The truth is a terrible weapon of aggression.
It is possible to lie and ever to murder with the truth – Alfred Adler
What makes an act wrong? Or an act right? Or an act merely permissible?
A crude measurement of a certain acts rightness would be its effect on those directly affected; whether the object of our actions is better off, worse off or unchanged by our actions. A more specific measurement would also take into account the ripple effects possibilities, the intent aspect, and the cost-benefit scale.
Often a time, there isn’t enough data to discern whether or not an act is right or wrong when judging the actions of others, simply as we aren’t in their shoes. We can neither discern beyond a shadow of a doubt the true motives behind an action nor the other latent contributing motives. So it seems that the most accurate judgement of an action’s rightness or wrongness can only be made by the ‘actor’. If we were to sit down and think through our actions using the four guidelines (italicised) above as a compass without tailoring the guidelines to suit our whims, its safe to say that it would be the most accurate guide for our actions.
Now, if we were to follow the common guidelines I expressed above, we would find that many instances of lying which are automatically dismissed by the “grand society” as wrong cannot actually be considered wrong.
First off, let me explain the guidelines in their general context. The first guideline mainly concerns the direct effect an action has on the affected. For e.g. Oswald shoots Kennedy, the only factor concerned is Kennedy died as effect of Oswald’s action.
The second guideline chiefly concerns the numerous implications which result from the first action (other then the effects taken into account by the first guideline). Using the same Kennedy example, the second guideline would take into account the effect Kennedy’s death would have on his family, America and the world.
The third guideline covers the intent or motivation behind an action. For e.g. Generally speaking if I were to ask you if it was all right that Tom killed Jerry, I assume you would say no. However if I added on that Jerry had been trying to kill Tom, and Tom acted out in self defence, I’m quite sure you would agree that Tom’s actions were permissible. Self-defence (forced) then is the intent behind Tom’s action.
The fourth guideline weighs the benefit an action has against the cost of the action. For e.g. the current “War on Terror”, the benefits are: the world is safer, the people are liberated from their oppressive leaders, the standard of living goes up, equality goes up, long run development goes up; as for the costs: the millions of dollars spent to fund the war, the millions of dollars in opportunity costs as effect of reserve soldiers being pulled out of their civilian jobs, the lives lost in the crossfire, the negative effect the deaths of soldiers have on their families, the short-term dip in the standard of living, the disruption of normal lifestyle...Etc...Etc...Etc. From that it’s a tough judgement call based on priorities whether it’s worthwhile to wage war.
Now take for instance, if I were to take up the habit of smoking and were then asked by my anti-smoking mother if I smoked and I were then to lie and say, ‘No’; this though a lie, and as far as I can see not an altruistic lie (or a white lie by colloquial definition) cannot be considered as wrong conduct.
The first guideline expresses an actions rightness can be measured by the effects on the affected. By lying to my mother, damage is avoided and I preserve my mother’s mental health. Their idea that they have raised a good son, and that they are good parents is preserved.
The second guideline states that an actions rightness must take into account the chain-reaction of events which are generated as consequence of the first action (aside from the direct effect). By lying there is no ripple effect at all as I maintain the social structure of my family.
The third guideline takes into account the intents or motivations behind an action. This intent covers whether or not an action was unintentional, forced, altruistic, malicious, for personal gain, utilitarian, premeditated or a combination. Lying in this instance would be either premeditated-utilitarian or utilitarian. I do not get into trouble and I preserve the mental psyche, order and possibly even the physical wellbeing of my family members.
The fourth guideline weighs the benefits of an action against its cost. By lying in this instance I do not get into trouble and the physiological health of my mother and other family members is maintained. As for the cost …there are none.
What has been done has been done, by admitting that I did smoke it does not make my lungs any less dark nor my clothes smell any less foul. But by lying, damage is minimized as long as the parties concerned do not find out the truth by other means. What then am I saying? Lying is good? Lying is not always the best way to deal with things, but we need to broaden our views towards the ‘taboo’ of lying and move away from the functional-fixedness imposed by generations of the morally absolute self righteous, because sometimes the right thing to do is to lie.
