Disagree. It’s deceptive, but not a lie. A lie is a deliberately false statement, which omission cannot be.
The CIA recognizes it as a lie. So a lie.
Using the CIA for a litmus test is a bold move
Depends on the subject; the Culinary Institute of America is usually reliable.
Reminds me of Wheel of Time
Something like “shall speak no word that which is not true” is one of the 3 oaths… but they can still deceive without technically lying…
Your dress is green.
There is no Black Ajah.
I think it depends on the context. If it’s like a close friend and the deception screws you over and was an unexpected betrayal, then it’s basically a lie. If there’s some reason someone might suck at a job and they don’t mention it in the interview and were not asked, that’s different because it’s an adversarial situation and looking out for yourself means not showing all your cards, and everyone should understand that it’s like that.
Hrm. I can see that point of view, but reeeeeaaaaly still feels like a lie to me. Thanks
If the person lying by omission has the intent of causing the recipient to have false understanding (e.g. to provide basis for a choice) then it’s at least as dishonest as a blatant lie.
If they omit information because they think it’s irrelevant then it’s just ignorance or negligence. Dishonest in the sense that it’s not forthright.
Neither lies nor omission are inherently unethical without some basis for the relation between the two people being honesty/loyalty.
I think omission can be used for misleading/deception, but that it’s distinct from a lie.
The core of dishonesty is disrespect for others and the truth. That’s the core issue. Focusing on the method of prevarication is academic.
Disagree. I refuse to be responsible for people drawing incorrect conclusions from what I said.
So, it’s not your fault they made a bad decision based on you knowingly not telling them information that would help them possibly make a better/good decision? Yeah, it’s definitely partly your fault at that point or all your fault depending on what you omitted.
If they make decisions based on assumptions, that is my fault, you’re saying? No dice.
I’ll agree that I forfeit the right to complain about those decisions if I withheld relevant information. I can even agree that I bear partial responsibility for their incorrect assumptions. But any decisions based on those assumptions are theirs alone.
Yes, that’s why it’s called that
It’s only called that by detractors. Those take a more positive view call it “discretion”.
A lie is based on intent. If you’re purposely intending to mislead someone, whether by omitting information or by outright stating false information, then it’s a lie.
according to my exes it the intent was for us to be together.
agree.
but context matters.
Not sure I’d call it a lie according to these definitions…
A lie is an assertion that is believed to be false
a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive; an intentional untruth
We don’t need to call it a lie to ackowledge it still carries the same moral burden, judgement and implications.
I’d call it deception.
I wouldn’t consider it in a vacuum. I also look at intent and consequences. Did they omit info to gain advantage over others, or were they refusing to tell a Nazi where they hid the jews? Did their choice lead to a better outcome for everyone, or did it cause chaos and disrupt lives needlessly?
Everyone going “duh it’s still a lie” - calling someone a liar carries a specific connotation which I don’t think applies in all cases of so-called “lies”. To me, a lie carries with it not just an intentional falsehood but an accusation or an accusable misdeed. I wouldn’t call someone a liar because they hid jews from nazis.
Pretty sure not telling the nazi is still a lie. But an example of when it is ethical to lie.
You are either answering the wrong question, or are defining a lie based on some criteria I don’t recognize.
Telling a Nazi there are no Jews in my basement is a lie. The only way it’s not a lie is if there are, in fact, no Jews in my basement. But it is not wrong to lie to a Nazi.
A lie is still a lie, even if it’s told to a Nazi or if there’s an otherwise good outcome
Your point highlights the fact that lies are a tool. The intentional omission is a lie.
Judgment about the tool’s use is subjective.
Everyone uses this tool. Calling someone a liar is either calling them a human or it means you’re saying they use the tool more than they should which is yet another subjective judgment.
An interesting take, but not one that can be leaned on to navigate daily life as it doesn’t reflect an understanding of how most people wield the label of “liar”.
I agree, and it’s hard to educate because people don’t want to admit to using this tool at all.
Doesn’t change the fact that it is a tool and its use is subject to judgment.
Ooh I like that perspective.
No, that would be deceit. Similar, but not the same. You can deceive someone by lying. Lying is an act of deceit.
the crucial element of a lie is intention to decieve, either by ommission or commission
