The morality of lying and deception may depend on
the conditions under which these acts occur, and on their motives, purposes,
and consequences. An approach to the morality of lying and deception may therefore
be to consider whether there are circumstances that mitigate the prima facie moral wrongness of acts that are intended to mislead or deceive people1 (although the liar may in some cases know that he has no hope of misleading or
deceiving people, and he may in such cases merely hope to subvert the notion of
truth).
The morality of lying may also
depend on whether lying as an act of self-interest is able to reconcile itself
with the interests of others. Another approach to the morality of lying may
therefore be to consider whether the liar’s motives are predominantly egoistic
or altruistic, and whether the act of lying produces harmony or disharmony
between the liar’s self-interest and the interests of others.
According to deontological theory,
lying is morally wrong if the liar has a duty or obligation to be truthful.
Lying is not necessarily morally wrong if the liar does not have a duty or
obligation to be truthful. The obligation to be truthful may apply to all,
most, or only some situations.
According to consequentialist
theory, lies that have harmful consequences may be judged as more morally wrong
than lies that are harmless (if lies can be harmless). If lying has only good
(or more good than bad) consequences in some cases, then it may be good (or more
good than bad) in those cases. If it has only bad (or more bad than good) consequences
in some cases, then it may be bad (or more bad than good) in those cases. If it
has only bad (or more bad than good) consequences in all cases, then it is
always bad (or more bad than good).
According to utilitarian theory,
lying is good if it promotes a greater total amount of happiness (or the sum of
the happiness experienced by the liar and the unhappiness experienced by
his/her victims) than telling the truth. Lying is also good if it promotes a
greater total amount of happiness for a greater number of people than telling
the truth. The moral quality of lying is determined by the degree to which it
promotes the greatest amount of pleasure or happiness for the greatest number
of people.
According to pragmatic theory, lying
is bad if it is unsuitable for the circumstances in which it occurs or if it
hinders adaptation to the demands of experience. However, lying may in
some cases be considered suitable for immediate circumstances and yet be
unsuitable for less immediate or more distant circumstances. The supposed immediate or direct advantages
of lying must be carefully weighed against the possible long-term or indirect disadvantages
of lying. For the liar, the act of lying may initially seem to have desirable consequences
and yet may later have undesirable consequences. According to pragmatic theory,
if lying about one aspect of personal experience prevents the liar from getting
into satisfactory relation with other aspects of personal experience, then this
must also be considered in determining the moral value of lying.
A lie may be described as a
statement that misrepresents, conceals, distorts, or suppresses the truth, and
that is usually made for the purpose of deceiving someone. The act of lying is
usually an act of intentionally trying to deceive someone by making a false statement
or misrepresenting, concealing, or distorting the truth.
According to this
description, a lie does not necessarily have to be a successful act of
deception in order to be called a lie. Even if a liar knows that his act of
lying will not deceive anyone, his act may still constitute an endorsement of
falsity or an attempt to subvert the notion of truth.
The nature of the moral
responsibility that a liar must bear for telling a lie may partly depend on whether,
prior to telling that lie, he was aware, or should have been aware, of the
possible consequences of telling that lie. The nature of his moral
responsibility may also depend on whether he lied impulsively or deliberately.
If he lied impulsively, then before he lied he may not have had sufficient
opportunity to reflect on the possible consequences, and he may not have been
as aware of the possible consequences as he would have been if he had lied
deliberately.
A liar is a person who
intentionally makes false statements, usually for the purpose of misleading or
deceiving others. A liar may be a person who knowingly tells mistruths in order
to deceive others into having false impressions of things. A liar may be fully
aware that his statements or actions are false and deceptive, but he makes those
statements or performs those actions because he has some purpose that can be
fulfilled (or he perceives some advantage to be gained) by misleading or deceiving
others. He may at the same time lie to himself about the nature and extent of
his own lying.
A hypocrite may be
described as a person who pretends to have qualities or virtues that he does
not actually have or who pretends to have beliefs, attitudes, and principles to
which he does not actually subscribe or remain faithful. A hypocrite may also in some cases be a liar. He may lie to himself as well as to others about the
nature of his beliefs, attitudes, principles, values, and conduct. Hypocrisy may
be a form of self-deception.
However, it may sometimes be
difficult to know when one is lying to oneself and when one is being
hypocritical. Hypocrisy may often be accompanied by reluctance or unwillingness
to determine whether one's actions are consistent with the values and
principles that one has pledged oneself to uphold.
A person may in some
cases deceive herself about whether she is lying. A person may not think of herself
as a liar when in fact she is a liar. A person who does not initially intend to
lie about something may, for a variety of reasons, still lie about that thing.
On the other hand, a person who initially intends to lie about something may find
that, for some reason, her beliefs or principles prevent her from lying about that
thing.
A person who makes an
unintentionally false statement may in some cases be perceived as a liar, even
though she did not intend to deceive anyone. A person who is perceived as having
some motive or reason for lying may be perceived as a liar, even though she may
actually be telling the truth. A person whose nonverbal behavior arouses
suspicion or mistrust may also be perceived as a liar, even though she may
actually be telling the truth.
A person who thinks
that, and acts as if, he is telling the whole truth about something may not
actually know the whole truth about that thing, and thus he may be viewed as an
untrustworthy and unreliable source of information by those who are aware of
his incomplete knowledge of that thing. If he is actually aware that he does
not know the whole truth and yet claims to know the whole truth, then he may be
trying to deceive others about the extent of his knowledge, and he may in fact be
lying. If it is not possible for a person to know the whole truth about
something, then it might be mistaken for him to pretend that he knows the whole
truth about that thing if he intends to mislead or deceive others into having
false beliefs about that thing. Those who are aware of his incomplete knowledge
of the truth may perceive him as a charlatan, confabulator, prevaricator,
or liar.
There may in some cases be
degrees of truth and falsehood about things. Statements that are true in most
cases may not be true in all cases. Some statements may, for the most part, be
true, while others may, for the most part, be false. There may also in some cases be
half-truths about things, and half-lies about things.
A habitual liar may not
always know whether the statements that he is making are actually true or
false. Thus, he may accidentally tell the truth. Telling the truth may be
intentional or unintentional, deliberate or accidental.
It may be argued that
the rightness or wrongness of making a true or false statement about something
may depend on the particular situation. If telling the truth in a particular
situation is harmful to another person, then it may not necessarily be good to
tell the truth in that situation.
In some cases, it may be
morally wrong to tell the truth (for example, if telling the truth is harmful
to another person). In some cases, lying may be excusable or morally
justifiable (for example, if lying can protect another person from harm). If
there is no value in telling the truth in a particular situation, then it may perhaps
not be morally wrong to tell a lie in that situation (if telling a lie is not
intrinsically wrong, or wrong regardless of the particular situation in which
it occurs).
An "innocent
lie" is a lie that is perceived to be harmless or that has innocent motives.
Telling a lie may in some cases be perceived as excusable if the liar has good
intentions and unselfish motives, and if he is morally justified in not being
completely forthcoming about the truth.
People may sometimes put
a "spin" on the truth (present the truth in a particular light or
context) in order to meet their own needs and purposes. People may also try to
put a "sugar coating" on the truth in order to make it more palatable
and easier to accept. Trying to improve the appearance or presentation of the
truth may be relatively honest or dishonest, depending on the motives of
whoever is performing this act, and depending on whether it is intentionally
deceptive.
There may be many ways
of telling the truth. The truth may be told tactfully or tactlessly, discreetly
or indiscreetly, gently or harshly, delicately or bluntly, sensitively or
insensitively.
Telling the truth may be
intrinsically good in some situations, and telling a lie may be intrinsically
bad in some situations. However, telling the truth may not be intrinsically
good in all situations, and telling a lie may not be intrinsically bad in all
situations. For example, telling the truth may not be intrinsically good (or may
lack intrinsic value) if it is harmful to people. On the other hand, lying may
be intrinsically bad for, or harmful to, the moral integrity of the person who is
lying, unless it is intended to promote, or has the effect of promoting, the
well-being of others or promotes the development of other (positive) aspects of
that person's moral character. The act of telling the truth may reaffirm,
reinforce, and protect the moral integrity of the person who is telling the truth,
and it may thus in many cases be intrinsically good.
The act of telling the
truth or telling a lie may often be motivated by self-interest. A person may be
motivated to tell the truth or to tell a lie by what he presumes to be his
own best interests. Sometimes these interests may in fact be his best
interests, but sometimes they may be merely selfish or self-centered interests.
The moral dimensions of telling the truth or lying may thus be partly determined
by whether this motive of self-interest is in harmony with the interests of
others. Lying as an act of self-interest may in some cases be morally
justifiable if it is in harmony with the interests of others.
This approach to the
morality of lying and deception may also be compatible with the principle that
in order to attain our own happiness, we must bring happiness to others. In
order to prevent our own pain or suffering, we must prevent pain or suffering
in others. If those whom we love or care for are unhappy, then we cannot be
truly happy. The principle that "If we do not want others to lie to us, then
we should not lie to them" may also be important if we are to find harmony
or balance between our own self-interest and the interests of others.
Common forms of lying
include
- providing false information on an employment application
- providing false information in order to obtain a license or passport
- providing false information in order to gain compensation for
unemployment
- providing false information in order to gain government funding for
a research or development project
- providing false information on an insurance application
- providing false information about one's level of professional knowledge
or expertise
- providing false information about one's educational background or about
the academic degrees that one has received
- providing false information about one’s previous professional or
technical training
- providing false information about one's military background
- providing false information about one's financial income or salary
- providing false information about the value of one's financial assets
or property.
Other common forms of
lying include
- providing false information in a financial report
- providing false testimony in a legal proceeding
- providing false information about the terms of a contract
- providing false information about the nature or extent of extent of
services that have been rendered
- providing false information about a commercial product or item of
merchandise
- providing false information about an item of property
- providing false information about damage to property
- providing false information about the nature and extent of a personal
injury
- providing false information about the nature and cause of an accident
- providing false information about the personal or professional
activities of another person
- making false accusations
- making false excuses
- making false promises
- making a false confession
- making a false admission of guilt.
More specific examples of lying
include cases in which
- a person who is addicted to drugs denies being addicted to drugs
- a person who has a criminal record denies that he has a criminal record
- a government official who knows in great detail about the operation of
a public agency denies that she has any knowledge of the operation of that
agency
- a person who knew of illegal activity by the department of which he was
in charge denies that he knew of any illegal activity by that department
- a politician who has no intention of supporting a particular change in
public policy makes a promise during his election campaign that he will support
that change in public policy
- a person who forgot to attend an important meeting says that she was
never informed of the date or time of the meeting
- a person who has never made a payment on an overdue charge account says
that he was never aware of the status of that account
- a person who is caught stealing money from a trust fund says that her
withdrawal of money from the account was an inadvertent error and that she
intended to redeposit the money in the account.
It may often be
difficult to tell a person that she is lying without making her feel ashamed or
angry. If she believes that she is actually telling the truth, then the
accusation that she is lying may be considered by her to be an unjustified
attack on her truthfulness and integrity. If she in fact knows that she is lying,
then the accusation may make her feel guilty, ashamed, or angry that she has
been discovered.
If a person is found to
be lying, then her subsequent statements may lose their credibility. Even if
she subsequently tells the truth, she may still be perceived as a liar. Thus, a
person who has been found to be lying may have to take various steps to restore
her credibility. She may have to make statements that can be easily verified as
truthful, and the truthfulness of these statements may have to be recognized by
others before she can regain her credibility.
A moral prohibition
against lying may be enforced by the liar's having to suffer embarrassment and
humiliation if her act of lying is discovered. If a liar is discovered by
others to be lying, then she may have to face unpleasant consequences, such as
humiliation, shame, guilt, and disgrace. She may have to exercise some skill
and ingenuity in order to avoid the unpleasant consequences of being exposed as
false and deceitful.
A liar may not always
know how much of his falsehood is accepted as truth by his intended victim. He
may in some cases have to test his victim's credulity in order to determine how
to proceed with the act of deception. In some cases, he may have to exercise
great care and caution in the testing of his intended victim's credulity in order
not to arouse suspicion. In other cases, he may not care whether all of his
statements or actions deceive his intended victim. The degree of carefulness
and caution that is necessary in order to mislead or deceive a person may
depend not only on how capable and motivated that person is to discover falsehood or deceit, but also on how capable and motivated the liar or deceiver is to
successfully mislead or deceive that person.
A person who is exposed
as a liar and who is therefore compelled to admit, deny, make amends for, or make light of his own dishonesty may claim that
there were extenuating circumstances that accounted for his lack of forthrightness
and straightforwardness. In order to mitigate any sense of guilt or
culpability, he may claim that he was to some extent forced into
the act of lying. The truth or falsity of this claim may to some extent
determine his culpability for having been false and deceitful.
A person who is exposed
as a liar may also claim that his act of lying was merely a reconstruction or
reinterpretation of the truth. He may try to justify his deceitfulness and
dishonesty by denying that there is any difference between truth and falsehood.
A liar may sometimes
believe that the truth can be changed, adjusted, or rearranged in order to meet
the needs of the particular situation, and he may feel that truthfulness is the same as
expediency. He may in some cases argue that objective facts do not exist, and
that facts can be changed to conform to whatever statements he desires to make
about them.
He may also try to
justify his deceitfulness by using the argument that his victim was not ready
or willing to listen to the truth. He may knowingly use the fallacious argument
that the truthfulness of a statement is defined by the degree to which the
statement pleases or satisfies people. He may try to justify his dishonesty by
arguing that the truthfulness of a statement is defined by the degree to which
the statement makes people happy or easier to deal with.
However, people may also
sometimes ask for and expect to be told the truth when they do not actually
want to know or be told the truth. Even when people accept the existence of an
obligation to be truthful in their dealings with others, they may take this
obligation as an excuse to be manipulative, tactless, insensitive, cruel, and
selfish.
Some kinds of lying may
be seen as socially acceptable, while other kinds may be seen as socially unacceptable. Thus, the refusal to participate in socially acceptable kinds of
lying may be an act of nonconformity to social norms. This act may have selfish
or unselfish motives. It may be an act of conscience or lack of conscience,
depending on the morality of the particular kind of lying.
Albert Camus's L'Étranger (The Stranger, 1942)
provides an example of how the refusal to participate in socially acceptable forms of lying may be an act of distancing oneself from social norms and
expressing one’s personal alienation from society. The protagonist
of the novel, Meursault, refuses to comply with social norms that require him
to lie about his lack of feeling, emotion, or personal commitment. His motives
for refusing to lie about his lack of personal commitment are selfish and not
altruistic. He believes that conventional expressions of emotion are merely
pretenses that are used as means of reassuring ourselves that our lives have
meaning.
A liar usually intends
for his victim to have a false impression about something. He intends to create
an illusion in his victim's mind about something that she does not know
fully or completely. The victim may be relatively willing or unwilling to
believe the liar's false statements, and she may be relatively suspicious or unsuspicious
of the liar's pretenses of sincerity and honesty.
The victim of a liar may
or may not be motivated to detect the liar's deceitfulness. She may in
some cases find that it is to her advantage to believe the liar's statements,
even though those statements may not be completely plausible or consistent. She may in some cases willingly submit to being manipulated, even though she
may be aware that the liar is not acting in a completely forthright and straightforward
manner.
She may in some
cases collaborate with the liar by refusing to take any steps to differentiate
truth from falsehood. On the other hand, she may sometimes be able to detect
the liar's insincerity and dishonesty, and she may also be able to deceive the
liar into thinking that his act of deception has been successful, so that he
can be called to account for his dishonesty and deceitfulness.
The victim may also feel
a sense of anger, resentment, humiliation, or betrayal when she discovers that
she has been deceived. She may, upon discovering the liar's deceitfulness, feel
a need to retaliate or a need to reevaluate her own previous assumptions about
the liar's honesty.
A person who discovers
that she has been the victim of a liar may try to expose his dishonesty by
publicly denouncing him, by calling attention to the possible motives for his
deceitfulness, by demonstrating that his statements are inconsistent and
self-contradictory, or by giving him an opportunity to engage in more acts of
lying so that his dishonesty can be more openly exposed.
A person may in some
cases feel a sense of uncertainty about whether someone is lying to her.
This sense of uncertainty may lead her to doubt the truthfulness of any
further statements made by the suspected liar. If she feels that she may be the
intended victim of an act of deception, then she may become skeptical about the
suspected liar's motives for making statements, and she may not be able to
accept any of his statements at face-value.
The statements of a successful
liar lack transparency in their expression of his motives and intentions. If
his statements become transparent, then they no longer
conceal his motives and intentions. Thus, he must maintain the non-transparency
of his statements in order to successfully deceive his victim.
The truth or falsehood
of some statements may not be capable of being verified by a particular person
at a particular time in a particular situation. Verifiability regarding the
truth or falsehood of statements may be one criterion of their trustworthiness
and reliability.
The philosopher Alfred J. Ayer
(1946) distinguishes between "strong" and "weak"
verification, and between theoretical and practical verification. A statement
may be "strongly" verifiable if its truth can be conclusively verified
by experience, while a statement may be "weakly" verifiable if its
truth can be rendered probable by experience. Statements that are verifiable in
theory may or may not be verifiable in practice.2
The truth or falsehood
of statements that are vague, unclear, or ambiguous may be incapable of being
verified. The meaning of a statement must be sufficiently clear and
intelligible if its truth or falsity is to be verified.
Liars may be skillful or
unskillful, clever or inept, experienced or inexperienced, impulsive or
deliberate, occasional or habitual, casual or professional. They may sometimes
become truth-tellers, and truth-tellers may sometimes become liars.
Lying may take the form
of misrepresentation, dissimulation, obfuscation, or equivocation. A liar may
give evasive answers to questions, and he may refuse to provide direct answers
to questions.
It may often be relatively easy to
detect that a person is lying if he makes promises that he cannot possibly
keep. It may also be relatively easy to detect that a person is lying if a
particular event is known to have occurred and he claims that it never
occurred. On the other hand, it may be very difficult for the intended victim
of a liar to detect whether he is lying if she does not have sufficient
familiarity with the subject about which he is attempting deceive her. It may
also be very difficult for her to detect whether he is lying if he speaks in a
foreign language and she is not completely fluent in that language.
A lie misrepresents the
truth about something or breaks the rules of truthful representation of that
thing. However, a lie may have to comply with its own set of epistemic rules if
it is be a successful act of deception. The rules of misrepresentation may be
as important to the liar as the rules of truthful representation are to the
truth-teller. The rules may be constitutive as well as regulative of the act of
misrepresentation.
If the act of lying is
an act of misrepresenting the truth, then it cannot occur in the absence of
truth. A liar may deny that a given statement is true, but he cannot logically
deny the existence of truth and falsehood. It is not possible to tell a lie
about something if there is no true statement that can be made about that
thing.
A liar may view himself
as playing a game of deception in which the goal of the game is not to get
caught in the act of lying. Thus, he may have to comply with a given set of
rules in order to win the game. If he is discovered to be lying, then he will
lose the game. The rules of the game may be fixed or variable, specified or
unspecified, definite or indefinite, strict or flexible, depending on whatever
game he happens to be playing. He may in some cases have to respond to a change
in the rules, or he may be able to invent a new set of rules while he is
playing the game. The rules may also change if there is a change of players or a
change in the setting of the game.
If the liar sees himself
as playing a game in which the primary goal is to deceive his intended victim,
than he may to some extent be able to devise his own set of rules for
communicating with that intended victim. He may decide to play by a different
set of (moral and linguistic) rules than the person to whom he is lying.
Liars may have many
different motives for their acts of deception, including
- the desire to avoid
or deny responsibility for their own actions
- the desire to
reinforce or inflate their sense of self-esteem
- the desire to escape
punishment or retribution for wrong actions
- the desire to avoid
blame, ridicule, humiliation, or embarrassment
- the desire to
protect themselves from criticism
- the desire to
protect others from criticism
- the desire to create
a positive impression of something
- the desire to create
positive impressions of themselves (or of others).
Other motives that liars
may have for their acts of deception include
- the need to relieve frustration for having failed to achieve success by
honest methods
- the desire to experience the thrill of defying social norms of honesty
and truthfulness
- the desire to discover how inventive they can be in devising means to
“beat the system.”
Other motives that
liars may have include
- the desire to provide themselves with a feeling of power and control
- the desire to persuade people to perform actions that they would not
otherwise perform
- the desire to take advantage of other people’s trust and confidence in
them.
Motives for making false accusations
against a person may include
- the desire to gain power over that person
- the desire to express dislike or contempt for that person
- the desire to express anger or resentment toward that person
- the desire to ridicule or humiliate that person
- the desire to obtain compensation for some perceived injustice
committed by that person
- the desire to obtain revenge against that person for some perceived wrong that he/she has
committed
- the desire to obtain sympathy from others
- the desire to be recognized and comforted by others.
Motives for giving a false
compliment to a person (a compliment that intentionally exaggerates, disguises,
or conceals true feelings) include
- the desire to appear to be courteous toward that person
- the desire to perform an act of apparent civility, kindness, and
respect in relation to that person
- the desire to express praise and admiration for that person
- the desire to ingratiate oneself with that person
- the desire to develop a closer relationship with that person
- the desire to lessen that person’s distrust or hostility
- the desire to perform an act of apparent propitiation and conciliation
in relation to that person
- the desire to deceive that person in order to ridicule or humiliate
him.
Motives for making a false excuse
about something include
- the desire to conceal one’s true feelings of personal inadequacy
- the desire to avoid responsibility for having performed a particular
action
- the desire to protect someone or something from criticism
- the desire to account for the deficiency or inadequacy of something
- the desire to justify one’s response or lack of response to a
particular situation
- the desire to escape blame
for a wrong action
- the desire to avoid feeling guilty for a wrong action.
Motives for making a false promise
to do something include
- the desire to escape unwanted responsibility
- the desire to avoid unwanted commitment
- the desire to ingratiate oneself with another person
- the desire to be rewarded for conforming to another person’s
expectations
- the desire to gain influence over another person.
Liars may sometimes be motivated by
the thrill and excitement of being able to successfully deceive others, as well
as by the excitement of trying to see how daring and provocative they can be
without getting caught.
Lying may be intended to conceal,
cover up, misrepresent, falsify, distort, or subvert the truth. Thus, it may be
a subversive act. A liar may intend to subvert the notion of truth and to
discredit the idea that propositions can be meaningfully described as true or
false. He may also in some cases hope to subvert a coherent system of truths,
so that the coherence of the system falls apart and can no longer be used as a
guide to the truth or falsehood of statements.
Falsehood may in some cases replace
a lost or missing truth. For example, a false sense of personal identity may
replace a true sense of personal identity. A false sense of direction may
replace a true sense of direction.
Falsehood may also be accepted as a
substitute for an unattainable truth or reality. For example, a false sense of
fulfillment may be taken as a substitute for a true sense of fulfillment. A
false set of teeth may be used as a substitute for real teeth. A fake diamond
ring may be chosen as a substitute for a real diamond ring. A forged copy of a
painting by Van Gogh may be sold as a substitute for a real painting by Van
Gogh.
Artificiality may
represent a kind of falsehood. Artificiality may be described as a state or
quality of being false, contrived, produced by human artifice, or lacking in
naturalness and spontaneity.
Examples of artificiality include
prostheses (artificial limbs, artificial joints, artificial heart valves,
breast prostheses, eye prostheses, artificial lenses), implants (breast implants,
penile implants, pacemakers, insulin pumps, or other prosthetic implants),
wigs, toupees, cosmetics, artificial fingernails, artificial suntans,
artificial fabrics (nylons, polyesters, acrylics, rayons), artificial fur,
artificial leather, artificial jewelry, artificial food colorings, artificial
sweeteners, artificial flavors, artificial plants, artificial grass or turf, artificial
cigarettes, and artificial environments (for film or theater productions,
museum exhibits, entertainment venues, submarines, or space vehicles).
Other examples of artificiality include
artificial intelligence, virtual reality (simulated reality), computer simulations,
artificial insemination, artificial respiration, artificial language,
artificially high or low scoring, artificially high or low valuation,
artificially-created demand or need, artificial gestures, artificial feelings,
pretenses, artificial sentiments, artificial explanations, and artificial
expressions of condolence, friendship, or affection.
The expression of
artificial feelings may become a form of lying if it is intentionally deceptive
with regard to the nature of true feelings. For example, the pretense or false
show of concern and understanding may conceal a real lack of concern and
understanding. An artificial expression (or false display) of happiness and
satisfaction may conceal real unhappiness and dissatisfaction.
Lying may be apparent
or concealed, overt or covert, random or systematic, episodic or habitual,
premeditated or unpremeditated, impulsive or deliberate, reckless or
circumspect, clever or inept, direct or indirect, malicious or altruistic,
detectable or undetectable, convincing or unconvincing, successful or
unsuccessful.
A skillful liar may be more adept
than an unskillful liar at inspiring trust, confidence, and lack of suspicion
in those to whom he is lying. He may be able to take advantage of the credulity
of those to whom he is lying, and he may be more able to appear honest,
trustworthy, and reliable than an unskillful liar. He may also be adept at
acting as if he has no hidden motives that would cause people to question his truthfulness
and veracity.
A great deal of skill may sometimes
be required in order to be a successful liar, and a successful liar may sometimes
have remarkable talents and abilities, such as shrewdness, cleverness,
imagination, ingenuity, originality, resourcefulness, astuteness, adroitness, deftness,
agility, boldness, daring, and audacity.
However, a successful liar may also
have many undesirable traits, such as dishonesty, deviousness,
infidelity, insincerity, irresponsibility, untrustworthiness, and
unreliability.
The liar as
hero is a subject of ancient Greek mythology, in which a liar may be portrayed as both a
hero and a scoundrel. Odysseus, for example, is a hero of Greek mythology who
is a skillful liar and deceiver. Among his acts of deception is his attempt to
avoid serving in the Greek army as it is preparing for the Trojan War. He
pretends to be insane in order to avoid being forced to leave his family, but
his ruse is discovered by Palamedes, and he is forced to join the Greek army. After
the Greek fleet is stranded at Aulis by a lack of favorable winds, the leaders
of the Greek army decide that Agamemnon’s daughter Iphigenia must be sacrificed
in order to propitiate the goddess Artemis, and Odysseus persuades Iphigenia’s
mother, Clytemnestra, to send Iphigenia to Aulis, by telling her that Iphigenia
will be offered in marriage to Achilles. Another of Odysseus’s acts of
deception occurs at the end of the Trojan War. When the Trojan War has reached
a stalemate, Odysseus devises the strategy of hiding a band of Greek soldiers
inside a wooden horse. A huge wooden horse is constructed and is then abandoned
outside the city of Troy as a supposed religious offering. When the Trojans
find the horse and discover that the Greek fleet has apparently sailed away,
they bring the horse inside the walls of Troy. The Greek soldiers who have been
hiding inside the horse emerge that night and set fire to the city. Another of
Odysseus’s acts of deception occurs during his journey home after the war.
After the Trojans have been defeated, Odysseus travels home to his kingdom in
Ithaca. Along the way, he and his soldiers stop in Sicily, and are captured by
Polyphemus, the one-eyed son of Poseidon. When Polyphemus asks his name,
Odysseus responds by saying, “Nobody.” Later, Odysseus and his soldiers escape
from the cave of Polyphemus by clinging to the underbellies of a flock of sheep
as Polyphemus releases the sheep from the cave. Odysseus also acts deceptively
when he finally returns to his kingdom in Ithaca. He disguises himself as a
beggar in order to deceive the suitors who have invaded his palace and who have
besieged his faithful wife Penelope with their demands that she marry one of
them. He defeats the suitors in a battle within the palace hall, and he is finally
reunited with Penelope.
A skillful liar is often better at
concealing his feelings than an unskillful liar. He may offer fewer behavioral
cues to his act of lying than an unskillful liar. He is often better at telling
lies in a convincing and persuasive manner than an unskillful liar.
A skillful liar may often be able to
adapt and improvise according to the particular situation, and he may be able
to adjust his behavior according to the circumstances. He may be able to adapt
to new information that becomes available to him and to his intended victim,
and he may be able to suppress any feelings of anxiety, guilt, pleasure, and delight
that may be caused by his act of lying to, and successfully deceiving, his
victim.
An unskillful liar may not be able
to readily adapt and improvise according to the particular situation, and may
be clumsy or awkward in responding to new and unexpected circumstances. He may
also be unable to quickly discover how much his intended victim already knows
or does not already know about whatever is being falsified, misrepresented,
distorted, or concealed.
A successful liar may be able to identify
subjects about which his intended victim does not have complete or adequate
knowledge, and he may thus be able to escape detection by lying to his victim
only about these subjects. He may also be able to escape detection by making seemingly
plausible statements that are difficult to verify.
In Shakespeare’s Othello, Iago is a masterful liar and manipulator. He is an ensign in the
Venetian army, who is angry about having been passed over for a promotion.
Othello, the commander of the army, has promoted Cassio instead of Iago to the
position of lieutenant. Iago is determined to take revenge against both Othello
and Cassio. Thus, he skillfully deceives Othello into believing that Desdemona
(Othello’s wife) is secretly in love with Cassio. Desdemona is in fact loyal
and faithful to Othello, but Othello allows himself to be persuaded by Iago
that she is in love with Cassio. Othello becomes distrustful of Desdemona, and
he rashly agrees to Iago’s plan to kill Cassio. Rodrigo, who is a confederate
of Iago’s, ambushes Cassio and wounds him, but Cassio escapes, and Iago kills
Rodrigo so that the conspiracy against Cassio will not be revealed. Othello
refuses to believe his wife’s protestations of innocence, and he kills her by
smothering her as she lays in her bed. Iago’s wife, Emilia, is horrified by
this tragic turn of events, and she reveals Iago’s deceitfulness to Othello.
Iago stabs and kills Emilia, and is then arrested and taken away to be punished
for his crime. Othello is tormented by guilt for having killed Desdemona. He
stabs himself and dies, falling on the bed beside the body of his wife. The
tragedy occurs partly because Othello is unaware of the duplicity and
deceitfulness of Iago. He is by nature trusting and generous, but he allows his
passions to overcome his power of reason. An important theme of the tragedy is the conflict between truth and falsehood, between honesty and
deception, between innocence and guilt, and between loyalty and betrayal.
A skillful liar must be able to make
accurate inferences about what his intended victim already knows or does not
know about whatever is being misrepresented, distorted, or concealed, so that
he will not make any statements to the victim that the victim already knows are
false or inaccurate. If the liar makes statements to his intended victim that
are already known by the victim to be false, then he may be forced to retract
those statements or to find some excuse for having made them. He may be forced
accept blame for having spoken falsely or may have to tell more
lies in order to conceal the fact that he has been knowingly stating falsehoods.
A successful liar may be able to
take advantage of the fact that people may not always feel the inclination or
have the opportunity to ask a series of questions that would expose the inconsistency,
contradictoriness, and implausibility of his statements to them.
The plausibility of the statements
made by a liar may depend on whether they are consistent with known facts,
whether they are verifiable, whether they are consistent with other statements
made by him, whether they are in themselves consistent, whether
they are specific enough to promote the impression of truthfulness, and whether
they are expressed in a manner that inspires confidence in their trustworthiness
and reliability.
A lie or mistruth may be
simple or complex. A liar may need to have some ingenuity in order to tell a
series of complex lies or to produce a coherent system of complex mistruths.
A lie or mistruth may be evident or non-evident. An evident
lie is one that is apparent and unconcealed. A non-evident lie is one that is
unapparent, hidden, or concealed. A non-evident lie may become evident if it
becomes apparent and is no longer concealed.
An evident lie may be directly or
indirectly evident. A lie may be directly (intuitively) evident if its
falsehood does not require additional proof or demonstration, while it may be
indirectly (demonstratively) evident if its falsehood is proved or demonstrated
by additional evidence.
Some lies may be blatant or self-evident
(self-evidently false and deceptive, without creating any need for the intended
victim to conduct further investigation in order to determine that they are
false).
Liars may also knowingly
use fallacious arguments as methods of persuasion, representing them as valid
arguments in order to deceive others. Such arguments include the appeal to
ignorance, the appeal to consequences, the appeal to popularity, the appeal to authority, the appeal
to false authority, and the appeal to force.
Liars may knowingly use fallacious
arguments in order to change the subject of a discussion and in order to avoid
having to present evidence for the truth of a statement. Examples of such arguments
include the ad hominem argument, the argument of guilt by association, the
circular argument, and the appeal to emotion.
Fallacious arguments may also take
the form of unwarranted generalizations, false analogies, oversimplifications,
and exaggerations. Such arguments may be ambiguous, misleading, inconsistent,
or self-contradictory.
Habitual liars may fail to place any
particular value on telling the truth or they may in some cases place more
value on lying than telling the truth. They may have a disordered system of
values in which lying has greater moral value than telling the truth. The act
of lying may in some cases have to be decided on by weighing the relative
values of lying versus telling the truth, but in cases in which it is
impulsive, it may not require any weighing of its relative value (or of its consequences
either).
Malicious lying may be associated
with other malicious acts and other kinds of antisocial behavior. Malicious
liars may engage in cheating, stealing, deliberate destruction of the property
of others, cruelty to others, verbal harassment and intimidation of others, and physical aggression and violence against others. They may also fail to honor their personal
commitments, fail to
fulfill their financial obligations, fail to fulfill their professional responsibilities, fraudulently use aliases and false names, fraudulently use false addresses and false telephone numbers, and engage in other kinds of
antisocial and criminal behavior.3
Malicious liars may have a disdain
for the truth, and they may feel a personal sense of being unconstrained by moral norms. They may also demonstrate an
attitude of selfishness or egoism in dealing with other people, as well as a lack of
remorse for deceiving or hurting other people and a tendency to use or exploit
people for personal gain.4
Dishonesty may be a background for
the act of lying. A person may be a habitual liar because he is a basically
dishonest person. The habit of lying may arise from a basic attitude of
dishonesty. On the other hand, the act of lying may define the nature of a
person’s dishonesty. A person may be perceived as dishonest because he is a
liar.
Lying is not the only kind of dishonesty, however. Dereliction of duty (such as the duty to honor personal and professional commitments) is another
kind of dishonesty. Other kinds of dishonesty include cheating, stealing,
fraud, forgery, extortion, money laundering, hijacking,
sabotage, and obstruction of justice.
A liar may be a masquerader, a
person who wears a mask of honesty in order to conceal his dishonesty. He may
be a skillful wearer of social masks and disguises. If his dishonesty is
detected, then he may be unmasked. His successfulness in deceiving people may
be partly determined by how convincingly he can wear a mask of sincerity and honesty.
If he realizes that he has been discovered to be lying, then he may have to
drop the mask and may have to decide whether he should stop lying or whether he
should put on another mask.
A habitual liar is a person who
tells lies as a matter of habit. A habitual liar has a tendency to tell lies,
and this tendency may become a self-perpetuating mode of behavior. A habitual
liar is experienced in the art of deception, and thus he may be less likely to fear
being caught than a person who is not a habitual liar. He may have less difficulty
in controlling his feelings and emotions than an impulsive liar. He may also be
less likely to feel ashamed or guilty about lying than an impulsive liar.
It may be more difficult for a
habitual liar to tell the truth than it is for a person who is used to telling
the truth, insofar as a habitual liar may find it difficult to break his habit of
lying. It may also be more difficult for a truthful person to tell a lie than
it is for a habitual liar, insofar as a truthful person is more disposed (more
conditioned and habituated) to telling the truth.
It may also be easier for a person
to tell a lie if there is some motive or incentive for her to lie. The more
motivated that a person is to tell a lie, the easier it may be for her to tell
a lie. The greater the incentive there is for her to tell a lie, the easier it
may be for her to tell a lie. On the other hand, it may be more difficult for a
person to tell a lie if there is no incentive for her to lie or if there is
some disincentive for, or deterrent to, her telling a lie. The greater the
deterrent to her telling a lie, the more difficult it may be for her to tell a lie.
Thus, it may be more difficult for a child to tell a lie to her mother if she
knows that her mother will be disappointed or angry if she does not tell the
truth. It may be easier for a student to pretend to have completed an
assignment if he knows that otherwise he will not receive a passing
grade for the assignment. It may be more difficult for a public official to
admit that he accepted a bribe if he knows that an admission of guilt will be
used as supporting evidence for a criminal indictment against him. It may be
easier for the driver of a car to deny that he had any responsibility for
causing an accident if he knows that he will lose his insurance policy if he
admits that he could have driven more slowly in order to avoid the accident.
A person who instinctively tells
lies may be a compulsive liar, or he may become a habitual liar. A compulsion to
tell lies may lead to a habit of telling lies. A habitual liar may become so
used to telling lies that it becomes difficult for him to recognize the
difference between telling a lie and telling the truth. A compulsive or pathological
liar may tell a lie even when there is nothing to be gained by lying, and even
when better results might be obtained by telling the truth.
A person who is confabulating is not
lying, insofar as confabulation is not an act of intentionally making false statements in order to mislead or deceive someone. Confabulation may be caused by a memory disorder in which a
person tends to fill in memory gaps by replacing them with false memories that
are experienced as true and real. Thus, a person who is confabulating may say
that he experienced an event that never happened. He may unintentionally make
false statements about past events due to a memory disorder that prevents him
from distinguishing true memories from false memories.
Malingering and pretending to be ill
or injured may be acts of lying about the true nature of one’s physical
capacities. Malingerers may display intentionally false, contrived, or
exaggerated physical or psychological symptoms in order to deceive others into performing actions that they would not otherwise perform. Malingering may be
motivated by a desire to avoid work, by a desire to avoid compulsory activity, by a desire
to avoid unwanted responsibilities or commitments, by a desire to obtain special
privileges, by a desire to obtain financial compensation, by a desire to obtained
controlled medications, by a desire to avoid civil or criminal prosecution, by a
desire to obtain the attention and concern of others, or by a desire to satisfy
other personal needs.
A false statement may be partly or
completely false. Statements that are only partly true may become completely
true. A false statement may conceal the truth, but it may also assert or imply
a new mistruth. It may in fact be more convincing if it has an aura of truth.
It may also be more convincing if it does not appear to be contrived or
fabricated.
In some cases, truth and falsehood
may be difficult to differentiate. There may be a “gray area” between truth and
falsehood, and the difference between truth and falsehood may not be as clear
as the difference between “black and white.” There may in some cases be some
truth in falsehood, and falsehood in truth. There may also in some cases be a
blurring of the boundary between truth and falsehood.
The so-called Liar Paradox
represents a situation in which it may be difficult or impossible to
distinguish truth from falsehood. The paradox characterizes statements that
assert their own falsity, such as the statement, “I’m lying to you.” (If this
statement is true, then it must be false, and if it is false, then it must be
true.)
The Strengthened Liar Paradox, as
described by the philosopher Bas van Fraassen, characterizes the statement, “What
I’m saying to you isn’t true.” (The paradoxical nature of the statement is
strengthened by the fact that it refers to itself as not true.)5 The
Liar Paradox may also take many other forms, such as the conditional statement,
“If what I said to you yesterday was true, then what I’m saying to you now is
false.”
In some cases, a particular use (or
misuse) of language may be intentionally or unintentionally deceptive.
Unintentionally ambiguous statements by a person may conceal her true
intentions. The unintentional misuse of language by a speaker or writer may be
deceptive as to her true motives, ideas, intentions, or purposes. On the
other hand, a given speaker or writer may intentionally make use of
equivocation and ambiguity in order to suggest uncertain, vague, or indefinite
areas of meaning. She may intentionally make use of equivocation and
ambiguity in order to conceal the difference between truth and falsehood.
The detection
of lies may to some degree require a type of semiology, or a study of true and
false signs. This semiology may include a study of the meaning of true and
false signs, a study of the rules that govern their signification, and a study
of their actual purposes, uses, and effects.
True and false signs may be confused
with each other if they mimic or resemble each other. The deceptiveness of a
false sign may partly depend on how closely it resembles a true sign. The
intention of a liar may be to produce false signs that resemble true signs. Thus, the
task of a semiotics of lying and deception may be to distinguish false signs from
true signs.
Lying may be a form of false and
deceptive signification, in which a lie is a false signifier of a signified concept
or idea. The successfulness of an act of lying may be determined, at least in
part, by how effectively it disguises or conceals the truth of a signified concept
or idea. The act of lying may involve a manipulation of linguistic and
behavioral signs, so that false signs are substituted for true signs.
A false sign may mislead an observer
as to the nature of truth or reality. A sign may be false if it falsely represents
reality (if the sign is false in itself) or if it represents a false concept of
reality (if the sign signifies a false concept). Thus, it may have a primary or
secondary falsity. The falsity of a sign may be due to the falsity of the
signifier or the signified.
The meaning of a sign is a property that must
be interpreted by an observer. A false sign may lend itself to
misinterpretation by an observer.
A system of signs may include signs
that refer to each other. A false sign may falsely refer to other signs or it may
not refer to any true signs.
A system of signs may require a code
to unlock it and to specify its rules of signification. A code may be public or
private, disclosed or undisclosed, broken or unbroken, articulated or
unarticulated, decipherable or indecipherable.
A system of coded messages may in
some cases be used in order to establish privacy or secrecy of communication.
People may “speak in code” (communicate by coding their verbal messages) in
order to avoid invasion of their privacy. They may also “speak in code” in order
to avoid censorship, suppression of their capacity for free speech, or intimidation
by those in power and authority.
People may also communicate by a
verbal or nonverbal system of coding in order to disguise or conceal their true
impressions, feelings, attitudes, and intentions. Thus, a liar may transmit
coded messages (by facial expression, eye contact, tone of voice, or gesture)
in order to conceal his deceitful intentions. The detection of a lie may
require a decoding of the motives and purposes of the liar’s statements in
order to discover their true signification.
A lie or mistruth may be
communicated by a gesture (such as a nodding of one’s head to express agreement
or disagreement), by a facial expression, by a particular tone of voice, or by
other nonverbal and verbal methods. Liars may differ in their manner and mode
of deception. There are as many ways to lie as there are to tell the truth.
Lying and deception may occur in
relationships between women and men. Women and men may intentionally misrepresent
or conceal their feelings about each other and may deceive each other. Women
and men may deceive themselves about their own feelings, and they may falsely
deny their own feelings about themselves and about each other.
Women and men may tell lies to each
other about how they perceive each other. They may also tell lies to each other
about how they perceive themselves, and about what they want and expect from
each other. They may be false to themselves, as well as to each other.
Women and men may tell lies to each
other about their marital status, their health status, their racial or ethnic
background, their educational background, their family background, their
religious background, their occupational history, their financial resources, the
extent of their personal property, their sexual feelings, their sexual
preferences, and their relationships with other woman and men.
Men and women may lie to each other
in order to influence each other, in order to manipulate each other, in order
to attract each other, in order to have power or control over each other, in
order to get closer to each other, in order to take advantage of each other,
and in order to distance themselves from each other.
False friendship may take the form
of
- entering into a close personal relationship with someone in order to
promote a selfish or malicious purpose
- engaging in a close personal relationship with someone in order to
promote one’s own personal advantage or gain
- entering into a close personal relationship with someone in order to
promote some dishonest or deceitful activity
- claiming to be a person’s friend but simultaneously trying to damage
her reputation
- claiming to be a person’s friend but simultaneously trying to harm her
interests or well-being
- claiming to be a person’s friend when she is socially popular but
rejecting her when she becomes socially unpopular.
Slander and libel may take the form
of intentionally false statements about a person or thing in order to expose
that person or thing to ridicule or humiliation. A slander is a malicious,
false, and defamatory statement about a person or thing, by means of speech
rather than by means of writing, pictures, or other publication. A libel is a
malicious, false, and defamatory statement about a person by means of writing,
pictures, or other publication (other than spoken words or physical gestures).
A defamatory statement is a false and malicious statement that attacks the good
name and reputation of a person or thing.
Fraud is a kind of deception,
dishonesty, breach of confidence, or abuse of a person’s trust. It is an
intentional misrepresentation of the truth in order to gain an unfair and
dishonest advantage over another person or thing, with resultant injury to that
person or thing. To defraud a person is to deprive that person of something, by
means of fraud.
Fraud as a legal concept includes
actual fraud and constructive fraud.6 Actual (positive) fraud is an
act of intentionally misrepresenting matters of fact in order to deprive a
person of money, property, or other things to which that person is legally
entitled. Constructive fraud is conduct involving breach of confidence, trust,
or duty, which has the effect of an actual fraud but may not require that the
accused party has knowingly made false statements about matters of fact.
Fraud as a legal concept also
includes fraud in the factum and fraud in the inducement.7 Fraud in
the factum is the intentional misrepresentation of an agreement by someone,
causing the signer of the agreement to incur costs, risks, or obligations that
were not represented to him/her as being included in that agreement.8
Fraud in the inducement is intentional misrepresentation of the facts upon
which the signer of an agreement will base his decision on whether to sign the
agreement, leading the signer to sign an agreement that he would not otherwise
have signed.
The legal concept of fraud also
includes intrinsic and extrinsic fraud. Intrinsic fraud is conduct that belongs
directly to the actions being considered as the basis for charges of fraud.
Extrinsic (collateral) fraud is conduct that may be collateral (or may
contribute) to acts of fraud, such as concealing or destroying evidence,
preventing a person from knowing about his/her legal rights, or preventing a
person from having a fair opportunity to present evidence at a trial.9
The elements of a legal claim of
fraud include an intentionally false representation of facts by a defendant,
reliance by the plaintiff upon the defendant’s act of misrepresentation, and
resultant damage to the plaintiff because of the defendant’s act of
misrepresentation.10
There are many types of fraud,
including investment fraud, insurance fraud, bank fraud, consumer fraud,
corporate fraud, securities fraud, commodities fraud, credit card fraud, check
fraud, copyright fraud, academic fraud, identity fraud, mortgage fraud, welfare
fraud, social security fraud, election fraud, campaign financing fraud,
bankruptcy fraud, payroll fraud, charity fraud, adoption fraud, mail fraud,
wire fraud, telephone fraud, telemarketing fraud, internet fraud, art fraud,
action fraud, and other types of deceptive business practices.
Examples of investment fraud include
- lying by a stockbroker to his/her client about the risk of a particular
investment
- unauthorized trading of securities (when a stockbroker buys or sells
securities without a client’s permission)
- improper execution of trades by a stockbroker who does not follow
his/her client’s instructions
- “churning” (excessive buying and selling of securities by a broker in
order to generate higher commissions)
- insider trading
- market manipulation
- unsuitable investments by a broker who buys or sells securities that
are unsuitable for his/her client’s objectives
- failure to disclose conflicts of interest involving a broker who has
advised his/her clients to invest in firms with which the broker has an
undisclosed financial relationship.
Insurance fraud may involve
- making a false claim about having sustained a personal injury in an
accident
- making a false claim about damage to property
- knowingly providing false information about the cause of an accident
- exaggerating the extent of a personal injury in order to gain
additional compensation
- exaggerating the extent to damage to property (or the cost of repairs
to property) in order to gain additional compensation
- intentionally causing damage to property in order to file an insurance
claim
- providing unnecessary services in order to collect insurance payments
- billing an insurance company for services that have not been performed.
Examples of bank fraud include
- embezzlement
- check fraud (including check forgery, fraudulent alteration of checks,
check counterfeiting, and check kiting)
- loan fraud
- mortgage fraud
- bankruptcy fraud
- money laundering
- tax evasion through the use of secret accounts
- fraudulent conveyance of money or property by a debtor in order to
defraud creditors
- unauthorized or inappropriate investments by a bank investment broker
- unauthorized transfers of funds
- fraudulent fees for servicing accounts
- computer hacking in order to gain unauthorized access to client
information or accounts.
Corporate fraud may occur when a
corporation or one of its employees
- knowingly provides false financial reports
- knowingly provides reports that overstate revenues and assets
- knowingly provides reports that understate expenses and liabilities
- falsifies reports on sales and inventory
- knowingly overstates costs of materials
- overcharges for products or services
- falsifies expense reports
- falsifies productivity reports
- falsifies work records or attendance reports
- falsifies claims for
bonuses or benefits
- falsifies payroll reports
- knowingly overstates costs on government contracts
- violates government regulations
- engages in illegal price-fixing
- engages in corporate mergers that are fraudulent or that are not in the
interests of shareholders
- provides secret bonuses or secret loans to company executives
- provides or accepts illegal kickbacks
- engages in tax evasion
- engages in bribery or political corruption.
Examples of consumer fraud include
- promises by a service provider to perform services that the provider
does not intend to perform or that the provider knows will not be informed
- lying by a service provider about whether services are necessary
- lying by a service provider about the nature or extent of services that
are necessary to perform a particular task or function
- lying by a service provider about the price of a particular service or
product
- lying by a service provider about the time spent performing a
particular task or function
- billing clients for services that the provider knows are unnecessary
- intentionally causing damage to a client’s property in order to perform
additional services that can be billed to the client
- lying by a service provider about the qualifications of the provider to
perform a particular task or function
- lying by a service provider about the ability or qualifications of a
competing provider to perform a similar task or function
- lying by a seller about the quantity or quality of a product that is
being sold to the consumer
- intentional mislabeling of a product
- selling a product that the seller knows is ineffective, defective,
damaged, or adulterated
- selling a poisonous, toxic, or dangerous product to the consumer, while
intentionally concealing from the consumer the dangers of the product.
Examples of telemarketing fraud include
- fraudulent offers of prizes and sweepstake
- fraudulent offers of investment opportunities
- fraudulent offers of free or low-cost travel opportunities
- fraudulent offers of credit cards
- fraudulent solicitations for charitable contributions
- fraudulent billing for telephone services that have never been ordered
or received by the consumer
- fraudulent switching of a consumer’s telephone service provider to
another provider without the consumer’s permission (“slamming”).
Internet fraud may include
- identity theft
- impersonation of an authorized user of a system in order to gain access to
restricted information on that system
- hacking into a system (accessing a system without authorization) in
order to steal, falsify, or delete information on that system
- software piracy
- copyright fraud
- fraudulent advertising and marketing practices
- fraudulent sales of computer equipment or hardware
- fraudulent sales of internet access services
- fraudulent sales of merchandise
- fraudulent auctions
- fraudulent offers of business or career opportunities
- fraudulent loan offers
- fraudulent credit card offers
- fraudulent offers of prizes
- fraudulent offers of certificates or licenses
- fraudulent offers of diplomas
- fraudulent solicitations for contributions to charities.
Academic fraud may include
- plagiarism
- cheating on exams (such as copying another person’s work, stealing
notes from another person, using notes without permission during an exam,
sharing notes without permission during an exam, obtaining exam questions prior
to an exam without the instructor's permission, and providing exam questions
or answers to other students prior to an exam without the instructor's permission)
- submission of work (such as essays, term papers, assignments, or reports)
under the name of an author who has not actually written or completed that work
- purchases of work (such as essays, term papers, or reports) from other
people or agencies in order to submit that work under one’s own name
- fabrication or falsification of data in a report
- false references in a report that identify sources of information from
the which the information in the report was not actually or directly obtained
- intentional misrepresentation of a co-author’s contribution to a
publication or report
- fraudulent inflation or deflation of student grades or evaluations
- fraudulent altering of test scores
- fraudulent awarding of credit to a student for passing an exam or completing
a course of study when that student has not actually passed that exam or
completed that course of study
- forgery or falsification of academic records or transcripts
- fraudulent purchasing or selling of diplomas
- lying about educational expenses
- lying about personal financial status in order to qualify for financial
assistance and scholarships
- failure to disclose conflicts of interest in the conduct and
publication of research
- misuse or misappropriation of research funds
- intentional misrepresentation of historical or scientific facts in a
work that claims to be in accordance with principles of academic and scientific
integrity
- intentional neglect of legal or ethical requirements in the conduct of academic and scientific research.
Examples of art fraud include
- check fraud (such as the writing of worthless checks in order to
purchase works of art)
- insurance fraud (such as the filing of a fraudulent claim that a particular
work of art has been stolen or that overstates the value of a particular work
of art)
- investment fraud (such as fraudulent financial accounting by an art
dealer, auctioneer, or museum)
- tax fraud (such as the overstating of the value of a particular work of
art in order to gain a higher tax deduction when the artwork is donated to a
museum)
- bank fraud (such as the overstating of the value of a particular
artwork that is to be used as collateral for a loan)
- money laundering (such as the purchasing of art in order to launder
dirty money)
- art dealer fraud (by dealers who deprive artists of profits from sales
of artworks, who sell artworks that they are not entitled or authorized to
sell, who knowingly buy or sell stolen works of art, or who
knowingly sell fakes or forgeries)
- consignment fraud (by dealers who have accepted artworks on consignment
and who do not pay previously agreed-upon amounts of money to an artist or
collector of art when those artworks are sold)
- auction fraud (such as through illegal price-fixing).
Examples of fraud in the music and
entertainment industry include
- fraudulent financial accounting by music recording companies
- fraudulent sales reports by music recording companies
- misrepresentation of sales revenues by music recording companies in
order to deprive artists of royalties
- fraudulent recording contracts
- fraudulent promotional contracts
- plagiarism by musical artists or producers
- misrepresentation by musical artists of their contributions to
recordings (concerning whether they actually performed, composed, or arranged
the music)
- fraudulent sales of tickets to concerts
- fraudulent overcharging for concert tickets by ticket vendors
- copyright piracy.
Fraud in legal practice may take the form of
- lying to a client
- intentionally preventing a client from knowing about his/her legal
rights
- intentionally preventing a client from having a fair opportunity to
defend himself/herself at a trial
- intentionally overbilling a client
- intentionally disregarding a client’s instructions regarding the
objectives of litigation
- assisting a client to commit fraud
- misappropriating a client’s funds
- failing to disclose conflicts of interest
- failing to disqualify oneself from a case in which one has a conflict
of interest
- practicing law without a license
- intentionally filing false documents in an act of litigation
- knowingly making false accusations against a defendant
- manufacturing false evidence against a defendant
- fabricating evidence to exonerate a defendant.
Health care fraud may include fraud
by providers and consumers. Fraud by health care providers may involve
- filing of false claims to
insurers (such as filing of claims for services that were not performed,
overstatement of the level of services that were performed, submission of false information
concerning a patient’s diagnosis or severity of illness in order to justify
tests or services that were not medically necessary, and fraudulent
certification of medical necessity for procedures or equipment)
- fraudulent alteration of medical records
- fraudulent concealment of medical errors
- providing false information in an application for a medical license
- practicing medicine without a license
- providing fraudulent treatments to patients.
Fraud by health care consumers may
include
- submission of false information to health care insurers
- fraudulent claims of medical disability in order to qualify for
financial benefits
- fraudulent rewriting or forging of prescriptions
- attempts to obtain medications or treatment under false pretenses
- filing of claims for reimbursement of payment for services that were
not received or paid for by the consumer.
Falsity is also an important concept
with regard to other legal terms besides fraud, such as false arrest, false imprisonment,
false pretenses, and false verdict. Lying may include such acts as taking a false
oath, engaging in false swearing, and committing perjury.
False pretenses may be used in order
to obtain money, property, information, special privileges, or access to
restricted domains. False pretenses may also be used in order to make the
acquaintance of a person, to gain the confidence of a person, to obtain the approval
of a person, to establish intimacy with a person, to gain a person’s sympathy, to receive
comfort from a person, or to attract a person’s attention.
False pretenses as a legal concept
refers to the criminal act of obtaining title to property by means of making intentionally
false statements, and it is thus distinguished from larceny by the fact that
larceny involves stealing but not the taking of legal title to property.11
Lying and deception may be a mode of
what the philosopher Jean-Paul Sartre (1943) describes as “bad faith.” If
people assume that they will act honestly and truthfully toward one another,
then they also assume that they will act toward one another in good faith. Lying to
others (or to oneself) may be an act of bad faith. Trying to escape moral
responsibility for one’s own actions may also be an act of bad faith.
It may not be possible for a liar to
deceive someone who has no faith in what he is saying. If he is trying to
deceive someone who has no faith in what he is saying, then he must try to
restore that faith by saying something truthful or by pretending to act in good
faith.
Faith in the supposed truthfulness
of a liar may in some cases be a senseless, pointless, or groundless faith. If
the liar has already demonstrated his dishonesty and deceitfulness, then there
may be no grounds for belief in his good faith.
The difference between the deceiver and
the deceived may also be the difference between bad and good faith. Whether or
not the act of lying is successful may be determined by whether belief (on the
part of the victim) displaces disbelief, and whether bad faith (on the part of
the liar) displaces good faith.
When people engage in conversation or dialogue, they may implicitly be entering into a social
contract to be truthful. Engaging in lying may be a violation of a social
contract to be truthful.
Lies (whose falsehood is
intentional) should be distinguished from unintentionally false statements
based on misperceptions, misunderstandings, misinterpretations, or delusions.
While a person who is lying knows that what he is saying is (at least to
some degree) false, a person who voices a delusion does not know that what he is saying is (at least to some degree) false.
A delusion may be described as a
sustained, fixed, false belief that is peculiar to a particular individual and
that is resistant to logical reasoning. It may also be described as a persistent,
incontrovertible, false belief that is held despite obvious and irrefutable
evidence of its falsehood.12 A delusional individual believes that his
delusions are true reality.
By definition, a delusion is not a
widely-held religious doctrine, nor is it a matter of religious faith.
Furthermore, it is not a commonly shared belief or attitude. False beliefs are
considered to be delusions only if they are fixed, sustained, resistant to
reason, and idiosyncratic to the delusional person (not shared by other members
of that person’s culture, subculture, or social background).13
A delusion is
different from a hallucination, which is a sensory experience of something that
does not exist in the real world. A hallucination may be a sensory perception
for which there is no corresponding stimulus in the external world.
Lying may be a warping or distortion
of the truth. It may be an attempt to twist, bend, or stretch the truth. It may also attempt
to turn the truth outside in or inside out.
It may also attempt to marginalize
the truth, so that falsehood is centralized in meaning. It may thus be a decentering
or shifting of focus of the sphere or domain of truth.
Decentering may be used as a method
of deconstructing the assumptions that underlie a particular view of truth or
reality. Decentering may also be used as a method of destabilizing a structure
of meanings, so that concepts regarding the nature of truth or reality no
longer occupy a stable or stationary position in a sphere of meaning.14
Unintentionally false statements
due to linguistic errors may take many forms, including simple or complex linguistic
mistakes, slips, stumbles, blunders, misconstructions, misstatements,
misquotations, and misrepresentations.
Other kinds of errors include conceptual,
procedural, methodological, administrative, clerical, diagnostic, regulatory,
scientific, statistical, logical, syntactic, semantic, translational,
computational, mathematical, medical, legal, and judicial errors.
Errors may also be classified as
involving modes of identification, detection, recognition, verification,
classification, coding, copying, programming, signaling, design, memory,
repetition, interpretation, and judgment.
The moral dimensions of
unintentional errors may be defined by the extent to which steps are taken to
prevent, detect, and correct them. If the consequences of errors are
insignificant or harmless, then there may be less of a need to prevent, detect,
and correct them. However, if the consequences of errors are potentially
significant, then there may be a greater moral obligation to prevent, detect,
and correct them.
An example of a situation in which
there may be a moral obligation to correct or reduce the effect of an
unintentionally false statement is the publication by a newspaper of a news
report that is later found to be inaccurate. Another example is the publication
by a scientific journal of a research study whose findings are later found to
be flawed and inaccurate.
An illusion may be a false perception of something or a
false belief in something. It may be a false impression of something that
actually exists or a belief in something that does not actually exist. It may be
a state of being deceived about something.
The illusion of reality produced by
an artwork may sometimes cause an audience to believe that something imaginary depicted
by the artwork is actually real. The characters or events depicted by a work of
poetry, drama, or fiction may be imaginary, but the audience may be so
emotionally moved by those characters or events that they are experienced as
being real. The audience may to some extent and in some cases allow itself to
be deceived by an artwork in order to experience the power, beauty, and
sublimity of that artwork. The truthfulness of an artwork may reside not only
in its faithfulness to the imagination of the artist and audience, but also in
its faithfulness to true reality.
On the other hand, a successful
storyteller or writer of fiction may, in a sense, be a good liar. A storyteller or
novelist may engage in an honest form of deception in which his/her readers
actually want to be deceived into believing and imagining that fictitious
events are real. A novelist, poet, or playwright may produce a work of creative
imagination that portrays fictitious scenes, characters, and events believably.
The art of deception may be used
honestly or dishonestly. It may be used to promote good or bad purposes. Thus, the moral quality of deception may depend on its motives, methods, means,
and ends.
The art of deception may be useful for
(and may be used honestly by) storytellers, novelists, playwrights, actors,
entertainers, theatrical set designers, film directors, visual effects artists,
film animators, cinematographers, painters, sculptors, clowns, jesters,
puppeteers, ventriloquists, card players, chess players, military strategists,
users of camouflage, hunters, fugitives, magicians, conjurers, sorcerers, and
wizards.
It may also be
useful for (and may be used dishonestly by) liars, cowards, con-artists,
thieves, swindlers, forgers, plagiarists, counterfeiters, spies, secret agents,
saboteurs, traitors, terrorists, dictators, demagogues, charlatans, slanderers,
impostors, impersonators, malicious pranksters, perpetrators of hoaxes,
malicious computer hackers, unfaithful husbands and wives, and students who cheat
on exams.
To be able to move deceptively and to have deceptive speed or
agility may be an important skill for a competitive athlete, such as a hockey
player, soccer player, football player, or basketball player. To be able to be
deceptive with regard to the reason for a particular line of questioning during
the course of an interview or interrogation may be an important skill for a prosecuting
attorney, investigator, or police officer.
Deceptive appearances may cause
people to have false expectations (expectations that are unfounded or
based on misimpressions). For example, a “false face” may be mistaken for a
“true face.” A false alarm may be mistaken for a true alarm. A false bottom (in
the stock market, for example) may be mistaken for a true bottom. A false
friend may be mistaken for a true friend. A fake diamond may be mistaken for a
real diamond.
Falsity as a musical concept may
take the form of false accent, false chord, false close (interrupted cadence),
and deceptive cadence. Lip-syncing may be an intentionally deceptive act
insofar as the performer pretends to sing the words of a song while the song is
played on a recorded soundtrack.
The moral nature of truth and
falsehood within a given sociocultural context may to
some extent define the morality of discourse within that context. The morality
of discourse may be defined by such factors as the participants’ willingness to
communicate, their willingness to honestly share their thoughts and feelings, their
responsiveness to one another’s statements, and their readiness to adapt and
modify their thoughts and feelings in accordance with the needs of further
communication.
Discourse ethics may be rules or principles
of civility. They may include such principles as the obligation to be truthful,
the obligation to be tactful and discreet, the obligation to be respectful and
considerate of other people’s feelings, the obligation to listen to what other people
wish to say, the obligation to allow people an opportunity to speak, the
obligation to allow for a free exchange of thoughts and feelings, the
obligation not to enforce the rules of discourse too rigidly or arbitrarily, and
the obligation not to constrain, interrupt, or cut off discourse unnecessarily.
According to the philosopher Jürgen
Habermas (1983), discourse ethics are a form of moral argumentation or
decision-making in which norms of discourse, as well as the consequences of those norms, must be agreed upon by all participants. Normative agreement among all
participants must be obtained if discourse is to become a conjoined effort to
distinguish truth from falsehood.
The truthfulness and fidelity of social institutions
may be determined by such factors as whether those institutions portray
themselves accurately, whether they report their actions truthfully, whether
they represent what they are intended to represent, and whether they perform
the functions that they are intended to perform.
Manipulation of the truth by social
institutions (for example, by news media, political parties, public or private
corporations, and government agencies) may lead to a kind of socially defined
mistruth or falsehood.
Lying by government officials may be
used to cover up such problems as social injustice, political corruption,
breaches of national security, failures to protect human rights, failures to
protect public safety, failures to provide public services, conspiracy by
public officials to subvert government institutions, and conspiracy by public
officials to exceed their legal authority.
Lying or misrepresentation by the
news media may take the form of intentional distortions, biased reporting, false
reporting, failure to confirm the reliability of informational sources, failure
to distinguish between conjecture and fact, failure to correct inaccurate or
misleading reports, use of deceptive practices in order to obtain information,
and failure to disclose potential conflicts of interest on the part of
reporters and publishers.
Truthfulness may represent a kind of
social responsibility. Other kinds of social responsibility may include
fairness, honesty, integrity, considerateness, and cooperation. Social responsibility
may be manifested by conduct that promotes justice, peace, and social harmony.
Aims of socially responsible individuals, groups, or institutions may include
the aim to promote full citizenship for all members of society, the aim to
protect human rights, the aim to protect public health and safety, the aim to
provide health care for all members of society, the aim to eliminate hunger and
poverty, the aim to promote educational and economic opportunity for all members
of society, the aim to promote peace, and the aim to protect and conserve the
natural environment.
FOOTNOTES
1William David Ross, The Right and the Good (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1930), p. 21.
2Alfred Jules Ayer, Language, Truth, and Logic (New York: Dover Publications, 1952), pp. 36-7.
3American Psychiatric Association. Diagnostic
and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. Washington, D.C., 2000, pp.
702-6.
4Ibid., pp. 702-6.
5Bas C. van Fraassen, “Presupposition,
implication and self-reference” in Journal of Philosophy (1968), 65: 136–52.
6James E. Clapp, Random House Webster’s Dictionary of the Law (New York: Random House, 2000), p. 193.
7Ibid., p. 193.
8Henry Campbell Black, Black’s Law Dictionary, Second Pocket Edition, edited by Bryan A. Garner (St. Paul: West Publishing Company, 2001),
p. 293.
9Steven H. Gifis, Law Dictionary (Hauppauge:
Barron’s Educational Series, 1996), p. 210.
10Henry Campbell Black, Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition (St. Paul:
West Publishing Company, 1990), p. 660.
11James E. Clapp, Random House Webster’s Dictionary of the Law (2000), p. 178.
12American Psychiatric Association, Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (Washington D.C., 2000), p. 821.
14Ibid., p. 821-2.
14Jacques Derrida. “Structure, Sign, and Play in the Discourse of Human
Sciences,” in Writing and Difference (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1978), pp. 278-80.
ADDITIONAL REFERENCES
Bologna, Jack. Corporate Fraud: The Basics of Prevention and Detection. Boston: Butterworth Publishers, 1984.
Brentano, Franz. The True and the Evident. Edited by Oscar Kraus, translated by Roderick Chisholm, Ilse Politzer, and Kurt R. Fischer. New York: Humanities Press, 1966.
Camus, Albert. L'Étranger. France: Gallimard, 1957.
Conklin, John E. Art Crime. Westport: Praeger Publishers, 1994.
Habermas, Jürgen. Moral Consciousness and
Communicative Action, translated by Christian Lenhardt and Shierry Weber
Nicholson. Cambridge: The MIT Press, 1990.
Sartre, Jean-Paul Sartre. Being and Nothingness, translated by Hazel E. Barnes. New York: Washington Square Press, 1956.
Wittgenstein, Ludwig. Philosophical Investigations, translated by G.E.M. Anscombe. New York: The MacMillan Company, 1953.
