When is ok to tell a lie? Clearly, there may well be some cases, such as hiding Anne Frank.
May we sometimes lie about our infidelity, if e.g. we think it could lead to a jealous murder? What about just to spare jealousy in general?
What about selfish reasons, like avoiding financial repercussions?
Suppose that we are prima facie obligated to believe the testimony of others to some extent, or that by our own assertions, we are, via our assertoric/epistemic attitudes' alethological norms, trying to impose an obligation to believe what we say, on others. As if:
There seems to be something about the default expectations allowable in communication on the one hand, and something about the deontic instability of lying on the other, that at least makes lying and similar acts uniformly problematic. This is not equivalent to a declaration that absolutely all deception everywhere and forever is completely and utterly unjustifiable. For example, if someone sincerely believes in act-utilitarianism and understands the theory enough to nontrivially apply it in their actual life, it would not do to say that such a person is committing an eternal sin if they lie to save a life (or whatever rightly balances the scales of value and disvalue, on their picture of the moral world).
Some people have a naive belief that all lies are bad, but that is simplistic, and is not a useful policy in the real, functional, engaging world of interpersonal relationships.
There is a huge difference between different kinds of lies. There could be a lot of example scenarios of the different types of lie, but at the extremes, there are
Lies to deceive someone with the intention of causing them harm, and malicious untrue gossip.
Lies intended to protect vulnerable people from things they don't really understand, when telling the truth might only cause confusion. Perhaps you'll give a better truth later, once they've understood what you first tell them.
Here is an example to support my assertion that "one must never lie" is simplistic.
Your child is at Uni and steals something, and a police investigation ensues. They are not a bad person and it was out of character – a mistake. Your child confides in you and needs advice, but the police arrive and ask you what you know about it.
If convicted the penalty won't be great, but the record will ruin their career prospects, and the indirect punishment will be out of proportion to the crime. Telling the truth will also break the trust they had in you when they confided, and you know that your child will learn from this mistake.
So do you lie to protect your child, and advise them to quietly return the thing?
Or do you tell the truth to protect the world from your child?
The real world is a complex place, and there are continual tests of our integrity, with competing reasons. A moral compass helps us to make the right decision in these cases, but taking the stance "I must never tell a lie" can be just as a damaging as telling lies.
It depends on what you mean by okay. For me personally, I only think it is appropriate to lie if saying the truth threatens my personal safety.
If not, I don’t think one should lie. Saying the truth ultimately feels better and allows people to like you…for you. Of course, lying certainly has its benefits, but for me, it would eat away at my soul.
Ultimately, there is no right or wrong answer here
Concealing infidelity is morally wrong. Lying to conceal any crime or breach of trust is morally wrong, unless the law is unjust and should be abolished.
The moral harm caused by lying is that it strips others of their right to make their own informed decisions, the same as coercing them by force. The victim of your lying is not able to make the same choices they would make if you had not lied to them. You are trapping them in a false world, leaving them only the illusion of choice. For example, if you are lying about infidelity, your partner is staying with you and trying to make the relationship work, when they would likely make a different decision if they were fully informed. It is the same denial of their autonomy that would result from coercing them to stay with you.
Lying is therefore justified in whatever situation coercing someone by force would be justified. If the Nazis are coming to kill Anne Frank, lying to them is justified, because the use of force against the Nazis would be justified. If someone is not mentally capable of making their own decisions, perhaps because they are a child or mentally handicapped, then the use of force might be permissible in some cases to keep them from harming themselves, for example if they are trying to climb up the girders of a fairground ride. In those cases (where the use of force would be permissible) the use of lying would also be permissible.
But if someone is a mentally capable adult, to lie to them is to deny their autonomy, deny their right to make their own free choices. This is a hostile, controlling act. You are acting as their enemy, whether they know it or not.
Even if you think you're lying to "save them" from making what you consider a bad decision, that's not your decision to make, it's theirs. You have no right to deny their autonomy by making that decision for them without their consent. (Especially if "saving them" from a "bad decision" coincidentally benefits you selfishly, as in the case of lying to a partner about infidelity.)
The general view expressed here is far too permissive to represent philosophy. e.g.
Act‐utilitarianism implies that lying is morally permissible when, and only when, there is no alternative course of action open to one that has better consequences than lying. Many critics contend that utilitarianism is too permissive about the morality of lying.
Appealing to some vague notion that lying makes things easier for you (to cheat?) is just abusrd.
Lies often deprive us of liberty, freedom to act. Is such a lie always wrong? Presumably we can lie to children in this manner, without much fuss.
What about competent adults? If a doctor tell us "this won't hurt at all" to get us to take noxious medicine, he is usually thought of as being a poor doctor, at least. There are almost always more skilful ways of proceeding, if we truly are not lying for our own benefit.
Instead of treating truth or lie separately you’d better treat this as a part of dharma or adharma. Always practice dharma.
When no other alternative is possible, adharma might become necessary to protect a great dharma. First part of your question should be justfied from this point of view.
You should always tell the truth; but in some cases you will have to give up this advice.
satyam bruyat priyam bruyat na bruyat satyam apriyam… satyam bruyat priyam bruyat na bruyat satyam apriyam priyam ca nanrutam bruyat esha dharmah sanatanah
-Manusmriti
Speak the truth, speak pleasantly, Do not speak the truth in an unpleasant manner Even if pleasant, do not speak untruth, This is the path of eternal righteousness.
The consequence of lying is illustrated in the story of Yudhishthira's dog (in the Mahabharata). It indicates the obstacle that can happen in one's spiritual path even through a light lie. And the difficulty of practising the truth can be seen in the story of Harishchandra
Often, the intensity of lying varies according to the situation, your profession, age, relation, etc.
If you are a teacher it is your duty to be a role model for all your students. The same is true in the case of parents and their children. So you should always tell the truth.
But if you are a doctor, sometimes you may have to lie to hide some serious illness to appease the patient and give him confidence when there is no alternative solution. The same is true in the case of a first-aid provider. Even then he never hides the truth from the relatives.
If one can imagine the negative effects, before telling the truth, shocking news is often told starting with a light lie. (Eg: Death of close relatives or friends)
