Philosophy Now Forum

A new column by Joel Marks.

https://philosophynow.org/issues/27/The_Truth_about_Lying

Philosophy Now wrote: ↑Fri Apr 06, 2018 4:36 am A new column by Joel Marks.

https://philosophynow.org/issues/27/The ... bout_Lying

The author wrote: “Tomorrow is going to be a beautiful day,” you say to your child, who is afraid the planned family picnic will be rained out. But you believe the rain that has been falling all week will continue tomorrow. You are lying in order to put off your child’s disappointment for one more day.

But the next day turns out to be beautiful after all. So you told the truth. And yet you lied."

The author cannot know the mind of the parent and to pretend to do so is not a part of philosophy.

So if the parent makes a prediction and it turns out to be true it is not a lie. If the parent makes a prediction and it turns out to be false , then it was a lie. But at the time that the parent made the prediction, it cannot be determined whether it wil turn out to be a lie or not.

The author also states :" “No I didn’t lie! I said I didn’t break it today. That was the truth!” The child is, I think, literally correct. But he did intend to deceive, and that, to my way of thinking, is what carries the moral weight. I couldn’t care less whether an explicit lie has been told."

As before, the author cannot know the mind of the child and to pretend to do so is not a part of philosophy. People need to listen to what people actually say and not just make their own (incorrect) interpretations of what was said.

Philosophy Now wrote: ↑Fri Apr 06, 2018 4:36 am A new column by Joel Marks.

https://philosophynow.org/issues/27/The ... bout_Lying


The author wrote: “Tomorrow is going to be a beautiful day,” you say to your child, who is afraid the planned family picnic will be rained out. But you believe the rain that has been falling all week will continue tomorrow. You are lying in order to put off your child’s disappointment for one more day.

But the next day turns out to be beautiful after all. So you told the truth. And yet you lied."

The author makes a mistake by making two unequal references into equal ones.

The lie the parent utters is dependent upon a reference for truth value. If he says it ain't gonna rain when it's against his belief, then he is lying against his belief, but not lying against reality. His belief and reality are two different reference systems, and one can't arbitrarily decide they are one and the same. So there is no inherent self-contradictory truth value differences (lying and not lying). One only needs to choose the frame of reference, and stick with one or the other at a time.

An important part of the speech act is the tone of the voice.

If the tone of the voice suggests certainty then it must be a lie because how can you be certain in that case ?
If the tone of the voice suggests honest hope only then it is not a lie.

If the listener cannot decide how to interpret the act of speech he can ask for clarifications:

How can you be sure ?
Have you listened to a water-proof weather forecast ?
Is it just hope that you express ?