Discussion in 'Ethics, Morality, & Justice' started by KilljoyKlown, Mar 14, 2011.
Those are not lies, IMO, because they lack intent.
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
Are you kidding me? If someone told you a lie and you thought it was the truth and told others as if it was the truth. It's still a lie and you are a fool or sucker. Magazines and newspapers get sued for not checking their facts before publishing.
Good intentions that never get fulfilled. Sounds like lying to yourself and family members or friends to keep them off your back. You need positive actions like getting an education and actually looking for a job in your field of choice to make those good intentions not a lie.
Lies don't need intent, only the fact that they are not true and are deciving.
Deceit implies intent.
I didn't do noting, and I ain't not never lied no how no way.
— my sworn testimony
Okay but that intent doesn't have to be yours in order to make what you are saying to be a lie. Also, your belief in what you are saying doesn't make a lie into the truth. It only makes you the dupe of a liar.
I'm betting everyone on this forum has been duped at sometime in their lives. I would ask you to think back to when you found out that you were duped and remember how you felt about it.
You relied on information you were given to be the truth and then others relied on you to give them good information which turned out to be a lie. Those people that relied on you are going to blame you and not your source. All I can say about that, is it's going to hurt and all the trust you ever had for your source will be gone forever.
I disagree. If you are not aware that you are telling untruths, it's not lying it's telling untruths.
a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive; an intentional untruth; a falsehood.
something intended or serving to convey a false impression; imposture: His flashy car was a lie that deceived no one.
The harm to trust, and placement of blame, depends heavily on whether you're seen to be actually lying, or simply ignorant. A person who's ignorance is exposed, who then admits such and makes efforts to correct, does not suffer much damage in terms of trustworthiness (authority or expertise being different matters). A person who's exposed as a liar is seen as exactly that, and their trustworthiness declines correspondingly.
What are you disagreeing to? I'm not suggesting a dupe is the same as being a liar. But a lie is a lie no matter how many people have passed it on as the truth and it did get it's start with intent. At the risk of opining a can of worms, let me present another example.
As an atheist I consider all religions to be based on a lie that there really is a God. There are billions of believers who tell untruths whenever they talk about God. I consider them all to be dupes with no intent to lie. The only reason I'm not harder on them than I am, is because most of them were brought up from birth to believe in the lie and then pass it on to their kids as was done to them.
Maybe, but what if the bad information you passed on caused people that relied on you to lose their life savings. I know that's an extreme example, but it has happened. You may not be guilty of lying, but you are guilty of gross criminal negligence and no one will ever trust you again.
Separate names with a comma.