Thoughts on Lying and a Response to a Friend's Email

My friend Dave says that “Lying is not a minor affair.” So, I wanted to take some time to think about this and look at it in the context of Tanya McDowell’s case. Before I look at it in light of this particular case though, I thought I might want to address a contention Dave makes and look at the issue of what a lie is in the first place. First, for the contention that lying is such a big deal that “it’s in the Ten Commandments.”

Actually......it’s not.

I. I am the Lord thy God

II. You Shall Have No Other Gods Before Me

III. You Shall Not Make for Yourself an Idol

IV. Do Not Take My Name in Vain

V. Remember the Sabbath and Keep it Holy

VI. Thou Shalt Not Kill

VII. Thou Shalt Not Commit Adultery

VIII. Thou Shalt Not Steal

IX. Thou Shall Not Bear False Witness Against Your Neighbor

X. Do Not Covet Thy Neighbor’s Wife

Now, Dave is probably interpreting the 9^th Commandment, “Thou Shall Not Bear False Witness Against Your Neighbor” as meaning, don’t lie. Well, maybe, but the commandment is actually forbidding a special kind of lie, lying in court, hence the “bearing false witness”. The commandment isn’t addressing lying, in general. It just says don’t go to court and lie. But this is the problem with Dave’s assertion that “Lying is not a minor affair”. Sometimes, he’s right, sometimes, he’s not. In the case of the Ten Commandments, lying is only addressed in the context of “bearing false witness”, a very special context. But what about the nature of lying, in general? In fact, what is a lie, really?

Lies and Untruths

What is a lie? Is a lie an untruth? Is that the central aspect of a lie? Or, is there more to it than that? Do you need to have other things than an untruth in play for a lie to be a lie? I thought I’d start out with this question because, frankly, I think it’s a great one. What is a lie?

Most people will say that a lie is an untruth but is an untruth, then, by extension, a lie? Take for instance me saying Jesus of Nazareth was a real person. Am I lying? Your first reaction might be to say, “What the fuck?! Of course Jesus of Nazareth was a real person!” Only, it’s not quite that simple. The historicity of Jesus is a complex issue. Very little actual historical data exists to support his having been a real person. So, I can say that Jesus was real but I could be wrong in a factual sense. Is my being wrong about something then a lie? Does a simple untrue statement mean lying has occurred?

Cannibalism is bad, most of us would agree. This would seem a universal truth. But, is it? If I were born into Aztec aristocracy, say, in the 15^th Century, I’d have participated in not only human sacrifice but in ritual cannibalism as well. In “Aztecs:  An Interpretation” Inga Clendinnen outlines the great lengths the Aztec nobility went to “host” prisoners for future sacrifice. It was a really special thing that brought with it a lot of social honor. After the sacrifice, families shared the flesh of the victim in a meal. If I say that “Cannibalism is bad”, am I making a true statement or an untrue statement? It would seem that, from this example, the “truth” of my statement is relative to my point of view. So....if the truth here is relative, can I be lying if what I say is seen as “untrue” to my audience? Is, again, a lie simply something perceived as an untruth?

I don’t think anyone is going to say that all a lie is is a simple untruth. I think most people are going to say that there’s more to lying than simply saying something that isn’t found to be true. Untruth may be a component of a lie, but simple untruth is probably not lying. Take Jesus, for example, since the actual facts are in question, even if Jesus is found to have never existed, I’m probably not going to be labeled a liar for saying he did. Most people will not see this simple potential untruth as evidence of a lie, even if the facts of my statement are rather dicey. As for cannibalism, most people would argue that, as abhorrent as it sounds, my opinion on the issue is just that, an opinion and that since the morality of eating other humans appears to be at least occasionally relative, there is no lie in my statement that “Cannibalism is bad” and there wouldn’t be a lie for me to say “Cannibalism is good” either. My statements can’t be nailed down to cold hard facts and can be written off as opinion.

The simple factual or nonfactual nature of something isn’t considered a lie in the case of the mentally ill either, right? If someone says they’re, say, Napoleon Bonaparte, and they clearly believe it, we don’t tell them they’re lying. They may sincerely believe they’re telling the truth and simply be delusional or, perhaps they’ve suffered brain damage from an injury or a stroke or some such. So, again, simply saying something is not true doesn’t seem to constitute lying.

Does Motive Matter?

So, telling an untruth, in and of itself, isn’t lying. What is lying then? Does motive have anything to do with it? If so, what’s the issue here? Is lying something that’s only self-serving? Or can there be other kinds of lies?

Most folks thinking of lies probably think of lies people tell to protect themselves. In this context, a lie is an untruth, told purposefully for personal gain. What about the case of Tanya McDowell, does what she did meat that criteria? Did she tell a purposeful untruth for personal gain? Well....she listed the babysitter’s address where her son stayed. Granted, the son didn’t live there, but her son stayed there while he was alive, so, while he was there and alive, it would be proper to say, at that moment, he was “living” there. So, his son was living (by virtue of being alive) at that address at least some of the time. Mom, Ms. McDowell, is homeless, so she really doesn’t have a permanent address to call her own. By listing this address of the babysitter was she lying?

In the sense we commonly understand “living” to mean, Ms. McDowell’s son was not living at the address given. True. However, the news article states that her old address should’ve been used instead and this poses a problem of truth because, Ms. McDowell isn’t living there any more either. She did live there, true enough, but she doesn’t now. So, if the problem is with her giving an address to a place where she’s not living in order to put a child in school, seems she’d be screwed either way.

One thing we’re looking at is, did Ms. McDowell benefit from her untruth? Is her statement a lie under the definition we’re working on, an untruth, told purposefully for personal gain? Well, she’s not going to school at this school in question, her son is, so, it’s hard to see how a lie has been committed in this context Her son, presumably, benefits for being enrolled in a “better” school but she doesn’t. So maybe personal gain as a motive isn’t necessarily a sign of a lie. Maybe we need to rework our definition yet again. Maybe lying involves more than telling an untruth, purposefully, for personal gain?

The Truth, Trust, Lying and Control

Dave mentions that “If you cannot trust people—which is what lying is about—then you can’t have a society that functions smoothly or lasts over the long term.” He also talks in his email about the historical basis of truth telling being a tribal law that helped many ancient societies function. He admits the liars have been a constant through history but argues that they should be punished. Lying, it seems, is detrimental to society.

Only, one might argue that lying is central to society. Isn’t most of our society set up the way it is because of lying and it’s prevalence? Don’t we do what we do, say what we say and experience what we experience because we expect lies, pretty much all the time?

Throughout history we have stories of constant deception and manipulation. Shakespeare’s entire oeuvre is based on this sort of thing. Many American voters (most?) expect to be lied to by politicians. Car salesmen, for instance, are also culturally expected to lie to you. On a day to day basis we’re bombarded with advertising claims which, if they’re not out and out lies, are often stretchings and manipulations of the truth. Is “Best Plumbing” really the “best”? No. Probably not. Yet, they promote themselves as such. They have no data to empirically support the notion so, they’re probably not living up to their name, and yet, we see them and other companies make spurious claims all the time about their service, satisfaction and product performance. We could fight against them all but, what’s the point? We’d never win.

We learn quickly in life that most facts and statistics can be bent to make most any argument seem “true”. The actual incidence of lying seems so prevalent that we rather expect it. People say, for instance, that they drive the speed limit, while, just observation alone would seem to discredit this notion in most cases. Resumes are inflated, exaggerated or out and out fraudulent while whistle blowers, people who are risking themselves to tell the truth, are often punished. It’s a crazy world and not one, it’d seem, that values truth. 

Thomas Hobbes’ “Leviathan” painted a negative picture of humans out of society. Dave is concerned that lying causes people to not trust one another but, in Hobbes’ view, we have no reason to trust one another, naturally. Without society and the order it forces upon us, it’d be survival of the fittest, chaos, and a world where the weak prey on the strong. Society isn’t there for truth, in Hobbes’ view, it’s there to impost order because, frankly, others aren’t meant to be trusted.

Social order is important and at the seat of all judicial affairs. Yet, even here, we’ve learned that truth isn’t what it seems. While it’s true, lying in court is bad, it’s hardly uncommon. Psychological studies have cast severe doubt on the accuracy of eyewitness testimony, a crucial bedrock of all court cases. Study after study has shown that eyewitnesses don’t really see what they think they see. And yet, we take their testimony as truth when, in reality, it may very well often be anything but. Yet, telling untruths doesn’t necessarily equate with lying, as mentioned above. Even if it did, I’d argue, it is often “a minor affair”, in contrast to Dave’s assessment above.

People expect to be lied to which is why we ask for evidence and require support for comments. So many people lie on resumes that most jobs require references to verify the facts. It’s expected. Witness testimony is good but often not enough, by itself to win a court case. Usually you need other evidence to support the story the witness is giving. Science is set up to catch lies eventually by requiring experiments to be testable and verifiable. Just saying, for instance, that you’ve found a way to make cold fusion work, isn’t enough. You need some support. So the idea that you can’t have a society that functions for a long time with lies doesn’t seem accurate because, frankly, all societies function with lies, pretty much all the time.

The Many Lies We Tell Ourselves and Others

In regards to lies and lying Dave says, “Unfortunately, these days everything is ‘no big deall’.” Well, I’d say, in regards to lying, he’s right! We humans lie all the time, for all sorts of reasons and the majority of the lies we tell on a daily basis are, “no big deal.”

I have a friend who likes an outfit and ask me my opinion of it. I think it’s hideous but I tell her it’s great. I lie. A friend makes me an apple pie and asks later how it tasted, I tell her it was fantastic. I lie. My boss asks me why I need time off from work, I tell him I have a doctor’s appointment, when I’m really going to interview for another job. I lie. My five year old child seems really upset at the idea Santa Clause doesn’t exist, so, I lie. I tell him he does exist!   Many of the above are what one would label “white lies” which in common usage refers to, well, lies of a minor status. Little lies. Lies that are, truly, “no big deal”. Dave’s assertion that lies are not a minor affair, while true sometimes, is hardly true all the time. Many of the lies we tell on a daily basis, on a regular basis, are minor indeed. The truth hurts and, because it hurts, in an effort to foster good will and social harmony we often lie. It’s expected, accepted, and basically sanctioned in most all cultures everywhere.

Not only that, but we often lie to none other than ourselves. One might argue that the whole field of psychology exists for no other reason than to help us unravel the lies we tell ourselves. While it’s true, some of these lies are a big deal, many are not. Take my friend I mentioned earlier and her hideous outfit. She may like the outfit but still, on some level, recognize its hideousness. She might lie to herself in an effort to make it okay for her to buy it and placate the part of her personality that likes it, even in the face of her own self-doubts. Is this a big deal? No, not really. It is, after all, just an outfit. To be sure, some minor lies may, in the long run, lead to bigger and bigger lies but then, they’re no longer minor lies then, are they?

“The Watchman” is a great philosophical discourse on the nature of truth and lying. As the story ends, we’re forced to try and decide if the world is better off living a lie or if it is better off being confronted with the truth. “Shutter Island” raises similar questions in its ending. Truth isn’t always the best option. Governments lie, in their dealings with other governments and with their people, all the time. Companies lie as well. The number and variety of lies we tell is almost as varied as the number of people and institutions we have. Lying, it would seem, is a very human activity.

Tanya McDowell wanted a better education for her child. If I’m Ms. McDowell, I want a jury trial. Why? Because no one on that jury is going to convict her of lying. No one. We lie, we just do. In this case, the lie told is one told by a mother for the benefit of her child. No one is going to want to throw this woman in prison for something as primal and basic as that. And, yes, in the grand scheme of things, this lie too is “no big deal.”

So, yeah, that’s my take on the issue. I could say that I have more to add and am anxiously awaiting your thoughts on all of this......but, then again, I’d be lying.   ;)

Bill Compton, Rapist?

If you follow True Blood then you know all about Bill Compton turning Jessica Hamby into a vampire. Bill is ordered to do it by The Magister, who rules that Bill’s killing another vampire needs to be remedied by his making a new one. In the world of True Blood, The Magister is a powerful official and his rulings carry with them a lot of weight. Thus, Bill Compton, vampire, is introduced to Jessica Hamby, human, and is called upon to take away her humanity and make her a vampire.

While many vampire fans might not see this as such a bad thing, Jessica is adamant about wanting to stay human. Her being captured and dragged to what amounted to a vampire court meant that her remaining human was highly unlikely, as she was bound to be the most alive person in the area. And, true to expectations, she’s turned to undeath by Bill as part of his punishment.

I’ve been reading True Blood and Philosophy: We Wanna Think Bad Things with You, a fun look at philosophy and pop culture. One of the essays in the book talks about the morality of vampires turning humans and what is required to make such happenings “moral”. The essay argues that only a human who gives informed tacit consent to being turned beforehand can be turned in a way that meets a moral criteria. It’s a fun thought provoking essay, just one of many in an equally fun and thought provoking book.

The issue of consent got me thinking.......

Isn’t Bill Compton, everyone’s favorite “Vampire Bill”.....a rapist?

Bill forcibly penetrates Jessica under the circumstances described above, clearly against here will. Isn’t non-consensual forcible penetration sexual assault in the eyes of the law? If my reading is correct.....Bill, everyone’s favorite Vampire Bill, is a rapist.

One argument against Bill as a rapist is that his penetration isn’t sexual in nature. The problem with this argument is it equates rape with sex and sexuality. Since rape is a sex crime, it might seem at first glance an appropriate argument. However, much science has been done that shows rape not to be so much a crime of passion and/or sex, but, more commonly, a criminal act based in anger and a desire to control. In Bill’s case, turning Jessica against her will is an act of legal necessity, he’s simply required to do it. The implications are if he doesn’t accept this punishment a worse fate might await him or his beloved Sookie Stackhouse, the human woman who’s won over what remains of his heart. So anger and control aren’t motivators for Bill, but fear is and, perhaps, through fear, control after all. Maybe by fearing alternatives, Bill accepts this one punishment in an effort on his part to control what other things may or may not happen to him and the human he loves. By turning the innocent, unwilling Jessica, Bill hopes to manage and control the threat against his beloved human, Sookie.

Since rapes don’t even have to involve sexual organs, the fact that this penetration involves fangs and not, say, a penis, means that it’s still a penetration and a forcible one at that, so, the fact that Bill doesn’t force himself on Jessica in a way we’re used to doesn’t not make his attack rape.
But what about the issue of Bill being under duress? Isn’t that a mitigating factor? After all, if he doesn’t turn Jessica...... Well, what would’ve happened? We don’t know. Can’t know. Why? Because Bill did turn Jessica. It wasn’t like Bill had a gun to his head (or, a stake to his heart) when he chose to follow The Magister’s ruling. Also, while Bill felt like he had no choice, international law has been pretty hard core on those who’ve “just followed orders”. Take members of the SS in Nazi Germany, during World War II. Saying that one had orders to follow was no excuse for committing genocide and other clear crimes against humanity. After the war, members of the SS still went to prison, convicted of wrongdoing even after offering the “just following orders” defense. If they could choose not to follow an order, that was sufficient to make their choosing to follow an order evidence of their guilt. Bill could have said no. He could have stood his ground to The Magister and said that he was not going to be party to taking Jessica’s human life from her against her will. The very fact that Bill could’ve said no but didn’t is evidence of his guilt. He chose to assault Jessica Hamby.

What does all this say about us? About our views on things? Bill Compton is a very popular character and yet, it seems, Bill Compton is clearly a rapist. Does this mean that people like rapists? That rape isn’t so bad? What are to take from this?

For one, I’d argue that we humans are natural born apologists. We like to make excuses and apologies for those we love, for those we like, for those we agree with. We naturally twist facts and interpretations to fit our view of things and in so doing, we take the bad and we make it good. Bill, a rapist? Hey....he didn’t have a choice! Or...he’s a vampire, that’s what vampires do! Bill can’t be a rapist because, well, because he’s a nice man!

None of these arguments in defense of rapists is new. The rapist couldn’t help themselves because, well, that’s what they do argument is a variation of blaming the victim. Hey....men are horn dogs! Did you see that miniskirt that woman was wearing? Her boobs were practically hanging out in the open! Of course he had sex with her! That’s what men do! They can’t control themselves! She was asking for it! And, really, how could he control himself?!

He didn’t have a choice but to rape her at that frat party. All his fraternity brothers were egging him on. Everybody else did it, so, he had to too! It’s not his fault! He can’t be a rapist because, well, he’s a nice man! Just like Ted Bundy was a nice man! Hell, even Adolf Hitler liked dogs and babies!!! And....wait a minute! Bill Compton is a vampire!!! He’s not even a man!!!!

We don’t like to acknowledge that rapists can be good people. It’s disturbing. We’d rather look the other way, at something else entirely. That rapists can be like us is frightening and something that makes us all uncomfortable. Rapists are sick sexual predators. We make them register their whereabouts and wear a digital cyber R on their chests to identify themselves as outside the norm of society. And yet they can be liked...nay, even loved by others. They can be somebody’s hero, as is the case with Bill Compton, Vampire Bill......or, as I’ve laid out in my argument above, Bill Compton, rapist.