you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 31 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (7 children)

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.

  • source
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 14 points 4 months ago

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 4 points 4 months ago (2 children)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 4 months ago (1 child)

    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".

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment