Posts
First, I want to comment on his definition of lying: "as saying one thing while believing another." He adds that the liar must have an intention to deceive. What if you are posed with this problem: lie and harm yourself or someone else, or be sincere and tell the truth but hurt someone or something else? Is the truth better (even though it is going to harm someone) or is the lie better (even though it is also going to harm someone)? How do we weigh the outcome of a decision like this? And which decision would be "good" according to Lynch's ideals? Is this where our subjective moral truths come into play?
I also want to say that I believe this chapter should have come much earlier in the book. I am understanding his four truisms, and believing in them much more, now that I see the contrast between a world of lies and a world of truth.
When dealing with telling lies he is arguing that lying is only prima facie bad. Which is the opposite of what he claimed about truth. He then goes on to list a few reasons on how lying can be ok. He claims that it can be ok if the lie prevents more harm than the truth will or if you plan to reveal the truth to the deceived later or in a manner of being polite such as responding that you are fine when people ask how you are. So I guess it is up to the person lying to understand if this is the time to be telling the truth or not. So yea this would be a good place for our understanding of morality to help us choose whether to stick with the default of telling the truth or to lie. I think Lynch would argue that the truth is best whenever possible baring the small lies that we tell of the sake of being polite because usually the other person is not really looking for the truth in that case.
ReplyDelete