Peirspictiochtai Ar An Saol
Ethics Of Lying
At first blush, it may sound odd to discuss the ethics of lying.
Lying is generally considered to be wrong by many people.
But there are situations where lying is not only a good option, but where lying is the ethical choice to be made.
There are major differences between lying to be nice, lying to get along, lying to be protective, lying for rationalization, lying to be nasty, and lying for evil purposes.
Let's look at each of these possibilities.
Lying To Be Nice:
There may be times when being nice to someone may involve lying. A number of people may call these "white lies."
Here's an example: You've had a rotten day at work. You come home and your wife comes down the stairs in a dress. She twills around at the bottom of the steps in front of you and says "What do you think?" The dress is blue. You hate – literally hate – the color blue. But she has a wide smile – her smile is infectious.
Your response: "I've never seen you so happy. You're beautiful."
Those words may be true, but you know that you're lying to your wife. You don't like the dress, but your views on the color of the dress are unimportant given the context of the situation.
Consider what could have been an alternative to lying. Your response could have been "I don't like it. Blue is a lousy color." That would have been the truth, but lying – for most people – would be the better option. The fact is that you're not the one wearing the dress.
Lying To Get Along:
Here's another example: You just finished a meeting with your banker and found out that the interest rate you will be charged for a new loan is two points higher than you anticipated. On your way home, you stop to buy some groceries. The retail clerk asks you "How you doing?"
Your response: "Doing well. Thanks for asking."
Really?
Many people would consider this response acceptable – even though it's lying because you're likely not "doing well" since you just found out that your loan is going to cost you more than you planned.
Your response may be lying, but it's lying to get along.
After all, does the retail clerk actually want to know how you are doing?
Lying To Be Protective:
The types of tragedies that occurred during World War II provide examples of this type of lying. Consider a situation where German Nazi soldiers are knocking on the door of a home in the Netherlands. They ask if there are any Jews hiding in the building.
You could tell the truth, knowing that the truth would result in arrests and, very likely, deaths.
Lying to protect people in imminent danger is the ethical choice to be made.
Telling the truth – even if it violates the laws in place at the time – is unethical.
Lying For Rationalization:
Some people have the ability to rationalize about almost everything – especially when it benefits their interests.
Lying is an important aspect of many rationalizations.
For example, you're back at the grocery store. You selected a bag of grapes – among other products – for purchase. As you shop the aisles, you taste a few of the grapes. Actually, you eat a bunch of the grapes.
When you get to the cashier, you "forget" to mention that you already ate a portion of the grapes. You don't get charged for the grapes you ate.
You rationalize that the grocery store is part of a multi-billion-dollar corporation and that the firm can afford the loss.
You're lying by omission.
And you're stealing.
Lying To Be Nasty:
Consider an alternative situation in the example noted above with your wife and her new dress.
Same basic scenario, but when your wife twills around, you notice that the zipper in the back of the dress is broken. She tells you that she's made reservations for dinner and that you both need to leave now to get to the restaurant on time.
If your response was the same as before – "I've never seen you so happy. You're beautiful." – but you don't mention the broken zipper, you're lying by omission.
You're being nasty.
And it's unethical.
Lying To Get A Result:
You've just arrested someone that your boss believes is guilty of a crime – an armed robbery. You advised the suspect of his Miranda rights – "You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law…"
Your boss tells you to handle the interrogation and to get a confession.
You tell the suspect that his buddy is in another room at the police station and is cooperating with the police. You tell the suspect that whoever confesses first to the criminal activity will get the best deal.
The suspect confesses his criminal activity to you.
The difficulty with the situation is that no one is in another room at the police station confessing to a crime.
You lied to the suspect.
It's legal.
It's also unethical.
Lying For Evil Purposes:
Take that same situation at the police station, but the confession from the suspect includes lies about the criminal activity.
The suspect confesses that he wasn't at the scene of the crime, but he was nearby. He acknowledged that he spent some of the proceeds from the crime, but that he didn't know the funds were stolen. The suspect tells you that it was his buddy that actually did the robbery and that his buddy gave him some money that day to pay him back for an earlier loan. He indicates that, in exchange for leniency, he's willing to testify against his buddy.
You're pleased with the confession. Your boss is pleased with your interrogation skills.
You go arrest the buddy; he has some of the proceeds of the robbery with him. He also has a gun. The buddy refuses to answer any questions.
Though the victim can't identify the specific person who robbed him, his description of that person is general enough that either the initial suspect or his buddy could fit that description.
With the confession from the initial suspect, the buddy having proceeds of the robbery and a gun, and the general description from the victim, the buddy is given the choice of confessing to being the person who did the armed robbery and getting "X" years in prison or being put on trial, likely getting convicted, and likely receiving "Y" years in prison.
Whether there actually is sufficient evidence to get a conviction is questionable, but the risk of conviction for the buddy is real. Whether a conviction will actually result in "Y" years in prison is questionable, but the risk of a longer prison sentence for the buddy is real.
The buddy confesses. He gets "X" years in prison.
The initial suspect gets probation.
The problem: The initial suspect was the one who did the armed robbery.
The initial suspect used his own gun – a gun he hid after the robbery along with most of the proceeds of the robbery. He knew his buddy – who was of a similar size and race – also had a gun of his own. He gave his buddy some of the proceeds to cover his tracks.
The lies of the initial suspect were done for evil purposes – having someone put into prison for a crime he didn't commit. Accepting those lies from the initial suspect that were procured through lies from those in the justice system – while legal – helped close a case, put someone in prison for a crime he didn't commit, and allowed the actual criminal – the initial suspect – to avoid responsibility for a crime they did commit.
The ends don't justify the means. Especially when the lies are used for evil purposes.
The next news column in this series will focus on the subject of setting an example.
Peirspictiochtai Ar An Saol – Gaelic – Irish – for "Perspectives On Life" is a column focused on aspects of accountability and responsibility as well as ways people look at life.
Contact Richard McDonough at
© 2025 Richard McDonough
