Is Lying Ever Ethically Defensible

Reading Response #4

This week’s readings, and the readings we have dealt with in previous weeks, have laid the foundation to assess important questions, such as whether or not lying is ever ethically defensible. It is generally known that it is possible to argue either for or against the defensibility of lying, however, it now is on me to choose a side by considering the most important reasons and supporting them with examples.

First of all, I want to clarify that I personally consider the act of lying, holding back the truth, and deception as ethically defensible – depending on situations, relationships and the degrees of lies. In chapter one, the author raises the question: “Does it matter what exactly is the situation?” (p. 10) when it comes

1, p. 10). Furthermore, “even if it were possible, it probably wouldn’t be desirable” (Ch. 1, p. 10) – indicating that an “adroit management of deception” sometimes seems more appropriate, desirable even, than pure truth telling. A balanced management of truth telling and deception is considered thoughtful, especially when it comes to the sake of other people. One statement that is made in chapter 1 suggests the following: “If I’m allowed to lie, then you’ll want to lie, and soon you will lie about everything and then everybody will want to lie about everything, too” (p. 24). I disagree with this statement, because I believe that deception can sometimes be appropriate. However, it is necessary to weigh in all factors (situation, relationship, degree of lie) – Deception or lying asks for an adroit management of truth telling and deception. Through this moral management, we will not necessarily fall into a habit of lying, but rather a habit that lets us consider all environmental factors. A big role, when it comes to the moral management of deception and truth telling, plays the relationship one has with others involved. As mentioned in the readings, an act of lying “is sometimes self-interest and sometimes the interest of others” (Ch. 1, p. 18). Especially in regard to situational factors, we often try to “consider the welfare of everyone

One statement I highly agree with was made in chapter 7 and was made in regard to the handling of public relations: “The way is just as important as the ends sought at any particular moment by fallible human beings” (p. 101). In the end, all “humans are active, creative mammals who can represent what exists if it did not, and what doesn’t exist if it did” (Ch. 1, p. 12), primary through our strategic use of language. In short, we are able to tell the truth, however we are also able to recreate the truth, especially when a recreation of truth serves a desired outcome. However, especially in professional communication, the outcome alone cannot necessarily justify our actions. Professional communication influences many different audiences and has more responsibility than an individual in a private situation. Chapter 7 also states: “Communicators may feel that the intentional creation of ambiguity or vagueness is necessary, accepted, expected as normal, and even ethically justified” (Ch. 7, p. 106). Usually, we are aware of companies and professional communicators to either show us the truth from a certain point of view, or remaking it. In political campaigns, we often expect politicians to cover up the truth, lie, in order to win voters – We are aware of it and we expect it.