Socratic Society: On Falsehood

[Jesus The Inane]

Let us discuss falsehood by using the Socratic Method;

-Should we lie?

Please take the time to read the following articles;

Socratic Method
Lie

Since a discussion is not a dialogue, it is not a proper medium for the Socratic method. However, it is helpful -- if second best -- if the teacher is able to lead a group of students in a discussion. This is not always possible in situations that require the teacher to evaluate students, but it is preferable pedagogically, because it encourages the students to reason rather than appeal to authority.

Since I do not feel that I am educated or smart enough to lead this dialogue it would be nice if someone with more knowledge and greater understand of logic (etc) would lead us with this. I have in mind people like Squeakus Maximus, Darth Wong, Trance Crusader (?), Siblez or maybe even my Patron Nihil.

[Darth Wong]

But if any among us declares that he is wise enough to lead, then he would be perceived as arrogant. And if he is arrogant, then he must not be wise, so who would nominate himself to lead?

[Jesus The Inane]

Ok indeed. So let me just give this discussion a kick...

Is there a difference between a big lie and a small lie, or are they both fundamentally wrong?

[Darth Wong]

Well, as an engineer, I subscribe to the engineering code of ethics, which is heavily influenced by utilitarian principles. For those unfamiliar with utilitarianism, it is an outcome-based system. It is often oversimplified by its detractors as "the end justifies the means", but it is somewhat more complex than that. It is really the only kind of ethics code which could ever work for engineers, because we are often entrusted with public safety. For us, anything but the outcome is irrelevant; one could hardly justify failing to blow the whistle on an employer because of some arcane principle of loyalty or a signature on an employment contract or some other such absolutist rule-based nonsense when there's a collapsed building and hundreds of dead people staring you in the face.

In any case, there are two kinds of utilitarianism: Act Utilitarianism and Rule Utilitarianism. Act Utilitarianism asks whether a particular action would produce a positive or negative outcome. Rule Utilitarianism asks whether the general rule which allows a particular action would produce a positive or negative outcome. If neither type of utilitarianism frowns upon an action, it's good. If both types frown upon it, it's bad. And if you score 1 for 2, then it's somewhere in that grey area (yes, utilitarianism recognizes the possibility of a grey area, unlike some more black/white morality schemes).

Lies fall into one of these grey areas. Under Act Utilitarianism, it is really quite easy to show examples where a lie (either big or small) might actually produce more positive outcomes than the truth. But under Rule Utilitarianism, making a rule that allows lies is harmful because without a prohibition on lying, it will be almost impossible to build any kind of trust relationships in society and numerous social institutions and relationships will be severely impeded in function as a result. So both big and small lies score a 1 for 2, ie- they fall into the grey area of utilitarianism.

One thing we can say, however, is that they do not get the thumbs-up from utilitarianism because while the grey area does not necessarily indicate that something is evil or wrong, it does indicate that it is not the right thing to do either.

[PyrrhusIV]

I'm not good at the Socratic method, so I will use his thought teachings in this post.

Is there a difference between a big lie and a small lie, or are they vote fundamentally wrong?

A lie is a mis-interpretation or blatant and purposeful editing of the "truth". Truth is a human perception, a human psyche. So, is their a difference between truth, and lie? For if you believe enough, a "Lie" is the "truth" vice versa.

Is their a difference between big and small? Lies and Truths?

[Darth Wong]

Sorry, my previous post was not really respecting the Socratic method. To go back to the original question and answer it in a Socratic style:

Is there a difference between a big lie and a small lie, or are they [both] fundamentally wrong?

Both big lies and small lies are not right, but neither is necessarily "wrong". It depends on what kind of harm is done by the lie, and what kind of harm would be done by allowing this kind of lie in society as a general rule.

[Tom Paine]

Is there a difference between a big lie and a small lie, or are they vote fundamentally wrong?

A big lie is simply a larger scale of lie, so is lying itself, or falsehood fundamentally wrong... Yet what is a falsehood? An offence against the human perception of truths. The human perception of truth is fundamentally altered by the perceiver so the liar's truth may be different to the teller's truth. Yet we still describe it as a falsehood. So a lie can be a truthand thus right, ssuming tellng the truth is right... the obvious assumption inherent in this argument.

[Darth Wong]

The human perception of truth is fundamentally altered by the perceiver so the liar's truth may be different to the teller's truth.

Except that a lie is defined not by actual truth but by intent to tell the truth. If a man speaks a falsehood but believes it to be true, he is not a liar; he is simply misinformed. But if a man speaks the opposite of what he knows (or believes) to be true, then he is lying. So the perceiver is not actually relevant to the definition of the lie.

[Tom Paine]

In that case no man cn accuse anoher of being a liar without hearing them contradict their own statement, as no man can know another's perceptions.

[Darth Wong]

In that case no man cn accuse anoher of being a liar without hearing them contradict their own statement, as no man can know another's perceptions.

But is it necessary to know how to identify a liar in order to pronounce moral judgment on the act of lying itself? Leaving aside the possibility of factually testable lies, ie- something the speaker could not possibly have been ignorant of, like (for example) growing up with a brother and then saying he had no brother?

[Tom Paine]

So, you accept that it is impossible to tell a man he is a liar, yes? Then it is, more than anything else, impractical to define the morality of lying, as we each apply said morality to the same statements in different manners depending on whether we believe or not the statement.

[Darth Wong]

So, you accept that it is impossible to tell a man he is a liar, yes?

No, I just say it is irrelevant to the judgment of the morality of lying itself. I do not have to know for certain whether OJ Simpson murdered his wife to say that the act of murder is wrong.

Then it is, more than anything else, impractical to define the morality of lying, as we each apply said morality to the same statements in different manners depending on whether we believe or not the statement.

And why do you believe one cannot pass judgment on the principle of lying without having to identify a particular liar? Can one not pass judgment on a hypothetical act in principle, without having to produce an actual guilty party?

[Jesus The Inane]

A lie is a mis-interpretation or blatant and purposeful editing of the "truth". Truth is a human perception, a human psyche. So, is their a difference between truth, and lie? For if you believe enough, a "Lie" is the "truth" vice versa.

But a truth is not a human perception, I would say it is a fact. If my car is colored blue, that is a fact. Then if I say that it is red, then that is when a lie has been created. Furthermore, one couldn't start believing in a lie. If I believe that I was God, and told people that I was God, it wouldn't be a lie, because for me that is the truth. But if I said that I wasn't God, even though I believed I was God, then I would be lying. Ergo, in your case of believing in a lie hard enough to make it the truth, I would say that it would only be a mis-interpretation of a fact (truth).

Both big lies and small lies are not right, but neither is necessarily "wrong". It depends on what kind of harm is done by the lie, and what kind of harm would be done by allowing this kind of lie in society as a general rule.

So I could say that harm = wrong. Then if I lie, then I am surely hurting someone in a certain way? I may harm someone in a big way, or in a small way, but regardless of the fact of how much I am harming someone, the fact is I am still hurting someone. And so, is there a real fundamental difference between a big lie and a small lie, since both are harmful?

The thing is that sometimes we lie in order to avoid pain, not only for ourselves, but also for other people. Like a boyfriend who cheated on his girlfriend; his girlfriend questions him whether he ever cheated on her, and he lies and says "no." Surely he avoided the pain that the truth might have caused, but was avoiding such pain the wise thing to do then? I mean, would it not be better for this couple to deal with the facts? If they can deal with the facts then perhaps their relationship will grow stronger.

And if there is a difference between a big lie and a small lie, how can we tell the difference between a big lie and a small lie? Does it matter anyhow? Does not lying once might cause you to lie again? What I am saying is this; a small lie might be the cause of a great lie. For, surely enough, small lies must come before a big lie, and not vice versa. And are not big lies just a lot of small lies grouped together?

[Darth Wong]

So I could say that harm = wrong.

For Act Utilitarianism, yes.

Then if I lie, then I am surely hurting someone in a certain way? I may harm someone in a big way, or in a small way, but regardless of the fact of how much I am harming someone, the fact is I am still hurting someone. And so, is there a real fundamental difference between a big lie and a small lie, since both are harmful?

You are assuming that it is impossible to commit a harmless lie. In order to disprove this assumption, I need only produce one example of a harmless lie. Therefore, I will attempt to do so: suppose I lie to you and say that I have brown hair, when in fact I know that I have black hair. Who is harmed by this lie, and how?

That is why we also have Rule Utilitarianism.

The thing is that sometimes we lie in order to avoid pain, not only for ourselves, but also for other people. Like a boyfriend who cheated on his girlfriend; his girlfriend questions him whether he ever cheated on her, and he lies and says "no." Surely he avoided the pain that the truth might have caused, but was avoiding such pain the wise thing to do then? I mean, would it not be better for this couple to deal with the facts? If they can deal with the facts then perhaps their relationship will grow stronger.

In this case, there is harm from the lie. The boyfriend is concealing from the girlfriend knowledge that would directly impact her major life decisions (unlike my example of black hair vs brown hair, which would have no effect whatsoever upon any of your life decisions). He is also concealing from her an elevated risk factor for STDs. A major decision made with incomplete information is necessarily impaired. To take a consumer market example, it is no different from a manufacturer lying about the specifications of its product; it is fraudulent misrepresentation which harms the decision-maker's ability to make a clear judgment.

And if there is a difference between a big lie and a small lie, how can we tell the difference between a big lie and a small lie?

Obviously, by the amount of harm it does. A lie that leads to someone's death is obviously much more severe than a lie that leads to someone paying too much for dinner.

Does it matter anyhow? Does not lying once might cause you to lie again? What I am saying is this; a small lie might be the cause of a great lie. For, surely enough, small lies must come before a big lie, and not vice versa. And are not big lies just a lot of small lies grouped together?

No, a big lie might be just a single lie that has horrible consequences. For example, "yes, we used the correct grade of structural steel when we made this building, as per the building code" when in fact the contractor used low-grade steel to save money. That is an example of a single lie that could have horrendously catastrophic consequences.

[Tom Paine]

No, I just say it is irrelevant to the judgment of the morality of lying itself. I do not have to know for certain whether OJ Simpson murdered his wife to say that the act of murder is wrong.

You talk of a specific case, one instance. There is a difference between that and every instance.

And why do you believe one cannot pass judgment on the principle of lying without having to identify a particular liar? Can one not pass judgment on a hypothetical act in principle, without having to produce an actual guilty party?

What is the act of lying? It is telling me something I don't hold to be the truth. Yet if you believe it to be the truth then you do not believe it is a lie. So the principle is flawed unless we decide from whose preception we are talking.

[Darth Wong]

You talk of a specific case, one instance. There is a difference between that and every instance.

Not when asking if it is relevant to the question of whether the hypothetical act is moral. It is possible to pass judgment on a hypothetical act which has never even taken place once. It is possible to create ethical scenarios which have never happened anywhere and may even be impossible (for example, would you kill a baby in order to save the entire human race from immediate destruction).

Your argument relies on the assumption that if you cannot determine whether someone has committed this act, then it is impossible to determine whether the act is moral. I am pointing out that this is a non sequitur; the determination of the morality of an act can be performed in a purely hypothetical sense, with no regard whatsoever to the practicality of determining whether any individual is guilty of it.

What is the act of lying? It is telling me something I don't hold to be the truth. Yet if you believe it to be the truth then you do not believe it is a lie. So the principle is flawed unless we decide from whose preception we are talking.

I have already pointed out that the relevant point of view is that of the liar himself. It is not a lie, as you point out, if he believes it is the truth. But your follow-up argument (that the difficulty of conclusively determining that he is lying means that you cannot judge the morality of lying) does not follow.

[Tom Paine]

Not when asking if it is relevant to the question of whether the hypothetical act is moral. It is possible to pass judgment on a hypothetical act which has never even taken place once. It is possible to create ethical scenarios which have never happened anywhere and may even be impossible (for example, would you kill a baby in order to save the entire human race from immediate destruction).

Your argument relies on the assumption that if you cannot determine whether someone has committed this act, then it is impossible to determine whether the act is moral. I am pointing out that this is a non sequitur; the determination of the morality of an act can be performed in a purely hypothetical sense, with no regard whatsoever to the practicality of determining whether any individual is guilty of it.

I follow the argument because of my belief morality has to be practical otherwise the morality itself is immoral. Thus it is impractical to define a morality which cannot be applied.

I have already pointed out that the relevant point of view is that of the liar himself. It is not a lie, as you point out, if he believes it is the truth. But your follow-up argument (that the difficulty of conclusively determining that he is lying means that you cannot judge the morality of lying) does not follow.

See above, on morality.

[Darth Wong]

I follow the argument because of my belief morality has to be practical otherwise the morality itself is immoral. Thus it is impractical to define a morality which cannot be applied.

Interesting. So you believe that morality is irrelevant and/or perhaps even wrong if it is applied to situations where you can't reliably assess the crime. Therefore, by this logic, if you can find a way to harm people without being caught, it cannot be immoral. Do you agree with this?

[Tom Paine]

Interesting. So you believe that morality is irrelevant and/or perhaps even wrong if it is applied to situations where you can't reliably assess the crime. Therefore, by this logic, if you can find a way to harm people without being caught, it cannot be immoral. Do you agree with this?

Only if you think you can't catch yourself. And this is societies morality; think about it, we only outlaw things people get caught doing, whereas say bankers don't get caught and therefore escape it. Its a matter of believing yurself that it isn't imoral as well... like lying is a matter of believing you are telling the truth but others disagreeing.

[Simetrical]

Since this is supposed to be a Socratic thread, I decided to pick one post at random (via pseudorandom number generator) to execute it on. The random number picked was 17, so:

I follow the argument because of my belief morality has to be practical otherwise the morality itself is immoral.

Why do you believe this?