about it, there are plenty of circumstances where lying seems to be morally excusable. And, indeed, it is typically morally excused. Now, of course, there is a problem with this: who is to say whether the scenario excuses you from lying?” Andrea Borghini asks at ThoughtCo.
“There are plenty of circumstances in which humans seem to convince themselves of being excused from taking a certain course of action when, to the eyes of their peers, they actually are not.”
This slippery slope has to be discussed.
“Research by Chicago Booth’s Emma Levine’s focusing on this question, suggests that for many people, merely sparing someone’s feelings isn’t enough to justify lying,” writes Kasandra Brabaw at the Chicago Booth Review. “It is only when the truth causes ‘unnecessary harm’ that most people find lying to be ethical.”
This sounds like a can of worms, yet let’s dive deeper into the explanation.
“Unnecessary harm is a function of how much value the truth has in the long run, whether you can learn and grow from it, and how much emotional pain and suffering it will cost you,” Levine says.
“If telling the truth will cause someone emotional pain and suffering without leading to growth or long-term value, many think lying is justifiable,” Brabaw writes.
The reality, Levine argues, is that at certain times, “people also want to be lied to in these situations. “We think of deception as bad, but yet, we want people to deceive us all the time.
That’s dangerous thinking because of what we are most likely not to consider.
“Lies frequently assume ‘lives of their own’ and result in consequences that people do not intend or fail to predict,” according to the Markkula Center for Applied Ethics. “Moreover, it is very difficult for a person to be objective in estimating the good and the harm that his or her lies will produce.”
The why for this is obvious.
“We have a vested interest in the lies we tell and an equally vested interest in believing that the world will be better if we lie from one instance to the next,” the Markkula Center continues. “For these reasons, critics claim, lying is morally wrong because we cannot accurately measure lies' benefits and harms.”
Want to promote yourself and your business in Communication Intelligence, the newsletter? Contact me at comm.intel.newsletter@gmail.com or: