Lying

May 17, 2012 Carlo rated it 4 of 5 stars

Shelves: philosophy, non-fiction, essays, psychology

I liked this essay. I read its majority while at a cafe with my wife, and it stirred very interesting discussions. Even while reading it alone, I remember constantly stopping and thinking about the insightful ideas and examples that Harris demonstrated.

Harris shows how lies, even those (conveniently?) called "white" do more harm than good. He proposes living a life without a single lie, even at the cost of much discomfort. Of course, situations where telling the truth will undoubtedly cause har...more

11 likes · like · see review

Oct 09, 2011 Greg rated it 4 of 5 stars

Shelves: philosophy

On the whole, this little novella (long essay) was really fantastic. Sam Harris makes a really strong case for never lying. And I think the case he makes transcends his commitment to utilitarianism (which he doesn't even mention in this essay), and resonates strongly with this virtue ethicist. I have two problems with his prescription.

1) Harris would be committed to the argument that even lying to someone to keep a surprise party you are throwing for them a secret is wrong. Examples along those...more

6 likes · like · see review

Aug 02, 2012 Xox rated it 5 of 5 stars

Sam Harris so generous to make this book available for free download this week.

http://www.samharris.org/images/uploa...

Good one. Start reading and will write a review within this week.

Sam started off as sharing his experience in lying, and consider it always damaging to people, including himself. He distinguish between lying and answering question of sub text.

Situation like his wife ask him if she is fat. If the subtext is to having reassurance from Sam, then saying she looks beautiful or he lo...more

4 likes · like · see review

Sep 20, 2011 Joseph Carroll rated it 3 of 5 stars

A solid read, I was able to get through it in about an hour. As usual with Sam Harris, he calmly and politely conveys his ideas on why we should use our common sense to help guide us through the world. I felt the book had a more personal touch to it than some of his previous work, maybe at a slight expense of some objectivity. Overall, I'd say the book serves its purpose in conveying the benefits of unrelenting honesty, and at $2 bucks a pop and only requiring around hour to get through I'd reco...more

1 like · like · see review

Feb 13, 2013 Everett Pantaloons rated it 3 of 5 stars

Shelves: non-fiction, philosophy

Of recent I've been dabbling a bit into the philosophy of lying and the one thing I've discovered is that everyone seems to have a completely different definition for the word "lying."

In Mark Twain's On the Decay of the Art of Lying he discusses lying as an art form and defines lying as anything that is not the truth. Twain argues that there is an art to lying and that people do, and indeed should, lie at the right times so long as it benefits others. I, for the most part, agreed with what Twain...more

1 like · like · see review

Philip Same Hum, Hum, Hum. To lie is not innate in us, but here, to expel the son we must than expel the father, so goes articulate communication.

Each of these f...more
updated May 15, 2013 12:00pm

Michael Kenning 'I will make use of Twain's suggestion to lie so long as it benefits another without any harm to anyone...'

This is precisely the problem that Sam Harr...more
May 15, 2013 04:13am

Everett Pantaloons Michael wrote: "'I will make use of Twain's suggestion to lie so long as it benefits another without any harm to anyone...'

This is precisely the probl...more Michael wrote: "'I will make use of Twain's suggestion to lie so long as it benefits another without any harm to anyone...'

This is precisely the problem that Sam Harris outlines in his essay. Who are you to jud..."

Oh, I agree that the truth is a wonderful thing and should be utilized as much as possible. But again it's mostly a semantics thing. Harris defines lying as "to intentionally mislead others when they expect honest communication." Twain, on the other hand, defines lying as anything but the truth (e.g. exaggerations, sarcasms, etc.). Twain points out that anyone who told the whole truth all the time and nothing but would be a very rude person.

From Twain's essay: "...the wise thing is for us diligently to train ourselves to lie thoughtfully, judiciously; to lie with a good object, and not an evil one; to lie for others' advantage, and not our own; to lie healingly, charitably, humanely, not cruelly, hurtfully, maliciously; to lie gracefully and graciously, not awkwardly and clumsily; to lie firmly, frankly, squarely, with head erect, not haltingly, tortuously, with pusillanimous mien, as being ashamed of our high calling."

I agree with Harris that we should be honest, no matter how harsh the truth may be, especially to friends, when we see that it can potentially help them out. At the same time I also agree with Twain (due mostly to semantics) that sometimes it is not only okay but appropriate to lie, so long as it is not solely for your own benefit. Twain also argues that lying is inherent in man's nature and that to rid ourselves of lying completely would be a vain pursuit and that instead we should train ourselves to lie in a positive way.

To answer your question of "Who are you to judge the benefit of a lie to a person's life, and who are you to know its future implications?" I will say that you are right in saying that I don't, that none of us do. But that doesn't stop us from making judgement. Everything we do in life is a guess, a gamble--and everything we do affects others (to varying degrees), so to say that we shouldn't judge because we aren't omniscient is to say that we should never do anything at all. In anything we do we can never be 100% sure that it is the best thing or the right thing, we can't even be certain that there is such a thing as a "best" or "right" thing. The world runs on judgement and judgement is a very natural thing.

When you are confronted with the option whether you should lie or not you must make a judgement based mostly on, yes, intuition. But to mindlessly ignore the present option of lying and automatically and mindlessly tell the truth is, in my mind, foolish. Perhaps in an ideal world it would be best, but, as most anyone will tell you, we are not living in such a world. What happens when our intuition, the tool we possess to help us choose potentially good decisions, tells us that we should lie? Should we just defy our intuition without further consideration?

Of course if you think your friend (or anyone for that matter) would benefit by your truthfulness (which, in most cases, they will) then of course you should not lie. But that's a judgement that must be made. If there is a situation where you feel that the truth would not benefit someone (and indeed perhaps even hurt them or, on the other hand, if a lie might benefit them; or perhaps it is a situation that is of little importance or meaning and you're sure that anything you say will have little affect) then I think it is good manners to tell a little lie.

Also, a short comment on the nature of reality (something that can be talked about in great length, but I'd rather not): Reality is, as most nowadays seem to agree, subjective or at the very least holds a certain level of subjectivity. We decide what reality is. In telling a lie you are not "denying your friend the reality of a situation" but rather altering their reality. Everything we do and everything that happens to us manipulates our reality and perception. Reality isn't something we start at, it's something we arrive at; because it is of our own making (and by "own" I not only mean the individual but the individual's environment as well).

I am in agreement with both Twain and Harris (once again mostly due to semantics) but I do think that in following Harris' logic too strictly one may be led to unnecessary and unproductive rudeness, justified only by the claim of "honesty".

I recommend giving Twain's essay a read; it's very short and can be found for free online. I suspect it may be of some interest to you and may help you in your ponderment of Harris' argument.(less)
May 15, 2013 05:48am

Dec 05, 2012 Gordon rated it 5 of 5 stars

This is an essay, only 26 pages long, that manages to marshal a convincing set of arguments as to why lying is almost always a bad thing. The only time it is acceptable and perhaps even good, the author argues, is to avert a greater evil -- for example, to save a life or to avoid great harm. If someone brandishes a knife at you and asks if you like his haircut, it's OK to say "yes" even if you think it looks like it was done with garden shears.

All the other reasons for lying ultimately lead to b...more This is an essay, only 26 pages long, that manages to marshal a convincing set of arguments as to why lying is almost always a bad thing. The only time it is acceptable and perhaps even good, the author argues, is to avert a greater evil -- for example, to save a life or to avoid great harm. If someone brandishes a knife at you and asks if you like his haircut, it's OK to say "yes" even if you think it looks like it was done with garden shears.

All the other reasons for lying ultimately lead to bad results, says Harris. For example:
Lying to avoid hurting someone's feelings? That means that person may never hear the truth about, the fact that their acting is terrible and they really need to get some dramatic coaching; or that their writing is flabby and needs some radical editing; or ... You get the idea. He does not argue for tactlessness or cruelty, but he does say that these sorts of so-called white lies are mainly for the benefit of the teller of lies, who just doesn't want to face the discomfort of being honest about a difficult matter.

Lying to cover up your own misbehavior? We all know how that tends to turn out -- if you're famous enough or your misdeed is serious enough, on the front pages or on the blogs or both.

Lying to protect someone else by covering up their misbehavior? Misplaced loyalty to friends, family and tribe has led to a great deal of evil in the world. Think of the cover-ups of child molestation in the Catholic Church, typically out of a desire to protect the tribe (in this case, that of the priesthood and the Church), and how that turned out.

Lying through omission? If it's intended to deceive, then it's still lying.

Overall, I found his arguments very convincing and an excellent lesson in practical ethics. Some I have talked to thought that his writing was shallow. I, on the other hand, thought it was clear and straight-forward, but far from shallow. The path of absolute honesty that he advocates is a difficult one for almost everyone, I suspect, but one that is well worth is well worth pondering and living.

P.S. I highly recommend Sam Harris' earlier book, Letter to a Christian Nation. It's superb.(less)

like · see review

Sep 13, 2012 Vernard rated it 4 of 5 stars

Recommended to Vernard by: Sam Harris

First, this piece was so small I couldn't call it a book, but an essay; and masterfully done too. I was impressed on how much I was enlightened on the complex views on a single paradox of human life—Lies. The essay first focused on the definition of lie (well, after the introduction), and pose a seemingly easy-to-answer question that has thrived in humanity's quest for moral endeavors: "IS IT WRONG TO LIE?" You'd be surprised—the average "common-sense" person would say:

"Well it could be relativ...more First, this piece was so small I couldn't call it a book, but an essay; and masterfully done too. I was impressed on how much I was enlightened on the complex views on a single paradox of human life—Lies. The essay first focused on the definition of lie (well, after the introduction), and pose a seemingly easy-to-answer question that has thrived in humanity's quest for moral endeavors: "IS IT WRONG TO LIE?" You'd be surprised—the average "common-sense" person would say:

"Well it could be relative. There are instances that lying is acceptable, and other instances that it is not. Right?"

The common response sounds agreeable, but no, Sam Harris wittingly demonstrates in his essay that Lies, within the core of all human relationships, is never right. He even cited an example he heard from a seminar how even Ann Frank lying to the Nazis attempting to hide Jews in the attic could lead to another catastrophe, and even simple white lies can actually do future harm than good — an instance in which he made an example of a friend asking if he was fat.

Thankfully though, he withdraws the negativity of lies in terms of espionage and wars. As a person very much interested in the Intelligence field, I appreciate that, I won't feel any degeneration if I am to lie if it is my job to lie; and Sam Harris is right. Spies are required to lie for the sake of National security, failing to do so can even cause international conflict. A lie committed in the name of Espionage at a time of war (or a "cold war") have no means of severing a relationship—because there has not been a positive relationship from the beginning anyway. So, in my interpretation, lying under espionage is not a lie, but a tactic, or a weapon.

For the minus 1 star, the conclusion in the end of the piece seems spastic. It is a proper, well written conclusion, but it looks like the summary of everything else written above. I actually think I can 'feel' I've read the piece completely even without the conclusion.(less)

like · see review

Sep 07, 2012 Hinch rated it 3 of 5 stars

Lying is a simple and calmly written essay that seeks to establish an argument against deception. The argument isn't rooted in philosophy, or morality, but rather the pragmatic notion that lying, almost without exception, undercuts our integrity, degrades the quality of our relationships, and impedes on the opportunities and well being of all involved.

I was especially taken by the idea that a "white lie", the kind we imagine will protect another person from hurt or embarrassment, is instead an a...more

2 likes · like · see review

Aug 07, 2012 Elliot rated it 2 of 5 stars

Shelves: philosophy

Harris, in this insubstantial (seriously -- 50 pages of text, scarcely a paragraph per page) essay/e-book, attempts to illustrate why lying (or, more properly, deception) is almost universally a bad idea. He is not arguing that lying is necessarily wrong, but inadvisable and counterproductive.

Harris doesn't advance any particularly interesting arguments, and even undercuts his own examples more than once. (For example, a lesson involving a child who tells a visiting couple that his father actual...more Harris, in this insubstantial (seriously -- 50 pages of text, scarcely a paragraph per page) essay/e-book, attempts to illustrate why lying (or, more properly, deception) is almost universally a bad idea. He is not arguing that lying is necessarily wrong, but inadvisable and counterproductive.

Harris doesn't advance any particularly interesting arguments, and even undercuts his own examples more than once. (For example, a lesson involving a child who tells a visiting couple that his father actually isn't thrilled to see one of them doesn't really say much about lying per se, just lying in front of children. And he seems, in the example of a less than enthused recipient of a gift, only to argue for a more affirmative way of avoiding the question "Do you like it?", one not entirely distinguishable from deception. His example of a person protecting a child from a murder also seems off. Of course it is dangerous and stupid to say, "I think I saw the kid run off that way!," because the killer might accidentally kill a child who happened to be wherever you point. But is it really more utilitarian to say, "I wouldn't tell you even if I knew. And if you take another step, I'll put a bullet in your brain," when this braggadocio could easily lead you, and the hidden child, to harm, especially when a lie like "I haven't seen the child" will suffice?)

His broad points are obvious and agreeable: lying doesn't consist so much in speaking falsehoods, but in devaluing interpersonal relationships. And so even white lies are bad, since they deny you the ability to speak openly about how you feel*. He cites research that suggests that people tend to distrust people more after they lie to them, neat empirical backing for his campaign against white lies. And, since the harmful effects of lying come from its ability to erode relationships, we are more excused in lying to those with whom we cannot form relationships (e.g. killers). (Harris doesn't make his point so explicit, since it's not exactly that simple.)

I downloaded a copy of this, released for free last week by Harris. If you can get a copy, treat yourself to an hour's leisure and read it. If not, don't bother. There's virtually nothing new here.

* Partially a cop-out. Harris notes that some questions ("Does this dress make me look fat?") may not really be questions at all, and so thus doesn't require a literally honest answer.(less)

1 like · like · see review

Aug 02, 2012 M87 rated it 5 of 5 stars

There are a lot of details and special scenarios that are worth exploring in depth, but that should not take away from the the general applicability of Sam's thesis which I find very compelling. Lying doesn't seem like an optimum strategy for most of cases where we actually end-up lying, because we are bad judges of this kind of decision making. In terms of a cognitive cost-benefit analysis, it seems that lying is a waste of energy.

Now, without dismissing the central thesis of the essay, I woul...more There are a lot of details and special scenarios that are worth exploring in depth, but that should not take away from the the general applicability of Sam's thesis which I find very compelling. Lying doesn't seem like an optimum strategy for most of cases where we actually end-up lying, because we are bad judges of this kind of decision making. In terms of a cognitive cost-benefit analysis, it seems that lying is a waste of energy.

Now, without dismissing the central thesis of the essay, I would like to discuss two concerns with anyone willing to enlighten the debate.

1) Pinker discusses here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3-son3... the nature of language and things like politeness and the importance of 'the emperor's new clothes' kind of communication to maintain the social fabric. More explicitly, there is no doubt that an entire society thats pretending about everything with the fear that they will be found out is clearly not optimum, however, is it clear that being completely honest, forthright and open about *everything* an optimum strategy? I have doubts about this as I feel that if it was the most optimum strategy then there would be zero selection pressure to lie/pretend just a little but it seems to be pervasive and deeply ingrained enough to have served some social function. Maybe we have outlived the social function and it's hurting us now, because the landscape is changed so much and pretenses can be discovered and unravelled easily with technology and we need to adapt. However, I am still firmly agnostic that pretending a little is not an optimum strategy. If someone has read about any empirical data in this field (as in a study of a highly honest/forthright vs slightly less honest society) then it would be nice. Pinker seems to support the book overall, so I don't think that it's contents are obviously conflicting with his work.

2) What about the reality of the human condition? It's been established pretty firmly that the more rational and honest you are about your own reality, the more depressed you tend to become. So, it seems like self-deception to a *certain* degree is definitely optimum for different individuals. Indeed, studies show that we have plenty of in-built irrational bugs in the brain like optimism bias, everybody thinking they are the exception to the rule, everyone thinking they are above-average, the Dunning-Kruger effect where the more incompetent you are, the more competent you feel etc. Then there are obviously politically and socially sensitive subjects that we are silent about that HBD (human-biodiversity) pushers want people to know and confront. Things like the genetics of violence, intelligence etc. We live in a society where we must pretend that everyone is equal in all respects but this is obviously factually incorrect and the truth is that people are different. Would it be a good idea to be honest with people who are stupid that they are stupid and that there isn't much that they can do to change it? Would it be a good idea to be honest about what we really value explicitly knowing very well that in the future, people will be able to discover if they have what it people really value?

The basic distinction worth considering is this: there are features/properties and truths about ourselves that revealing at any given time can allow for remedying the situation by working on the features and properties themselves or by adopting environmental strategies to work overcome the features/properties is they are intransigent. But what if we have core features that we cannot conceivably change with any amount of trying *yet* and there is no way to overcome the problem because of how people value things and the brutal honesty that we have admitted to adhere to? Can we imagine a world where we can be honest to a man (or set of people) that IQ predicts life-outcomes better than any other measure and so does self-control and you are in the bottom ten percent, in addition to being short that reduces your chance of marriage and family drastically... etc?

None of these things should throw into question the basic argument that lying seems like a bad idea in general, but is psychopathic truth-telling the best strategy?
(less)

like · see review

Aug 02, 2012 Marta rated it 1 of 5 stars

Shelves: owned

This book - or booklet, with its couple dozen pages - is an attempt of Sam Harris to describe and justify his personal philosophy of honesty and avoiding lies if at all possible. The author does not shy away from the classical "but what if an axe-murderer asks me about a child hiding in my house" dilemma, and from providing a scathing critique of white lies and lies that spare someone's feelings, and in this, I found the essay interesting. It is well-written, too, interesting, not a word too lon...more

2 likes · like · see review

Apr 14, 2012 Gail rated it 3 of 5 stars · review of another edition

As someone who finds it incredibly difficult and unnatural to lie, and who, as a result, knows full well the pitfalls of being constantly honest, I was curious to read this book. It had very good reviews - but after reading it I wasn't really sure why. It's not a terrible book, but what it says is either blatantly obvious (to me, at any rate), or else not entirely true. While of course there are many kinds of untruth that cause all kinds of problem, the author goes as far as to argue that any ki...more

1 like · like · see review

Mar 26, 2012 Tom rated it 3 of 5 stars

3 1/2 stars. This short essay, which is easily read in one sitting, espouses the idea that lying is almost always bad and contrary to our true interests. Harris doesn't go as far as Kant in saying that lying is always wrong (thankfully), but he does stress the fact that it is usually very difficult to justify telling the lies we often do on a day-to-day basis. He also stresses the harm that lying can inadvertently engender in a relationship and the presumptions about other people we necessarily...more 3 1/2 stars. This short essay, which is easily read in one sitting, espouses the idea that lying is almost always bad and contrary to our true interests. Harris doesn't go as far as Kant in saying that lying is always wrong (thankfully), but he does stress the fact that it is usually very difficult to justify telling the lies we often do on a day-to-day basis. He also stresses the harm that lying can inadvertently engender in a relationship and the presumptions about other people we necessarily must hold if we are to justify lying to them. I agree with Harris generally, and most of his points can be well taken.

However, one of his examples he gives regarding how a person can avoid lying is questionable. A person gives him a gift which he clearly does not like--I think it was a sweater or something. When asked by the giver if he likes it, Harris says that he would respond with something along the lines of, "Well, I really don't think I could pull this off. My style is somewhere between the lines of boring and totally boring, and this isn't for me." Of course, this doesn't answer the giver's question, and it could even be taken as a lie itself, in some sense. The purpose of the hypothetical statement is to give one truth (not being fashionable enough to pull off a certain garb) in order to implicitly deceive regarding the true question ("It's not that I don't like it, it's just that I couldn't pull it off!"). Whether we wish to actually call this a "lie" is irrelevant. The point is that there's a clear ethical difference in telling the truth flat-out, unambiguously, and leading a person on with a related statement hoping that they will draw a conclusion that is ultimately deceptive to them.

Nevertheless, while Harris doesn't say anything particularly original here, he does a service to practical ethics in maintaining that lying is often the easy thing to do, but it is often not the ethical thing. And we would be better people and have better relationships if we realized that we shouldn't lie as much as we do.(less)

like · see review

Mar 23, 2012 Donna rated it 3 of 5 stars

Shelves: essays-ideas

“Kant believed that lying was unethical in all cases,” Sam Harris observes. “His position on lying was not so much argued for as presumed, like a religious precept.” In this essay, by contrast, Harris attempts to argue from reason that lying is always destructive and generally morally wrong. He fails.

The problem is that interactions between human beings are much more complex than reason alone can understand. Several different parts of the brain are involved—not just the frontal cortex, where rea...more

like · see review

Mar 18, 2012 Juan Manuel rated it 4 of 5 stars

Libros de superación personal: ¡Sam Harris llamó y dijo que para hablar sobre cosas relevantes acerca de nuestra naturaleza humana no necesita siquiera gastar cien páginas (o decir pamplinas)!

Mentimos para quedar bien, mentimos para hacer sentir bien, mentimos cuando no aclaramos las falsas percepciones, mentimos cuando obviamos ciertas situaciones. Creemos que no hacemos daño y nos acostumbramos a seguirlo haciendo casi como si fuera respirar.

Harris despliega en este ensayo conciso un argumento...more

2 likes · like · see review

Mar 04, 2012 Jorge rated it 4 of 5 stars

Shelves: philosophy-ethics

Lying (Kindle Single) by Sam Harris

“Lying" is the Kindle Single that makes the compelling case that society and our own lives would simplify and improve if we didn't lie. Neuroscientist, atheist icon and accomplished author Dr. Sam Harris provides yet another thought-provoking title. In this brief but eloquent essay, Harris convincingly establishes the virtues of not lying. This 145-KB book is composed of the following twelve chapters: 1. What is a Lie?, 2. The Mirror of Honesty, 3. Two Types of...more

1 like · like · see review

Jan 07, 2012 Joseph Suh rated it 4 of 5 stars

As is always the case with Sam Harris work, "Lying" was easy-to-read and immediately applicable to your daily life (or, at least, it was for mine).

If you didn't know Sam Harris before reading this short e-book (or PDF), you undoubtedly should after you finish it. As one of the most prominent intellectuals of our time, Harris provides his thoughts on honesty (and lying) in this succinct single.

Not only is this essay short in regards to length, but Harris also writes directly, utilizing four-syl...more

1 like · like · see review

Jan 02, 2012 Charles rated it 3 of 5 stars

I'm a huge fan of Harris's previous books, and that was the major reason I decided to read this one. As other reviewers have noted, it's very short... it shouldn't take more than an hour to read through it.

Harris argues that lying is almost always the wrong choice. He provides a number of examples that illustrate this. The content of the essay was more or less what I expected... certainly there is no new ground being broken here. Even so, he does make some great points. One of his major argumen...more

like · see review

Dec 16, 2011 Cara rated it 4 of 5 stars

Shelves: kindle, life

This is a philosophical Kindle Short about lying. The argument is that, unless you're dealing with someone you never want to have any kind of relationship with (ex. psychopath, enemy in war)--and maybe not even then--lying does more harm than good. Even white lies meant to spare the other person's feelings or be polite cause damage to a relationship. He gives the example of "Does this dress make me look fat?"--Instead of rushing to say "no!", consider the truth, which might be any of these:
- Tha...more

1 like · like · see review

Dec 09, 2011 Rob rated it 3 of 5 stars

I thoroughly enjoy Sam Harris' books. He writes extremely well, and the subject matter is always relevant and timely (timeless?). All of this is true with Lying.

I have two issues with this book. On the substance, Harris overstates his case. As I read I thought of a number of counterexamples to the points he made. He laid out his case well, but he didn't take on the counterarguments as a philosopher normally does. Perhaps this is more a function of the format of this long-essay style; if so, I w...more

like · see review

Dec 06, 2011 Paul Eckert rated it 3 of 5 stars

Sam Harris makes a convincing case that lying, in almost every situation, does more damage than good. Yes, even the little white lies that we tell to make others feel better. While we believe that we are protecting them, we could be doing much more damage than we realize.

Throughout the essay, Harris gives numerous examples in which lying has either damaged relationships or promoted distorted world views. He differeniates between the different types of lies, and the damage they're likely to cause...more

like · see review

Oct 27, 2011 Adam rated it 3 of 5 stars

Lying is a short essay in which Sam Harris attempts to explain how lying, in almost every capacity, is detrimental to our interactions with fellow human beings on all levels.

While many may interpret this as an argument of extremity, I think that the real argument is intended as more of a cautionary tale: lies and deceit break down our ability to build trust between individuals as well as groups (i.e. state and it's populace), which in turn can limit people's abilities to live life to their desir...more

like · see review

Oct 03, 2011 Tucker rated it 4 of 5 stars

Shelves: finished, less-relativist

This is a bit longer than a magazine essay and in its length feels more like a journal article than a book. It covers a lot of ground and makes the point quite clearly.

Harris is a consequentialist, something he does not argue for in this book but explained previously in The Moral Landscape. Consequentialism is a theory that maintains that the ethical value of an act is determined by its consequences. Consequentialism is often broken down into two main types: one in which the outcome of each spec...more This is a bit longer than a magazine essay and in its length feels more like a journal article than a book. It covers a lot of ground and makes the point quite clearly.

Harris is a consequentialist, something he does not argue for in this book but explained previously in The Moral Landscape. Consequentialism is a theory that maintains that the ethical value of an act is determined by its consequences. Consequentialism is often broken down into two main types: one in which the outcome of each specific act must be evaluated separately (as much as possible), and one in which general rules may be formulated based on the usual or probable outcomes of similar acts. Harris presents a clear example of the latter type in his wholesale rejection of lying.

What is lying? It's a deliberate attempt to deceive others into believing something different than what we believe to be true. It may be an act of omission -- we can lie through what we don't say -- but this is a little more slippery, as Harris finds nothing offensive about the concept of privacy and furthermore is aware that if we resolved to communicate all the information we knew and correct every error we perceived we'd never have time to sleep. So Harris chose to focus on acts of commission. He gives a lot of attention to so-called "white lies" that are usually well-meaning attempts to spare others' feelings.

Why does Harris say lying is undesirable? For a multitude of reasons. For one, it breaks down human relationships. It is wonderful to have friends who will tell you the truth, even when it is hard to hear, he says. When we hide our weaknesses or fail to critique someone who is asking for honest feedback, we are giving up opportunities to grow. This sort of stunting becomes offensive in principle: "deciding how much (another) can know about himself seems the quintessence of arrogance," and as a result of keeping others ignorant of the truth, "to lie is to infringe upon the freedom of those we care about." For another reason, liars have to remember everything they've lied about. "To agree to keep a secret," small as it may seem, "is to assume a burden." Due to a strange fact about human psychology, liars deprecate their "victims" so as to justify their own lying behavior to themselves, and thus liars become less trustful of other people even as those who have been lied to have more reason not to trust the liars. Lying thus makes everyone unhappier. When authorities lie, it causes mass confusion when people no longer know what information sources to trust, and this ruins public debate. For yet another reason, while liars have to remember everything they've lied about, people who are lied to cannot forget anything they've been lied to about. What psychologists call the "illusory truth effect" means that "We seem to be predisposed to remember statements as true even after they have been disconfirmed." A lie is forever, no matter how many times you try to take it back.

To Harris, as a consequentialist, anything that harms the ability of humans to thrive is morally wrong. Therefore, lying is wrong.

He does, briefly, admit that there might be some exceptions to the rule. "If you think that it can ever be appropriate to injure or kill a person in self-defense, or in defense of another, it makes no sense to rule out lying in the same circumstances," he explains. It is permissible to lie in the unusual circumstance that "we have judged the prospects of establishing a real relationship with this person to be nonexistent." Even then, however, he suggests that the truth is often better than a lie. He provides a typical example of giving shelter to a child pursued by a murderer. If the murderer asks if you are sheltering the child, rather than saying "no," you could say (in Harris's script), "I wouldn't tell you even if I knew. And if you take another step, I'll put a bullet in your brain." Something seems amiss here. Supplying a physical threat surely assumes the inability to develop a "real relationship" as much as lying assumes it, and degrades an existing relationship as much as lying degrades it. Furthermore, the one-liner is only available to people who do not stutter when facing a serial killer at their front door and happen to have a loaded pistol in their pocket. Elsewhere, in describing war, Harris said: "The moment one begins dropping bombs, or destroying a country's infrastructure with cyber attacks, lying has become just another weapon in the arsenal." If lying is a kind of weapon, then surely it is a useful weapon for the physically weak to fairly level the playing field against those who have initiated physical force against them. This wrinkle is not something he addresses.

One other example sounds a bit askew. He writes that one possible result of honesty is that "real problems in your life can be forced to the surface. Are you in an abusive relationship? A refusal to lie to others--How did you get that bruise?--might oblige you to come to grips with this situation very quickly." It seems generally true that people in abusive or self-harming situations are better off telling the truth so they can get help. However, there are complicated psychological reasons why they may lie (by commission or omission) to protect their abusers, skate through a fearful moment, and maintain their dangerous situations. Faced with such an event, I would add more nuance to the consequentialist perspective and emphasize the "lying is harmful" while almost entirely dropping off the "and therefore immoral." In certain situations, judging an action to be "morally wrong" can be an effective way of bringing about a stop to that behavior. It can put a cork in selfishness, hubris, and so forth. By contrast, judging abuse victims to be committing moral wrong against themselves while they try to navigate their way out of a psychological prison does not help their situation, but only compounds their confusion.

Part of the issue here is that Harris, throughout his book, depicts lies as having very short shelf-lives--their usefulness can begin deteriorating within seconds after the lie's cover is blown. Those of us who are concerned with long-term decision-making may read philosophy to learn how to live happier lives overall. Yet even those of us who consider ourselves long-term thinkers may experience certain moments -- confronting a serial killer at the front door, being stuck in an abusive relationship -- when we are trapped in short-term survival thinking. In those moments, we don't really care about the long-term prognosis of our lies of various colors. The long-term effects of our words may be objectively relevant and applicable, but we are not capable of analyzing them or caring about them. This oversight is a weakness in this short book.

The book is nevertheless a good introduction to thinking about the question of lying. It makes a number of good points clearly and raises many worthwhile questions.(less)

1 like · like · see review

Sep 28, 2011 Greg Stoll rated it 3 of 5 stars

Lying is a Kindle single whose thesis is simple: lying is (almost always) bad. In general I agree, but the book takes it to extremes where the argument is more interesting and harder to get behind:

- White lies (when getting a gift, for example). The example they give is for an ugly piece of clothing: you could say that you're touched the gifter thought of you, but "I don't think I can pull this off" or something. This sounds very hard to do in real life. The authors explain that you're eroding t...more

1 like · like · see review

Sep 19, 2011 Daniel rated it 5 of 5 stars

Sam Harris is the incarnation of purely rational thought. Lying serves as well as any of his works hitherto published to demonstrate this. Weighing in at what probably amounts to half the size of Letter to a Christian Nation, Lying is a very short read (I took an hour, but I am generally rather slow). But it is dense, and, while by no means is it, or would it claim to be, comprehensive, it does cover its topic very well. The arguments seem not only indisputable, but entirely natural. They simply...more Sam Harris is the incarnation of purely rational thought. Lying serves as well as any of his works hitherto published to demonstrate this. Weighing in at what probably amounts to half the size of Letter to a Christian Nation, Lying is a very short read (I took an hour, but I am generally rather slow). But it is dense, and, while by no means is it, or would it claim to be, comprehensive, it does cover its topic very well. The arguments seem not only indisputable, but entirely natural. They simply feel right. In a manner similar to Harris' The Moral Landscape: How Science Can Determine Human Values, Lying lays out the framework for making decisions in cases of honesty, leaving the reader to determine the proper action in specific cases. (No, it does not tell you what to do if you have Anne Frank in the attic and the Nazis are knocking at the door, though it does raise that conundrum.) But that is not to suggest that this is entirely skeletal. There are plenty of examples given. Some are obviously made up, some Harris claims to be personal experience (it would be in bad taste for him to lie about their truth, wouldn't it?), and one particularly poignant one comes from a reader of Harris'. While it is unavoidable that some of these will sound a bit corny ("Jessica recently overheard her friend Lucy telling a white lie..."), they are as well written as Harris could have made them, and they serve their purpose just fine. Others are, in fact, quite good. He gives a very interesting account of an interaction between himself and a US customs agent. This sort of thing is somewhat new for Harris, as is the rather rich humor peppered throughout parts of the beginning. The Harris Hallmark, the comprehensive notes section, is, of course, present here. I wouldn't say this will change my thinking as radically as The Moral Landscape did, but I certainly have a lot to consider, and I don't think I'll emerged unaltered. Overall, I found this to be an enlightening and well argued taste of writing, and I imagine it will be much more accepted than Harris' previous works. I do not doubt, however, that it will receive all the controversy it deserves.(less)

1 like · like · see review

Jun 10, 2013 Michael Palkowski rated it 3 of 5 stars · review of another edition

Harris disavows Kant's firm headed position on lies here as being unethical in all instances by stating that only a psychopath would endorse them in reality. A total prohibition and rejection of lies therefore is not his intention, but it's close. While his analysis is rooted explicitly in reason, it focuses in on its subject using a kind of rule utilitarian perspective. Lies often create problems down the line, perturb preexisting friendships and prevent others from improving or ditching bad ch...more
Harris disavows Kant's firm headed position on lies here as being unethical in all instances by stating that only a psychopath would endorse them in reality. A total prohibition and rejection of lies therefore is not his intention, but it's close. While his analysis is rooted explicitly in reason, it focuses in on its subject using a kind of rule utilitarian perspective. Lies often create problems down the line, perturb preexisting friendships and prevent others from improving or ditching bad choices in life. Therefore don't lie except when it's convenient like in suicide cases and other isolated exceptions. It therefore takes a position on lying which is as rooted in classical enlightenment philosophy as the deontological perspective he rejects.

He focuses on white lies and common scenarios familiar to everyone with a background in moral philosophy. An example is the classic statement "Do I look fat in this dress?", Harris suggests that you should tell the truth. What Harris undermines despite mentioning it briefly is how these statements are not explicitly meant to be answered as they are are pieces of social rhetoric and not direct questions. They are rooted in the same vein as "How are you?" and social communication is very complicated. The book doesn't analyze the reasons for lying or any interesting neuropsychology but rather those consequences of doing it. It thus reduces everyone reading the book into the same category with the same intentions and motivations, it's a generalized maxim. Moral philosophy is really murky and is only getting more complex with globalized, networked societies and social media sites allowing users to selectively augment their own life space to make it look more interesting and novel to friends and outsiders alike and the book is simply too frugal to appreciate this overwhelming complexity.

The book itself however is a brilliant idea in that it creates an assessable and quick read on a really important issue in society. Too often philosophical texts have been full of obfuscation and coated with difficult rhetoric and are tediously long, with only academic readers in mind. This takes the philosophy classroom onto the streets and makes it interesting and despite tons of limitations and too much anecdotal truism for my liking instead of studies and polemicism, it is a concept that I hope other authors will bring back: Long live the long essay!(less)

like · see review

Sep 22, 2011 Shaun rated it 5 of 5 stars

I started reading Sam Harris with his book "The Moral Landscape" - in which Sam Harris demonstrates that Science has the ability to inform us what on makes our actions Moral or Immoral.

Sam Harris' new work,"Lying" seems to be one of the small projects which capitalizes on his previous work. Of course everyone was most likely taught by their parents that they should be truthful and abstain from lying. Somewhere along the way into adulthood and maturity, people seem to come to the conclusion tha...more I started reading Sam Harris with his book "The Moral Landscape" - in which Sam Harris demonstrates that Science has the ability to inform us what on makes our actions Moral or Immoral.

Sam Harris' new work,"Lying" seems to be one of the small projects which capitalizes on his previous work. Of course everyone was most likely taught by their parents that they should be truthful and abstain from lying. Somewhere along the way into adulthood and maturity, people seem to come to the conclusion that life isn't as "black and white" as this, and sometimes, lying is indeed necessary - especially when the lie is made for the intention of not hurting someone's feelings.

Among other types of lies, Sam Harris deliberates and outlines how even the "white lies" can cause more harm than what one had intended. Indeed, Harris argues that even "white lies" can undermine friendships and relationships, even if one had the best intentions of the other persons feelings.
Harris goes on to argue that little if any positive consequences derive from withholding what one really thinks to be true - especially when the person being lied to, could have really used this honest(although unflattering or unpleasant) information coming from a friend or loved one - instead of this information coming from someone else, that may result in even more embarrassment.

So, although the premise of the book seems to be simple enough ( for some perhaps seemingly too simple ), one must be mindful that there are subtle complexities to lying that a lot of people usually overlook - especially when the consequences of albeit small lies, may spiral into big problems. This makes this piece worth every minute of reading.

I fancy myself to be an honest person, even when it isn't convenient for me to be - but I still learned quite a few things that steadies my Moral compass - Which is something that Sam Harris is genuinely concerned about . . .

I strongly recommend this book - especially since it won't be taxing of your time or money - but helps one reflect on how to be more Morally salient. (less)

like · see review

Apr 25, 2013 Mark Mallett rated it 2 of 5 stars · review of another edition

Shelves: nonfiction, nook

The best thing I can say about this little monograph is that it was free. That might also be a bad thing, since it is what got me to read it. It starts out with some superficial comments about lying being bad in some particular ways. Most of the comments are things you'd think about the first time you thought about the subject, and I had to go back and look to see if this was perhaps targetted to pre-teens, but alas it wasn't. There's nothing deep in the opinionizing, nor broad, and most of it i...more

like · see review

Jan 19, 2012 Ryan Smith rated it 4 of 5 stars

Extraordinarily thorough and readable discourse, especially considering the concise nature of this long essay 'form', on the effects of lying both on the micro (personal) and broader societal(macro) levels. Harris makes quick and wise work of clearing up some of the silly, often semantic hangups of this conversation, i.e. the hairsplitting of technical lying and deceit at large.

I think Harris gives appropriate concessions to the very uncomfortable and concrete ramifications of even 'white' lies...more

like · see review

Sep 25, 2012 Irma Walter rated it 2 of 5 stars

Disappointing. Sam Harris goes into the results of lying in an organised factual manner, but it's nothing that I couldn't have thought of myself. As he is a philosopher and neuroscientist, I expected to gain some new insights.

Sam Harris doesn't really evaluate the reasons for lying. When he touches on social dilemmas, the background is strictly his own. Only once he accommodates another position, that of a spy or an intelligence officer whose job profile includes deceit and cover-up. Repercussio

...more

like · see review

title link	preview: Lying
avg rating	preview: Lying Goodreads rating: 3.83 (2102 ratings)
small image	preview: click here [close]
med image	preview: click here [close]
BBCode	[url=http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/12379144-lying?utm_medium=api&utm_source=blog_book][img]http://d.gr-assets.com/books/1319111661l/12379144.jpg[/img][/url] [url=http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/12379144-lying?utm_medium=api&utm_source=blog_book]Lying by Sam Harris[/url]

Lying

Friend Reviews

Lists with This Book

Community Reviews

new topic
Discuss This Book

combine
Other Editions (5)

Genres

Readers also enjoyed similar books

About Sam Harris

Books by Sam Harris

Share This Book

Share This Book on Your Website

Trivia About Lying

Quotes from Lying