When is lying okay ?

When is it OK to lie?

The philosopher Sissela Bok put forward a process for testing whether a lie could be justified. She calls it the test of publicity:

The test of publicity asks which lies, if any, would survive the appeal for justification to reasonable persons.

Sissela Bok, Lying: Moral Choice in Public and Private Life, 1978

If we were to apply this test as a thought experiment we would bring together a panel of everyone affected by a particular lie - the liar, those lied to and everyone who might be affected by the lie.

We would then put forward all our arguments for telling a particular lie and then ask that 'jury' of relevant and reasonable persons if telling this lie was justified.

But what could we do in the real world?

* First inspect our own conscience and ask whether the lie is justified
* Second, ask friends or colleagues, or people with special ethical knowledge what they think about the particular case
* Thirdly, consult some independent persons about it

This sort of test is most useful when considering what we might call 'public' lying - when an institution is considering just how much truth to tell about a project - perhaps a medical experiment, or a proposed war, or an environmental development.

One executive observed to this writer that a useful test for the justifiability of an action that he was uncertain about was to imagine what the press would write afterwards if they discovered what he had done and compared it to what he had said in advance.

In most cases of personal small scale lying there is no opportunity to do anything more than consult our own conscience - but we should remember that our conscience is usually rather biased in our favour.

A good way of helping our conscience is to ask how we would feel if we were on the receiving end of the lie. It's certainly not foolproof, but it may be helpful.

Bok sets out some factors that should be considered when contemplating a lie:

* Are there some truthful alternatives to using a lie to deal with the particular problem?
* What moral justifications are there for telling this lie - and what counter-arguments can be raised against those justifications?
* What would a public jury of reasonable persons say about this lie?

Lies that don't deceive are not sinful lies...or are they?

If both parties know that the liar's statement is NOT intended to be taken as a definitive and important statement of the truth then it may not count as a sinful lie, because there's no intention to deceive.

There are many cases where no reasonable person expects what is said to them to be genuinely truthful.

That may let us off the hook for things like:

* Flattery: 'you look lovely'
* Gratitude: 'that's just what I wanted'
* Formal language conventions: 'sincerely yours', 'pleased to meet you'
* Bargaining: 'my best price is £500'
* Generalisation: 'it always rains in Manchester'
* Advertising: '#### washes whitest'
o If believing the advert might lead to bad consequences - for example in medical advertising - this would not count as a guilt-free lie.
* Jokes: 'there was an Englishman, an Irishman and a Scotsman'
* Unpredictable situations: 'it won't rain today'
* Sporting tips: 'Pegleg is unbeatable in the 3:30 race'
* False excuses: 'he's in a meeting'
* Conjuring tricks: 'There's nothing up my sleeve'

It's not always easy to see the difference between these statements and white lies.

Incidentally the Ethics web team disagreed amongst themselves as to the status of lies that don't deceive - your thoughts are very welcome.