Differences Of Lying And Not Telling The Truth

Differences Of Lying And Not Telling The TruthLying and not-telling the verity are different in their own right, and suck up moral and ethical implications associated with each one. This is not merely a matter of semantics it is a matter of substance. By the use of analogy, there are major difference between justified and unjustified homicide. Murder is unjustified homicide and will always be considered wrong by a moral society. Not every instance of killing a person, however, is considered murder. In scenarios of capital punishment and self-defense occasions can justified homicide. Similarly, in the case of a lie there is an unjustified discrepancy between what you believe and what you say, and so deceit is may always be considered immoral. In some(a) circumstances, not telling the fairness in order to preserve a higher moral law may well be considered the right issue to do and thus is not forgeually a lie. While Kant asserted that lying, or deception of both kind, should be forbidden under any r give the axeition and in any circumstance. He stated this because if it is universally acceptable to lie, so no one would believe anyone and all truths would always be assumed to be lies or deceptions. He also stated that the right to deceive an individual couldnt also be used because it would discard the rights of the person being deceived as an end in itself. Therefore, Kant denied the right to lie or deceive any person for any reason, regardless of context or anticipated consequences. While Kant proclaimed this whim of never lying, there are pitfalls in his universalizing. Throughout these examples the pitfalls of Kants universal laws will be exposed.There are several circumstances that not telling the truth wouldnt be considered a lie. For instance in the case of national security, the get together States government might omit or falsify information that is given to the unrestricted to ultimately protect their own interests or assets. For example, Gene ral H. Norman Schwarzkopf during the lead up to the first Gulf War he was known to give more press conferences leading up to the invasion. During these press conferences not all the information that he presented regarding his invasion strategy could be considered a full truth. During this time Schwarzkopf would have falsified information about the invasion date to the media, in effort to deceive them. While discriminating that this information was a non-truth, this information mislead the enemy and gave the United States military a strategic advantage. In effect by not-telling the truth, Schwarzkopf gave the military the element of surprise, which could have resulted in saving thousands of American lives. Should Schwarzkopf be considered a prevaricator in this case? In this case, trance Schwarzkopf had been telling false-truths it was make for moral reasons and shouldnt be considered a lie. Since the ends justify the means it is morally acceptable by not telling the truth and i t shouldnt be construed as a lie.While in the previous scenario not telling the truth isnt considered lying, there are other situations cannot be interpreted in the same fashion. If an omission of the truth is used to mislead or deceive someone for your own greater ends, or for an immoral goal, then the non-truth cannot be construed in the same way. For instance during the most recent financial collapse many banks and financial firms mislead the country and their clients about the value of different products they were trying to sell. Since their intentions were to mislead, or deceive their clients on the sole mathematical function to turn a profit, thus it cannot be considered a morally justified act. If the intentions of these firms like Goldman Sachs wasnt done to mislead, but done in the interests of their clients, unknowing the unfortunate consequences. Then this company shouldnt be considered a liar, but unfortunately they knowing lied and mislead their clients. Since the act was done for malice, and for their own greed, then their act of deception must be considered a blatant lie.While in most cases, such as the ones already presented the distinction between lying and not-telling the truth are made quite clear. On the other hand, these distinctions cannot always be viewed in black and white, but in varying shades of gray. If the intentions of the lie is not done for your own self-interests, or for your own ends, but done in a manner to save a person from embarrassment and humiliation, thus it cannot be considered a lie. For example if a loved one asks am I over weight? While knowing all along the answer is yes is it in their best interest and yours to be absolutely blunt with them? If their condition isnt life threating or will cause illness to the individual in the future, then the act of lying to protect their feelings isnt morally wrong and should be considered a lie. If your wife asks you does this dress look good? while knowing all along that you dont like the dress, telling her what she wants to hear doesnt stultification or effect anyone. If in the situation you have nothing to gain and your purpose is to protect the other person from pain or grief then not telling the truth, may be the right thing to do and thusly morally acceptable.While distinctions between lying or not-telling the truth can be made. Is the omission of lucubrate considered lying? For instants lets say you are being interrogated for a crime, during the interrogation you answer all the questions truthfully and only answer the question that was precisely given. Even though you might have committed this crime, should the omission of details shouldnt be considered lying? Its the fault of the interrogator not asking the proper questions during the interview which lead them from not discovering the whole truth. Thus since no false-truths were given to any of the questions the one being interrogated shouldnt be perceived as a liar.Throughout this essay many e xamples were given to help clarify the distinction between lying and not-telling the truth. In all cases, to label someone a liar certain factors must be met to determine whether an individual telling a lie or just simply not-telling the truth. The most major underlying distinctions between them is the intentions of the person telling the lie. If the lie is done so in a manner that doesnt harm or cause pain to the person, and has moral and ethical intentions, then the person shouldnt be considered a liar. Contrariwise, if the individuals intentions are to deceive or cause harm to other individual, then the intentions are clear on what they wish to achieve, thus should be labeled a liar.