When Does Lie Happens?

NB: To have a better understanding of the subject matter of this feature – lying, reading the previous article entitled “Unraveling Truth and its Many Faces,” is a necessary requirement – a pre-requisite.

  

In the previous article I wrote the discussion focused on some of the most common criteria of truths, which oftentimes, taking for granted; or if not, most people are just unware of. The main contention I presented on the said [article] is, whenever one is talking about truth, there must be a ground for it. Truth is something that is not just a verbal claim, an intellectual assent, but it must be founded on something. As what the German philosopher, Arthur Schopenhauer, would say in his definition of truth, “It [truth] is thus the relation of a judgment to something distinct from it which is called its ground.” In other words, truth is something relational and cannot be separated from its claimant.

Among all the five criteria of truth that I mentioned in my last article, the most applicable [criteria] to understand the nature of lying are the combination of correspondence and language theories. In other words, the context of lying that I’m going to focus on is understood [seen] as a statement condition. Every time we are talking to someone; or someone else is talking to us, the first thing that most people do is to concentrate [analyze] the statement uttered by the utterer. The first question that usually enters one’s mind is: Does what he/she is telling conforms to actual facts? Or is it only conjectural? Does merely providing an opinion, if able to convince somebody else, already constitutes a lie? The said questions serve as the measuring tool to determine to what extent the person is telling the truth or not based on the correspondence criterion. Secondly, the language theory, the way or manner the propositions have been constructed. Does it merely to assent? To express belief? A Scottish philosopher, David Hume, defined belief as “an act of the mind which renders [ideas] appear of greater importance; infixes them in the mind; and renders them the governing principles of all our actions.” One example is, when someone says, I believe on something or someone, it does not mean (or follow) that what he/she said is true or not. The very meaning of the word “to believe or simply belief” is, you are merely proclaiming [stating] a certain claim that does not require an immediate [empirical] evidence. However, it does mean that we have to totally set aside neither ruled out the idea of providing evidences later on if the claimant can do so. In other words, the very nature of believing is “assertion even without a convincing proof.” Therefore, later on, if happens that someone has decided to follow the assertion that you have made, then realizes that it is not authentic, the [said] individual cannot accuse you of lying. Otherwise, the accuser is going against the very meaning of the term “belief.”

A Czech-French writer and novelist, Milan Kundera, would say, “people are lying to protect their subjectivity.” In other words, lying is considered as a defense mechanism that most people resort to in order to preserve their existence – their reputation. On the other hand, the philosophical nature of lying involves both assertion and confirmation. Meaning, once you assert on something, others (whom you are talking to) have the right to verify your statement whether you are telling the truth or not. Traditionally, for ethicists, lie has been defined as, “to make a false statement with the intention to deceive.” Every time a person is uttering a statement, the question whether he/she is conscious or not [on what he/she is saying] is considered as necessary and universal. In other words, it is a maxim [dictum] for each and every one regardless of his/her race or denomination. However, on the latter years, lie is [now] defined as “a statement uttered by someone who does not believe that what he/she mentioned is true or not, with the intention that someone else led to believe it.” If you will notice, both the traditional and modern definitions of lie have one thing in common –intention. The said [intention] term is crucial in determining whether a person is truthful or not.

Ethicists have set three conditions [basis] to what constitute a lie. These are the following: a) The one asking the question has the right to know the answer b.) The one answering the questions has the intention to deceive c.) There is an actual deception. Those conditions mentioned presuppose addressee condition. Meaning, lie will only occur if you are directly talking to someone or group of people. In other words, if you are just talking to yourself, even if you are deceiving yourself, lie will never happen, because you are fully aware to what is true or not about yourself, not unless, later on in your life, you will forget everything – partial or total amnesia (this is a different scenario that covers another extensive discussion).

The next question is, how those three aforementioned conditions function? For the ethicists, as a rule of the thumb, the three conditions [to constitute a lie] must be present all the time. Therefore, if by any chance, one of the conditions is not present at any given situations, it will not be considered as lie; it [automatically] dismisses the outright possibility. Now, let’s discuss the three conditions in a detailed manner. In regard to the first one, it is a duty of every individual to know the answer to his/her question in order to know the truth. If you were able to read my article on truth, you can probably recall when I mentioned that the third precept of natural law (according to Thomas Aquinas) is “search for truth.” In other words, it is part of our very nature as humans to know the truth to whatever capacity it might be; therefore, since it’s something [nature] innate to us – searching for truth, it is also considered as our right; it is something inviolable. Secondly, to one answering the question, lie will only occur if he/she has from the very start, the intention to deceive the person asking the question. Hence, intention is very important in assessing if the person is telling the truth or not. Thirdly, lie will only considered valid if an actual deception happened. In other words, even if the person answering the question has the intention to deceive the person asking the question, but, if the person [asking the question] refuses to accept it as truth and be convinced; henceforth, lie never occurred, because actual deception does not take place. Another scenario, what if I’m talking to only one person, let’s make it even more concrete, I am courting a girl, then the girl that I’m courting at asked me if I’m single or not, at that point, I’m already in a relationship, but I said to her (to the girl that I’m courting at) that am still single with the intention to deceive her. However, the girl that I’m courting at refuses to believe that I’m still single, but incidentally, while talking to her, one of her friends passes by and heard what we are talking to, instead, her friend is the one who believe and get convince that I’m still single. The question is, does lie happens on the said scenario? The answer is no, lie does not occurred. You have to remember that I’m only talking to one person (the girl that I’m courting at) and she refused to believe to what I’m saying, even if other people heard what I’m saying; then get convinced, but if I’m not talking to them, lie never (and will never) occurred. It will boil down to addressee condition. This is the very reason why in the court of law, “hear say” evidences are not admissible.

Lastly, what if I’m talking to a group of people? Probably, ten in numbers. All the conditions are present; I have the intention to deceive them, actual deception happened. However, what if out of 10 people present, only 2 are deceived. Does lie still occurs? The answer is yes, because numbers are irrelevant if you are talking to a group, even if there is only one person deceived to what you are talking to, and the rest are not, lie will still persist. The notion of majority or minority do not apply to this one.

As a conclusion, there are numerous scenarios or instances that you can associate with in analyzing the nature and conditions for lying. However, the guidelines provided (the three conditions) will be the determining factor for you not to get loss. One psychologist, Dr. Todd Dewett, would say, “A good lie makes the truth easier to comprehend.”

 Reference: "The Definition of Lying and Deception", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy edited by Mahon, James Edwin, 2016, Edward N. Zalta (ed.), https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/lying-definition/ [accessed June 22, 2018]   

http://weszlo.com/2017/02/09/szpital-z-widokiem-na-mecz-serie-a/