Is Lying Immoral (Sinful, Illegal)?

[coberst]

Is Lying Immoral (Sinful, Illegal)?

 

I was raised in a Catholic family and went to Catholic schools and was taught by nuns that lying was a sin. To me and my fellow Catholic kids lying was the most serious sin we could imagine. We were taught that we had to “examine our conscience” before confession and to tell the priest of our sins in the confessional.

 

How does a kid tell the difference between a “white lie” and a “sin lie” or any of the other forms of “lies” that we saw adults indulge in? Surly Mom and Dad did not lie! It was all a great puzzlement!

 

The nuns taught us all about moral concepts; of course, they did not use such big words. I have later learned that the nuns taught us in accordance with a classical, also called objectivist, theory of categorical structure.

 

“According to the classical or objectivist theory of categorical structure, there must be a set of necessary and sufficient conditions the possession of which alone makes a speech act a lie…As a Moral Law theorist and an absolutist, Alan Donagan defines the essential features of a lie as “any free linguistic utterance expressing something contrary to the speaker’s mind”.”

 

Linda Coleman and Paul Kay have discovered facts that indicate that “the category of lie exhibits prototype effects; that is, there are certain central instances of speech acts that speakers easily and noncontroversial recognize as lies.”

 

What are these prototype effects that Coleman and Kay speak of?

 

Lie is a concept that displays a core structure surrounded by a “fuzzy” penumbra (fringe) of less clear-cut cases about which the speaker may be justifiably unsure as to their moral objectionability: such a penumbra might contain such things as mistakes, jokes, exaggerations, white lies, social lies, and over simplifications.

 

Coleman and Kay found that these core cases that everyone could easily agree upon as being lies, i.e. those prototypical cases of clear-cut lies, fulfilled all three of the following conditions: 1) the speaker is confident that the statement is erroneous, 2) the speaker is intent upon deceiving the listener, and 3) the statement is in fact erroneous.

 

The less prototypical instances of lying fulfilled one or two conditions but not all three. Furthermore, tests were run and it was discovered that subjects typically rated the conditions in order of “importance”: 1) being most important and 3) being the least important. Subjects seemed to agree on the relative weights given to the individual elements.

 

We see here that lie does not follow the classical objectivist strict categorization. A fixed set of essential conditions do not exist and there is considerable internal structure to the concept that are of a great deal of importance in determining whether a statement qualifies as a lie or not.

 

Quotes from Moral Imagination by Mark Johnson

[pamela]

from Coberst

I was raised in a Catholic family and went to Catholic schools and was taught by nuns that lying was a sin. To me and my fellow Catholic kids lying was the most serious sin we could imagine. We were taught that we had to “examine our conscience” before confession and to tell the priest of our sins in the confessional

I, as well.I remember my first conscious lie very well, and will continue to until the day I die. I was nine years old and was watching my younger brother while my mother ran to the store. She instructed me not to go outside and remain in the locked house. My friends came to the door and while standing on the thresh hold pulled the door behind me to speak with them. Well low and behold the door in lock position closed behind me, with my brother inside. He was too young to understand how to unlock the door. In a panic, I managed to break the back door to get inside to watch him. In order to avoid punishment, I fabricated a lie about a stranger attempting to break into the house, which of course led to a visit from our local police. Needless to say, the officer informed my mother that I had lied. What happened after that has been permanently hidden from memory;). I learned my lesson. I decided it was far better to tell the truth no matter what the consequence. Over the years, being blatantly honest, cost me tremendous grief. In questioning and disagreeing with certain concepts of Catholicism, I was dubbed a heretic by my parents. Then later on, with the usual high school antics of not coming home at night, explaining truthfully as to my actions and whereabouts, I was given the boot out of my home.Although honesty can be quite painful, I still choose not to lie.

 

We see here that lie does not follow the classical objectivist strict categorization. A fixed set of essential conditions do not exist and there is considerable internal structure to the concept that are of a great deal of importance in determining whether a statement qualifies as a lie or not.

 

 

 

I divide lies into two categories, those by commission and those of omission. The first being unacceptable in my life. However, I find that the lie of omission, although, still a lie, is often necessary. For example, if approached by a friend with the question of how the jeans look on her, do I tell her the truth, when clearly they are too tight and unflattering? No, I suggest the other pair to avoid hurting her feelings. I often find myself in situations where omission is the only "nice" choice. But it still is a lie. I do not consider it sinful, immoral or illegal, to answer the original question, I do find it reasonable to peacefully coexist:)

[coberst]

The purpose of this OP was to compare the nature of categorization in traditional objectivist thinking and the thinking that is recognized by new cognitive science theories.

 

Traditional objectivist, one might call it positivist, thinking considers that the world is made up of things that fit neatly and completely within containers and that these categories express that which is necessary and sufficient for any object that fits into that category.

 

SGCS (Second Generation Cognitive Science) has developed revolutionary new theories about the functioning of the mind. SGCS informs us that in many cases categories do not fit neatly into containers. Lying is one such category fits sloppily within containers. There exists fuzzy overlap and difficult things that must be considered.

 

All this is to say that if SGCS is correct then we are all very far off base when we think of categories as always fitting neatly within containers.

 

One has to read the OP and think about it a bit in order to get the idea.

[pamela]

originally posted by coberst

 

Traditional objectivist, one might call it positivist, thinking considers that the world is made up of things that fit neatly and completely within containers and that these categories express that which is necessary and sufficient for any object that fits into that category.

Then let me clarify. What was the original thinking of the lie, which was wrong or immoral, became diluted. The orginal lie was one of not being honest and hence the punishment that followed. Whereas today, by means of the omission, has become a more moral directive.

 

SGCS (Second Generation Cognitive Science) has developed revolutionary new theories about the functioning of the mind. SGCS informs us that in many cases categories do not fit neatly into containers. Lying is one such category fits sloppily within containers. There exists fuzzy overlap and difficult things that must be considered.

In differentiating between commission/omission, the "fuzzy" becomes clearer, as the understanding is likened to adding a lens.

 

All this is to say that if SGCS is correct then we are all very far off base when we think of categories as always fitting neatly within containers.

The use of the categories and their subsequent meanings, was a way to allow comprehension of the thinking as it changes through out our lives and through our experiences. The application of the story was written in order to create a time line of thinking that takes us from the childlike acceptance, to the pushing away from the norm, to the fulfillment of understanding and wisdom that comes with age

[coberst]

Prototype Theory

 

I was using the category "lie" to point out that cognitive science has discovered that the classical means for categorization using the necessary and sufficient charateistrics of an object will not be sufficient for many categories.

 

Various scholars have played a significant role in the evolution of the new paradigm for cognitive science, which I call ‘embodied realism’.

 

These roles, and much more, are organized to facilitate comprehension by the interested lay person in the book Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things by George Lakoff. This new paradigm is created by an operating group that I call SGCS (Second Generation Cognitive Science) to distinguish it from the first paradigm for cognitive science which is commonly known as AI (Artificial Intelligence).

 

The first crack in the classical theory of categorization was initiated by Ludwig Wittgenstein. Classically defined categories have clear cut boundaries, and these boundaries are defined by common properties. Wittgenstein noted that a category like game cannot fit such clear cut boundaries because all games do not share common properties.

 

Wittgenstein noted that games do not share common properties but do share family resemblances. Chess and poker both involve one-on-one competition, skill, and knowledge; poker and old maid are card games, etc. He further noted that in mathematics, number must be precise but different mathematicians give differing precise definitions that are dependent upon their particular goals. They can define numbers which may or may not include or exclude transfinite and complex numbers. This applies also to such things as the concept of polyhedron.

 

Philosopher J. L. Austin extended this sort of analysis when he asked “Why do we call different [kinds of] things by the same name?” The answer to this question depends upon classical categorization theory, which Austin argues to be inaccurate.

 

As example Austin uses the word “healthy”: “when I talk of a healthy body, and again of a healthy complexion, of healthy exercise: the word is not just being used equivocally…there is what we may call a primary nuclear sense of ‘healthy’

 

Austin furthermore speaks of a holistic structure, a gestalt, governing such activities as cricket. A modifier such as cricket, when speaking of a cricket bat, a cricket ball, does not pick out any common property or similarity but refers to a structured activity.

 

“Wittgenstein assumed that there is a single category named by the word game, and he proposed that that category and other categories are structured by family resemblances and good and bad examples.”

 

“Like Wittgenstein, Austin was dedicated to showing the inadequacies of traditional philosophical views of language and mind—views that are still held today.”

 

The classical theory of categories is still held today by most people. New theories in the human sciences move into main stream culture very slowly. Unlike new theories in the natural sciences there is generally “no-money-in-it” for the new theories of the human sciences assimilation into the general culture. Thus the culture lags generations behind the sophisticated technology that our society generates.

 

Psychologists, linguists, and anthropologists, i.e. those sciences at the forefront in the human sciences have discovered that categories cannot be defined by a list of features. Instead a confused Tom and Jane tend to define categories (e.g. bird) by identifying prototypical members of the category (e.g. sparrow or robin) and then comparing others to these prototypical examples. Our ordinary concepts are thus seldom uniformly or homogeneously structured.

 

Our moral concepts are also not what we ordinarily think them to be. Such concepts as person, duty, right, and law will have prototype structure also. Because the general sense regarding categories is not consistent with our “real” way of categorization we find our self constantly trying to stuff square pegs into round holes and fighting over the failure of others to comprehend our comprehension of reality.

 

Quotes from Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things by George Lakoff

[pamela]

So in other words, you say po-ta-to and I say Po-TA-to.:D

When in reality we should say tuber, But from tuber there is solanum, to solanaceae, to solaneles, to plantae. I could actually take this further.............

While a use of words with a more definitive meaning would facilitate the greater comprehension of the hearer, it may also become sublime and lost in a maze of uncertainties from lack of knowledge. Thus creating a greater inability to perceive and comprehend what the speaker is saying;)

[coberst]

Common sense or, as cognitive science labels it, folk theory informs us that “all things are a kind of thing”. All things have in common with other things certain characteristics; i.e. all things belong in categories with other like things. Things are categorized together based upon what they have in common. It might be worth while to think of category as being a container.

 

In classical or conventional terms we categorize things in accordance with what are regarded as being that which is essential to that kind of thing. All things that are essentially the same fall into the same category. What is essential to a tree is that which is necessary and sufficient for that thing to be classified as a tree. To categorize a thing, i.e. define a thing, is to give its essential characteristics.

 

In some way or another all creatures must categorize. At a minimum all creatures must distinguish friend from foe or eat and not eat. Categorization is part of the fundamental needs for survival of the creature. If the mouse mistakes a snake for a stick that mouse becomes toast; the same categorization problem applies to the lion and to the man.

 

Categorization is meaningful. Meaning is not a thing; something is meaningful for a creature only when there is an association between that thing and the creature. “Meaningfulness derives from the experience of functioning as a being of a certain sort in an environment of a certain sort.” It is meaningful to a soldier when s/he mistakenly categorizes a tank to be only a harmless tree or an enemy to be a friend.

 

There is nothing more meaningful for a creatures’ survival than correct categorization of the world in which that creature lives.

 

When does a human female egg fertilized by a human male sperm become a person?

 

Quotes from “Metaphors We Live By” George Lakoff and Mark Johnson

[pamela]

originally posted by Coberst

When does a human female egg fertilized by a human male sperm become a person?

from dictionary.com

a human being as distinguished from an animal or a thing.

In order to avoid what would be considered a highly controversial subject, I will answer as follows.

Each pregnant female is unique in the fact that they perceive the "thing" growing inside them differently. For some it is an inconvenience and needs to be eradicated. For others, it may not become a real person in their minds until they feel it kick. And there are some that will not even acknowledge a person until birth. There are many more individual answers within this realm of thinking, I have just highlighted a few. For my self, the "thing" ceased to exist at the point of knowledge that I was pregnant. From that moment on, it became a person. There are pregnant females, mothers and there are moms.

Meaning is not a thing; something is meaningful for a creature only when there is an association between that thing and the creature.

We are all individuals with different circumstances and varied forms of thought. To gauge how meaningful that would be to the thing, would depend upon how one views the association.

[HydrogenBond]

In a very general sense, truth is reality and a lie is "not reality". The truth is analogous to an HD photograph or movie of reality. The lie brings the photo into photoshop to tweak it so reality is altered with embellishments, cropping, blur, filters, or special affects.

 

"Not reality", such as a white lie, is done to alter reality into something nicer. For example, the reality of hurting feelings can be avoided with a white lie. What we do is place the person into an alternate reality where they feel good. The truth might place them into hard reality, where they feel bad. The land of OZ makes then feel better, but it is not reality, so it it is a white lie.

 

But some cases, the person whose feelings we are sparing, with a white lie, is out of touch with reality, either way. A white lie might bring them to OZ, while the truth and reality might bring them to the castle of the wicked witch. For example, a mom may be concerned about her adult child, wanting them to bring their umbrella in case it rains and they get sick. The reality is, her child is an adult, who watches the weather channel and is prepared already and mom doesn't need to worry. But her two alternate realities involve him dying of pneumonia/ fighting a hurricane or strolling through daisies with his umbrella. Since he can't bring her to reality, a white lie creates a better alternate reality. This type of white lie is close to a different type of reality, which is connected to love.

 

There is a marginal lie called not volunteering information. This is like a white lie since it alters reality, by taking a picture into photoshop and then erasing some of the trees. As long as nobody asks, one didn't not verbally lie. But one did alter reality since reality had more trees. Political parties do this type of photoshopping, cropping truth in other points of view, to create an alternate reality with just the tree they like.

 

This brings us to the next one. Say one begins with an alternate reality, or a picture that has been photoshopped by someone else. With the best intent to tell the truth, one can never tell reality-truth because data is missing. This might be called gray truth since it is true to the best of one's knowledge. White truth would require more research to fill in the photo. The irony is, if you fill in the photo by replacing the trees, the white truth becomes a lie in the alternate reality. One may have to tell a white lie or use gray truth to help others return to OZ, where it will be called white truth and reality.

 

There are white lies, gray lies and black lies, depending on how far from reality they go plus the reality of the subjective affect they have on others. The white lie may alter reality, but it tries to do something good for another. It is not truth, but the heart is in the right place. A gray lie alter reality more but may still be emotionally positive. The used car salesman will blow sunshine up you skirt, while altering the reality of the car he is selling. He is trying to bring you to a sunny place, where junk cars shine like new and oil runs clean. For a little while, they do shine like new and makes one feel good. This is why it is gray. There is an entertainment feel, but with a high cover charge.

 

The black lie not only alters realty, but cuts the person so they bleed out. In political campaigns mud slinging may be an alternate reality intended to cut, with the hope they bleed out. Even if they close the wound and stop the bleeding, the alternate reality can become an infection that can still get you.

[coberst]

This example of the category we call "lie" helps us to comprehend why the work of SGCS (Second Generation Cognitive Science), in defining the nature of a new theory of categorization called "prototype theory", is so important to our comprehension of how we humans think.

 

Mark Johnson takes this prototype theory and shows us its importance in the matter of morality in his book “Moral Imagination”.

 

Steven L. Winter, law professor, does the same thing in the matter of law in the book “A Clearing in the Forest: Law, Life, and Mind”.

[Boof-head]

Lying is polarized belief; polarizing knowledge takes longer.

[Boof-head]

This also necessarily implies the only thing you can do with a lie is lie (or tell the truth) about it being a lie.

 

Hence, polarization; the act of lying simply polarizes a belief or a proposition about being able to lie.

If this is not true, then there is a lie which can't be lied about, or a truth which cannot be truthfully spoken about = stated propositionally (think about that for a second or two).

 

We can say or think "I am telling the truth, or being honest - with others and myself", and so we can say or think: "I am lying, or not being honest with myself and with others".