01-04-2014, 09:13 PM
So while I pontificate the following as if facts they are of course only my opinion.
To discuss morality as if it had any meaning outside of a given society is a category error. Thus to discuss the morality of lying without reference to the society under which the lie is applied is equally fruitless.
Consider: Nazis at the door; Jews in the attic; Lying becomes a moral imperative (Unless you identify with the Nazi society).
Consider: Benedict Arnold; synonym for traitor? How odd then wonder who put up this plaque upon his last residence.
Societies define morality by consensus (or sometimes dictate). Religious groups are themselves societies. Most societies will define as immoral lying between members of that same society. The immorality of inter-societal lying depends on the relationship between the two societies.
So in the first case the Nazis at the door were not part of the society to which the one answering the door belongs. Thus NO moral dilemma. Philosophers who argue the morality of this case based on a "greater good" theory are missing the point. That view is that a lie is intrinsically immoral but that saving the lives of those in that attic is a greater good. Wrong. There is NO immorality in lying to the Nazis AT ALL. Even if there were no one in the attic. Unless you are a member of the society which includes Nazis as a legitimate subgroup.
The second case demonstrates the difference in morality between two groups which we both (now days) consider legitimate. We have readers from both countries. Benedict Arnold traitor (correct in the U.S.); Benedict Arnold minor patriot (correct in England).
The reason most societies place lying in the immoral category is because it inhibits communication. That is the very definition of anti-social. Societies are held together by communication. Take away communication and the society will vanish. That is why all dictators choose to control all of the communication media, it is the web by which joins the members of society. The web of communication is not a part of society; it IS the society.
So lying is a social crime because it literally breaks the web which makes up society.
This is true of societies no matter the size. Minimum society size is 2. That is called a relationship. If you lie within a relationship then the fabric which creates the relationship is broken and the relationship begins to dissolve.
That is why lying is antithetical to marriage; it dissolves the bonds which make up the union.
Interestingly this is why it is an error to conclude that a man who will lie to his wife will also lie to his mistress. The question the wife should ask is ... "if you are lying to me, then to whom are you telling the truth!". Because what naturally occurs is that the man changes his relationship from his wife to his other woman. If he lied to both he would in effect have NO relationship. Some men choose this I suppose but I imagine it difficult to maintain for very long. We are social creatures after all.
Now...
The immorality of that depends on how YOUR society views marriage. Is it a bond sanctioned by God, government and family not to be broken for any reason? Or is it a self directing choice between two people for as long as they see fit to maintain it?
So my point is... You cannot judge the morality of my lying within the society of which I choose to be a part (because you do not know it). You can only judge it against the one YOU choose to be a part of (but that is irrelevant to me).
And of course we choose to be a part of many societies at once. So your mix is of your own selection and maybe even of your own creation.
So the harm in lying is to the interrelationships formed by communication channels. As we tell our children: "If you lie then I cannot tell when you are telling the truth". That is in fact the entire issue.
The entire harm of a lie is embodied in the inability of the listener to discern the truth from what you say. If you are a witness at a trial this can have a huge harmful effect to another person. If you are answering your door in Poland in 1943 it may be just the thing to mitigate great harm.
So the question you asked is "why lie?" and my answer is that, it appears to me that the harm caused to all parties concerned by telling certain lies in this certain case is less than if I did otherwise.
To discuss morality as if it had any meaning outside of a given society is a category error. Thus to discuss the morality of lying without reference to the society under which the lie is applied is equally fruitless.
Consider: Nazis at the door; Jews in the attic; Lying becomes a moral imperative (Unless you identify with the Nazi society).
Consider: Benedict Arnold; synonym for traitor? How odd then wonder who put up this plaque upon his last residence.
Societies define morality by consensus (or sometimes dictate). Religious groups are themselves societies. Most societies will define as immoral lying between members of that same society. The immorality of inter-societal lying depends on the relationship between the two societies.
So in the first case the Nazis at the door were not part of the society to which the one answering the door belongs. Thus NO moral dilemma. Philosophers who argue the morality of this case based on a "greater good" theory are missing the point. That view is that a lie is intrinsically immoral but that saving the lives of those in that attic is a greater good. Wrong. There is NO immorality in lying to the Nazis AT ALL. Even if there were no one in the attic. Unless you are a member of the society which includes Nazis as a legitimate subgroup.
The second case demonstrates the difference in morality between two groups which we both (now days) consider legitimate. We have readers from both countries. Benedict Arnold traitor (correct in the U.S.); Benedict Arnold minor patriot (correct in England).
The reason most societies place lying in the immoral category is because it inhibits communication. That is the very definition of anti-social. Societies are held together by communication. Take away communication and the society will vanish. That is why all dictators choose to control all of the communication media, it is the web by which joins the members of society. The web of communication is not a part of society; it IS the society.
So lying is a social crime because it literally breaks the web which makes up society.
This is true of societies no matter the size. Minimum society size is 2. That is called a relationship. If you lie within a relationship then the fabric which creates the relationship is broken and the relationship begins to dissolve.
That is why lying is antithetical to marriage; it dissolves the bonds which make up the union.
Interestingly this is why it is an error to conclude that a man who will lie to his wife will also lie to his mistress. The question the wife should ask is ... "if you are lying to me, then to whom are you telling the truth!". Because what naturally occurs is that the man changes his relationship from his wife to his other woman. If he lied to both he would in effect have NO relationship. Some men choose this I suppose but I imagine it difficult to maintain for very long. We are social creatures after all.
Now...
The immorality of that depends on how YOUR society views marriage. Is it a bond sanctioned by God, government and family not to be broken for any reason? Or is it a self directing choice between two people for as long as they see fit to maintain it?
So my point is... You cannot judge the morality of my lying within the society of which I choose to be a part (because you do not know it). You can only judge it against the one YOU choose to be a part of (but that is irrelevant to me).
And of course we choose to be a part of many societies at once. So your mix is of your own selection and maybe even of your own creation.
So the harm in lying is to the interrelationships formed by communication channels. As we tell our children: "If you lie then I cannot tell when you are telling the truth". That is in fact the entire issue.
The entire harm of a lie is embodied in the inability of the listener to discern the truth from what you say. If you are a witness at a trial this can have a huge harmful effect to another person. If you are answering your door in Poland in 1943 it may be just the thing to mitigate great harm.
So the question you asked is "why lie?" and my answer is that, it appears to me that the harm caused to all parties concerned by telling certain lies in this certain case is less than if I did otherwise.
