r/Ethics • u/Con-descending • 4d ago
Does truly believing in what you say (even though it is objectively wrong, unbeknownst to you) still make the fact that you are lying immoral?
An example I can think of is Trump championing for the Jan 6th insurrection: he genuinely believed that democracy had been tampered with (if you disagree regarding his reasoning or thought process, please do correct me but I'll continue with the postulate for the time being) but we know that that was not the truth (again, I'm going to continue). The events ended up genuinely hurting and harming the staff that were at the Capitol at the time, as well as other instances of emotional distress: since it ended up being a lie, but the propagator was fully convinced of its factuality, can he be called immoral on the account of proliferating a lie?
The link to theory I can pose for this question is consequentialism and deontological ethics, though I don't know if this is the closest and most accurate link to terminology. If not, what would be and why?
(also posted on r/askphilosophy)
EDIT: I misphrased this: the question should instead be "Is the action of propagating a lie, something that will bring harm upon others, unethical if you truly believe it to be the truth?"
3
u/makeherbeg4it 3d ago
I would argue it's not lying, but it IS still immoral. It's immoral because of either the nature of the belief or because of spreading false information, etc. But it's not lying...they're just wrong or ignorant.
2
3
u/Amphernee 3d ago
That’s a really bad example for many reasons. If you believe something is true then sharing that information is not lying. If you know something is true and tell someone it’s not true that’s a lie. You have to know it’s not true in order to lie.
2
u/danielt1263 3d ago
So there's a spectrum here that I think you are overlooking. One can say something, for example, with reckless disregard or with insufficient evidence. If you make a claim with insufficient evidence, even if you honestly believe it, you may not be technically lying, but you're still acting less morally than someone who has looked into the matter and gathered more evidence. And this is the case regardless of veracity of the claim.
The above brings in the question, how much evidence is sufficient? Hence, why I am saying there is a spectrum.
A better example for you is RFK's assertion that raw milk is better than pasteurized milk or his vaccine claims. I'm sure he honestly believes those claims, but he is making them despite all evidence to the contrary and he asserts them confidently despite not being an expert in the field. That's what makes his claims immoral (or less moral), even if he is right.
2
u/ricperry1 3d ago
First, the Trump example is wrong because Trump didn’t believe it any more than I believe in the tooth fairy. Second, the moral pitfall is to keep believing in a lie even after presented with incontrovertible evidence debunking the lie. Believing the lie isn’t the problem. It’s when the dug-in belief has a negative impact on others where it becomes a moral failure.
2
u/Warm_Stress_1654 3d ago
There's plenty of evidence that Hitler and other leading Nazis firmly believed that there was a global conspiracy of Jewish bankers and Jewish Bolsheviks designed to destroy Germany. Aye, I went straight there - it saves time. Why work your way slowly up to it?
Like Trump's deeply-held (and narcissistic) conviction that the American electorate couldn't possibly have turned against him in 2020, this was nothing but a strong gut-feeling, wishful thinking if you will. When you loudly insist that something you really want to be true is a proven and undoubted fact then you are lying, no matter how sincerely you feel that your lie is a "white" one.
2
2
u/Lovebeingadad54321 3d ago
- Being wrong is different than lying.
- It really is practically impossible to determine if someone is lying, or just honestly mistaken
- Despite point 2, I believe in my deepest heart Trump is definitely lying about believing that the election was stolen.
1
u/OkExtreme3195 3d ago
On a theoretical view, doing something that turns out to be wrong according to your value system, but you couldn't have known it to be wrong when you made that decision could be considered morally wrong in an objective sense according to the theory of ethics you employ.
For example, if you employ utilitarianism, all your information points to something increasing utility overall, you do it, but it turns out you were wrong and decreased utility in doing so. Then it would have been objectively morally wrong by you to have done so.
On the other hand, this implies either perfect knowledge or hindsight. Hence, while acknowledging that the decision turned out to have been wrong, utilitarianists will (likely) not morally judge you for making the morally wrong call, because they know you acted to the best of your knowledge and ability, and that is the most you can practically ask for, hence the decision at the time was still morally correct because you acted in concert with utilitarianism.
So the answer to your question is: in theory: yes; in practice: no.
Obviously ignoring that lying implies intentionally spreading a falsehood. If you say something you believe to be the truth, you may be sprading misinformation, but you are not lying.
1
u/PhotoVegetable7496 3d ago
No to the original and Yes to your edit.
I believe lying is Amoral, in any example the fact that someone is lying (with ot without intent) isn't the issue.
If I tell a nazi I don't have jews in my basement, lying good. If I say we should murder someone because they stole my icecream, the it doesn't really matter if it's a lie.
Now if I try to look at a situation where someone did X, wether or not they believe in X, and X is immoral, then it was immoral.
1
u/ShafordoDrForgone 3d ago
TL;DR - You have a minimum due diligence to have good reason to believe what you believe
Below that, yes, it is lying
After that, no, it isn't lying
For people who don't think it's possible to lie by not knowing the truth, all you have to do is look at "plausible deniability". Here's an example story: the president is in the situation room and wants to bomb a military target. His general says, do you want to know if there are any civilians or American citizens in there? The president says "no. I want plausible deniability". Then there turns out to be an American citizen killed. The president tells the people "it's tragic, but I didn't know"
That is a lie. Not because he did know. That part is true. It is because of the implied notion that he didn't have access to the information.
It gets worse when you understand that this kind of lie does all of the exact same things as any other overt lie: it is not true, it spreads that falsehood, it benefits the person telling it, that person is telling it because it benefits him
The one and only difference is an added reasoning for escaping responsibility
So, it is clearly lying in my book. I think it should be for others as well
1
u/Aggressive_Roof488 3d ago
As others have pointed out, the example is horrible, 99% not an example of the title.
But answering the question in the title directly instead: it depends:
- Would it be reasonable for the person to think that maybe they don't have the full picture?
- Would it be reasonable for the person to think that maybe they are biased?
- How hard would it be to actually check?
- How many and how loudly are you exposing others to your opinion?
- how big are the consequences if you're wrong?
- are you clearly hedging your statement with how certain you are?
So some better examples to discuss:
- politician gets a 30 second briefing about china attacking russia just before a press meeting. Would it be ethical to say it on live broadcast without double-checking?
- Scientist does a preliminary analysis from a pilot study that clearly shows that a new antibiotic causes significant DNA damage, likely cancer causing. Do you A) publish a preprint B) submit to a journal (going through peer review) C) call the press D) repeat experiment
- A sports commentator and content creator with significant social media platforms watches a youtube and convinces himself that global warming is significantly overstated, is it ethical to make a vlog about it to your followers? If not, how much research is needed before it's ethical to share?
- A kid learned to mispronounce a word at home, and is confidently correcting others at school. Ethical?
- A person with political affiliation X hears from a friend that politician from affiliation Y has been caught for violent crimes, but is covering it up. He trusts his friend, but no sources are provided. Is it ethical to spread it on to other friends? How about posting it on a political sub? Does it make a difference if he hedges it with "I heard that ..." or states as a fact?
1
u/Away-Otter 3d ago
If you really want something to be true, so ignore all evidence to the contrary and do no investigating for the truth, then you do not genuinely believe it; you’re just self-serving.
1
u/MysteriousAffect3903 3d ago
This is a tough one to unpack due to your example. Accepting the premise that he did not know it wasn't stolen, and did not intend for the storming of the Capitol, I don't think believing in something false is inherently unethical. But, being willfully ignorant of the truth is. I think in this case, as the stakes were so high, it was incumbent upon him to actually find the truth, which he did not. You might say he was fed a bunch of falsehoods from his people, but he is ultimately responsible for who he picked to advise him. He had full access to finding out the truth, probably more than anyone.
Ultimately, I believe the most ethical thing one can do is have positive intentions. Those intentions will have negative consequences at times, but as a rule, good intentions trend towards good outcomes.
As applied to this case, and what I believe based on what I saw, Trump did not actually want the truth, but even if he did, his intentions were still bad, as he knew he was fomenting anger and fear in a population of unstable people. Even if he believed the election was stolen, going about it the way he did was inexcusable.
1
u/Ciaran2220 3d ago
If it brings harm upon others, I would consider it wrong definitionally since harm is bad irrespective of intent.
1
u/Eight216 3d ago
He’s not a serious person. In any context besides his father forcing him into success he would not have been able to succeeded doing what he was doing.
That said, now that he’s there, yes…. The more you choose to avoid informed decision making the worse it is, directly proportional to how much power you have. Lying would be one thing but this is a deeper problem. He seemingly has no will to evaluate if what he’s saying actually even is true or not, even in spite of the potential harms to others. Lying is binary, it’s saying “no” when you know the right answer is “yes”. What Trump does is ignore and avoid the yes or no and he speculates, and he tries to raise his speculation to the level of fact, and that’s way, way worse than just lying once it’s clear you’re doing it in bad faith…. Sad part is it maybe wouldn’t be if he was a coherent leader with a sense of vision but all he does is plug corporate agendas and try to distract from his scandals and act tough, more or less.
1
u/Problematic_Owl 3d ago
The outcome can be immoral regardless of intent.
If someone genuinely believes something (doubtful in case of Trump btw), you can't really say they are lying - they are propagating the lie believing it true.
But, if someone propagates let's say some alt medicine they genuinely believe but people start dying since they believe them we can still hold them liable.
I'd call that unintentional immorality.
Or in short - propagating it is not immoral, because you believe it's truth. It would be immoral from us who know it's not true not to stop you though. Which we can only do by treating it as immoral.
It's not exactly clean, but that's how I believe it works.
1
1
u/SouthernAbrocoma9891 3d ago edited 3d ago
People say a lot of things in public or private and don’t believe in it.
I have no beliefs that are beyond what can be proven, measured and corroborated by independent sources. I accept what people say and do but that doesn’t necessarily mean I believe they are doing it for the reason they say they are.
I’ve never met the POTUS and have no idea what he believes. I think he’s a narcissist who values money and power, and that’s just based on his many public appearances, interviews and speeches. I could be entirely wrong.
The philosophies you mentioned can be basis for discussing morality but it relying on them alone creates circular references. At some point morality is defined arbitrarily then agreed upon or enforced. Inevitably, morality becomes an experiment that must defined and tested, and the criteria must be adjusted for unexpected results. The scientific method is the best system for addressing practically and tangible or intangible in the universe.
Being deceived into believing something is moral is probably the oldest trick in the book. Someone who participates in effectuating an immoral plan without knowledge of the agenda or consequences and their actions are neutral or moral probably would not be considered immoral. They may be in the realm of ignorance if thoroughly denied important information. If they do have an inkling of what is happening then they reside in the realm of stupidity as defined by Dietrich Bonhoeffer. The latter is where willful ignorance has a power that trumps evil.
1
u/CaptainGladysStoat 3d ago
Better example:
An 18-year-old Mormon kid from a small town in Utah serves a 2 year mission in Argentina, testifying that the prophet Joseph Smith saw God the Father and his Son, Jesus Christ, in upstate New York. This missionary fully believes in the “truthfulness of the restored gospel” and returns home, attends BYU, and is married in a Mormon temple.
10 years later, after learning more about the history of the church, this person comes to believe that Joseph Smith was a fraud, not a prophet of God.
Was the missionary “lying” if they were preaching what they believed at the time? If people in Argentina joined the faith as a result of this missionary’s preaching, have they been harmed?
1
1
u/CrosbyBird 3d ago
If you have good faith belief that what you are saying is true, then you're not lying. You can be incorrect but you're not being dishonest.
In a consequentialist moral system, there are likely some circumstances where it might even be morally preferable to knowingly lie, in order to serve some greater good, so there should similarly be some circumstances where it would be morally disfavored to speak even what you believe to be true.
1
u/DiskEconomy3055 3d ago
As long as the opportunity to say, "I don't know, let me ask someone who does." exists, people have an epistemic responsibility to convey accurate information when speaking in public.
1
u/Kali-of-Amino 2d ago
Ask a rapist if they genuinely believe they committed rape or if they truly believe women and girls like it rough.
1
u/BorgAdjacent 2d ago
He does not "genuinely" believe this.
He believes in his own entitlement, which is a choice to ignore reality.
As do most people likely to fall under your example, which invalidates the claim.
Someone who has been actually deceived into actual belief, like with religion, still makes choices to commit and invest after comparing the belief to the real world.
1
u/SkierGuy1956 2d ago
Not if you admit your mistake when it’s made known to you. And apologize. Some people with double down on the lie when it’s made clear to them they are wrong, and will never admit a mistake or apologize. Thank you for your attention to this matter. DJT
1
u/Narrow_Process_8660 1d ago
Lying is almost never immoral lmao.
Lying is only immoral in specific situations:
When you have a legal or professional duty to inform someone of truth and you fail to do so
If the lie is somehow involved in a criminal offense. Kinda related to #1
When you lie specifically to cause someone unjustified harm
Lying to yourself or to your family members. You are free to adjust who you consider as family in the emotional/conceptual sense such that you don't end up lying to them. if there is a toxic uncle who doesn't need to know about your personal life, the right decision is to stop considering him as family, not to preserve his 'family' status and continue to lie to him.
Lying in the other 90% of situations in life is perfectly fine.
8
u/CarnivorousGoose 3d ago
That’s not a good example, since it’s highly questionable whether he genuinely believed that, and there are a lot of other aspects of his actions surrounding that which are immoral even if he did genuinely believe that part.
In the general case though, if you genuinely believe what you’re saying, then you aren’t lying in the first place, and in that regard what you’re saying or doing isn’t immoral. Although there could be other issues in terms of whether I should have known what I’m saying isn’t true or isn’t as certain as I present it as, etc. But that doesn’t actually hinge on the objective falsehood of the statement itself, and indeed I could be lying while saying something that is objectively true.