So far my examples of situations where the end justifies the means have been either hypothetical or fictional. Here are two real world cases of people acting on that belief, both of which, I think, show why doing so is usually a mistake.[1] Implications of Academic Dishonesty
Whether or not lying is wrong, I find myself surrounded by untrue statements. Making untrue statements seems to be part of the human condition, as is omitting crucial facts, and making meaning-free statements intended to produce emotional reactions.
My preferred examples of false statements fall in the domain of advertising rather than politics; only extremely die hard right wing Americans seem to reflexively defend random specific advertisers, whereas it seems that most of us tend to reflexively defend people who support the same political side.
"Lie" should perhaps be defined similarly to "murder". The latter is *unlawful* killing, or perhaps premeditated unlawful killing. The former might be better defined as making *immoral* (or unethical, if you prefer) false (and perhaps misleading) statements.
Of course that immediately gets you into a circular definition. But that's my point. Selling "half and half" containing neither cow's milk nor cow's cream is not a "lie" in America, even if you package it identically to the real thing. When I last lived in Canada, where the term would be different ("15% cream"), the term for non-dairy liquids resembling cream would have been "coffee whitener", and calling them "cream" would have been illegal (false advertising) as well as being considered to be lying.
I'm a utilitarian (perhaps the title Bentham's bulldog gave it away), and I quite agree with the article. Lying is super dangerous--the only case in this article where I think it might be worth lying is the nuclear winter case, but even then, I think it's likely to backfire.
Whether or not lying is wrong, I find myself surrounded by untrue statements. Making untrue statements seems to be part of the human condition, as is omitting crucial facts, and making meaning-free statements intended to produce emotional reactions.
My preferred examples of false statements fall in the domain of advertising rather than politics; only extremely die hard right wing Americans seem to reflexively defend random specific advertisers, whereas it seems that most of us tend to reflexively defend people who support the same political side.
"Lie" should perhaps be defined similarly to "murder". The latter is *unlawful* killing, or perhaps premeditated unlawful killing. The former might be better defined as making *immoral* (or unethical, if you prefer) false (and perhaps misleading) statements.
Of course that immediately gets you into a circular definition. But that's my point. Selling "half and half" containing neither cow's milk nor cow's cream is not a "lie" in America, even if you package it identically to the real thing. When I last lived in Canada, where the term would be different ("15% cream"), the term for non-dairy liquids resembling cream would have been "coffee whitener", and calling them "cream" would have been illegal (false advertising) as well as being considered to be lying.
I'm a utilitarian (perhaps the title Bentham's bulldog gave it away), and I quite agree with the article. Lying is super dangerous--the only case in this article where I think it might be worth lying is the nuclear winter case, but even then, I think it's likely to backfire.