Very often, quite convincingly. Even more often and fluently to our children. To our parents and spouses, our employers and employees, customers and suppliers, acquaintances and friends, police officers and tax officials, our doctors and dental hygienists, insurance agents and accountants, on questionnaires and quizzes, to our pets and to total strangers for no apparent reason, and even to our guardian angels and gods, who we more or less believe can see us all the time, but kind of hoped they were looking the other way, just at that moment.
That's the flaw in the "I am a liar" paradox. Such statements don't actually indicate that they concern an absolute fibber. In real life "liar" is the label for a generalization of overall mixed behavior, with prevarication simply having a significant or dominant rate of occurring among the assorted traits. Thereby allowing the person to be a truth-teller on occasion. - - -
Great points, CC. I read an article not too long ago that discussed why it's better to not label people after their actions ie: ''he's a murderer!'' Instead, it's better to say, he murders people, because calling him a murderer nearly dismisses all other potentially positive (or negative) attributes.
There's a complication of logical levels. Illustration: Almost everyone carries, as a moral rule, that one should not betray. That's a de facto universal moral rule. But that is not a specific action - any specific action. Is lying to people a betrayal? Sometimes. Is telling truth a betrayal? Sometimes (much less commonly, and an indication of probable moral violation otherwise). Is surreptitiously taking possession of other people's stuff betrayal? Depends. Usually. There is no way to list all the possible circumstances relative to betrayal of even one specific action, and thereby determine its morality exhaustively, even with clear criteria. But that means one can simply make an "innocent" mistake, or be faced with genuine moral quandary (all actions betray), etc. And making a new rule at the higher level - that getting into such situations is itself immoral, say - just backs the problem up or down a level. So there is this unavoidable situation, which can be described as "moral relativism": all systems of moral rules adequate to guide normal human behavior involve logical levels, and therefore set up conflicts of these rules. There has to be a way of deciding what to do in cases of genuine moral conflict.
not only are people relativists but society lies to itself with artificial projections which do not coincide with the truth or reality of people. for instance, many self-proclaimed staunch capitalists are actually "extreme" communist often in a way that is hidden. that seems impossible if a person is identified as a die-hard republican, capitalist yada yada, right? every political opinion is derived from one's own inclinations and nature. the extreme communism is just done in the reverse where anyone 'else' who is better in some way that can't be correctly met with greater ability or just pursuing own ambitions, will be targeted to be brought down or damaged. this is really no different than the "evils" of communism that the typical conservative/right rhetoric is really about. most people are hypocritical or fake to some degree or completely deceptive, some even to themselves. i have known stereotypical conservatives who rail against communism, gung-ho capitalism, gung-ho religion etc but on the other hand, they will evilly try to take down or hinder anyone they are jealous of in any way possible, even for the most petty of reasons, just because they have some quality that they may perceive might bring them success in the future or simply they don't possess etc. notice that the 'equality' is okay as long as others are equal to or below but not above or do not rise above them, especially anyone they can victimize within reach. that is the same as the negative aspect of communism that conservatives preach they are against but they have the same sentiment, often worse than the liberals they point fingers at, but in deviant and hidden ways. liberals want the best to flourish no matter what and no matter who, conservatives want power at any cost and even if it involves corruption and destroying good in others so no other light shines brighter than theirs. then the self-fulfilling prophecy is they can use this as evidence of their supierority. notice several things here: religion made no dent in their evil or ill-will toward others or actions nor the hypocrisy of standing for one value or wearing that label while actually practicing the opposite or having those opposite values etc. this is key: most people wear these values or political labels when it suits them, favors them etc but not necessarily to be truthful. this is just one example of the twisted lies and facades of society. it just goes on in so many other areas and in all possible ways. people in general are not trustworthy and can only be evaluated superficially because no matter what reputation or appearance or behavior someone may have, you never really know anyone really. you can learn a lot from people though often it may not be a good truth but at least you won't be naive about them. for one, most people don't deserve that much credit. what they do deserve is some fear and respect for the ability to inflict damage or harm though which most humans are very well adept at doing, even the most stupid.
