frame

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

DebateIsland.com is the largest online debate website globally where anyone can anonymously and easily debate online, casually or formally, while connecting with their friends and others. Users, regardless of debating skill level, can civilly debate just about anything online in a text-based online debate website that supports five easy-to-use and fun debating formats ranging from Casual, to Formalish, to Lincoln-Douglas Formal. In addition, people can improve their debating skills with the help of revolutionary artificial intelligence-powered technology on our debate website. DebateIsland is totally free and provides the best online debate experience of any debate website.


Communities




Problems with the concept of "Lying by omission"

Debate Information

I have always had problems with accepting the concept of "Lying by omission". In this debate, I want to raise several objections against the validity of the concept, and as a logical conclusion to the argument, I will advocate for its reconsideration in both social and legal situations.

Let us first define the concept properly. There are quite a few definitions with slightly different connotations. Let us use the following synthetic definition:
"Lying by omission ("deception by omission", "passive lying") is an act of deliberately withholding the truth in order to confirm the existing preconceptions".
To illustrate this concept, let us make a few mock examples.

        1. "You came late yesterday, honey. Where had you been?"
        "I was hanging out with a friend."
(Truth: the friend is her lover and they were having sex.)
        2. "How much money did you have on your bank account when you defaulted on your debt?"
        "I had 2 cents, your honor".
(Truth: he had two bank accounts, and on the other one he had $100,000.)
        3. "Why didn't you come to work yesterday?"
        "Because I was having emotional issues."
(Truth: the issues she was talking about constituted merely pure laziness and procrastination.)
        4. "Did you kill Mr. Braun?"
        "No, I didn't."
(Truth: he hired an assassin to kill Mr. Braun.)

As you can see, in these cases the persons responding to the questions technically told the truth - however, they carefully crafted their responses to misguide the other party that got the wrong idea as a result.
On the surface, it seems to be as good as simply lying, just framed differently. However, both logically and philosophically, there are problems with such interpretation. The most glaring problems are the following:

1. The implication of this concept is that the person is by default obliged to tell all of the (relevant) truth related to the question, rather than simply answer the question.
This, however, is not how language works: when someone asks me what I am doing, I will not tell them that "I am using my brain processes to direct my fingers to hit on just the right parts of my laptop's keyboard in order to send electric signals to the processor in order to produce a message on the Debate Island"; I will simply tell them, "I'm participating in a debate".
In addition, this violates such a fundamental principle as "burden of proof", and derived from it "presumption of innocence". The requirement to always say what creates the "correct" picture in the questioner's mind would assume that the questioned side has to defend their story from being fundamentally incomplete and misleading, and should it be accused of anything, it falls to it to correct the assumption of them lying.

2. It puts the responsibility for the misconceptions created on the part of the questioning side on the questioner. But whose fault is it to hold on to misconceptions for the lack of data?
When I ask someone if they ever killed a human with a gun and they say, "Yes, I did" - is it their fault to fail to mention that the killing happened in 70-s in Vietnam in pure self-defense? Or is it my fault to assume that their answer makes them a murderer and they should be prosecuted?
When I try to make a tea by throwing leafs in water, as I heard my friend doing, and the tea doesn't come out - is it the fault of my friend to fail to explain to me the (obvious) fact that the water has to be heated first, or is it my fault for not doing a proper research on the subject before acting on a limited data?
To me it seems that the misconception can only be blamed on the party that came to it due to making far-fetching conclusions based on a limited data, rather than on the party that failed to inquire as to what misconceptions the first party has and to take an effort to correct them.

From these points, we can see that "lying by omission" fundamentally is not lying at all and only seems that way because we, humans, tend to extrapolate the data we have on the domains it does not necessarily fully apply to. In other words, "lying by omission" is not as much the person's failure to deliver the data, as it is the other person's failure to properly interpret the data.

Based on this, complete abandonment of the concept of "lying by omission" begs for occurring, in two main domains it is applied to: social interaction and legal disputes. In the former case, a lot of situations could be quickly resolved if people judged others' words on their own merit, and not on the assumed "hidden contexts" behind them (this is the primary reason I favor low-context culture over high-context cultures, since in the latter a lot of things are always implied, and people become responsible for actions they never explicitly did). In the latter, the job of both the prosecutors and the defenders would become much easier, as both would always know where the case stands currently, being able to treat it in a more practical matter, rather than constantly argue over hidden context of each other's narrative.

However, complete abandonment of it would be unfeasible. Our language, while trying to be precise, at the same time has to be concise and efficient. We have to be able to understand each other with so few words as possible in order to have any meaningful interaction on a reasonable timescale. When someone offers me a bottle of wine, not knowing for sure whether it is poisoned or not and hence refusing to accept it would be borderline paranoid, and living in such a mathematically strict manner ("If I don't know something for sure, then I cannot act on it") would quickly make one into a raving lunatic with hundreds mental disorders. There is a certain degree of mutual trust and implied context that has to exist in order for the society to exist.

As such, in my view, this entire matter should be approached differently. We should not judge people for failing to tell the entirety of the truth in itself. It is the intent, the practically reasonable consequences, that should be judged. If my wife asks you where I had been yesterday and I tell her that I was with a friend, failing to tell her that I had sex with that friend - then my intent was obviously to avoid letting her know that. When someone under oath in response for a question about their bank accounts points at a tiny irrelevant account and does not point at the several account holding 99.9999% of their funds, it should be treated as intentional misdirection and prosecuted. It is this intention that constitutes the malicious act, not the words themselves.

Granted, we enter the practically challenging territory this way, where it is the existence of the intent that must be proven, not the act of "lying by omission". The intent is much harder to prove and can only be demonstrated by finding a very incriminating evidence. For example, if I poison a wine and give it to someone, then, in order to accuse me of murder, the court will have to prove that I a) knew the wine was poisoned, b) knew that the poison could be enough to kill someone, and c) wanted someone to die. All these things are much harder to prove, than the mere fact that I gave that person the poisoned wine. And, to an extent, at least, some of these things typically are required to be proven in the modern law. However, what often is evaluated is the actions/words themselves, rather than the intent - which I believe to be the core ingredient in this particular type of crime.

I am curious to hear your thoughts on the subject and on my arguments. Do you agree that lying by omission constitutes an act of lying? Do you believe that lying by omission is not something that should be judged negatively? Do you think a proper line should be drawn between the act of deception and the act of intentional misdirection - or do you prefer it to be decided subjectively on the case-by-case basis?

Thanks for reading and debating!



Debra AI Prediction

Predicted To Win
Predicted 2nd Place
33%
Margin

Details +




Post Argument Now Debate Details +

    Arguments


  • JoesephJoeseph 655 Pts   -   edited September 2018

    Lying by omission is not always intended to be harmful; it is often thought of as an action undertaken to spare the recipient pain or embarrassment. But it can still have a detrimental effect on a relationship.


    The reasons one does it can be many and varied , I think intent always has to be taken into account .


    I can give an example,  I work as an a full time artist I sell art at one venue that’s a public open air art gallery and a lot of fun as one is dealing face to face with the public ; people will approach talk about the art and a fair few ask the price of the painting that interests them the most the majority will then make various excuses as in deliberate lies to avoid saying they won’t purchase or cannot afford the piece .


    Every artist I know is familiar with this phenomena the potential buyer will say “ are you here all day “ ( and flee) “   , “ do you have a website “ (and flee)  , “we are redecorating at the moment “ ( and flee ) this is all done to assist them in avoiding telling the truth as in the painting they’ve just told you is fantastic is too expensive for them .


    Too me this is a sort of thing we all do in an effort to avoid hurt feelings on both side , brutal honesty can be hurtful and we all to an extent take part in this deceptive societal dance in an attempt to negotiate our way through at times sticky social interactions 



    I think your suggestion that maybe  it could be taken  case by case is possibly the most reasonable position to take because the reasoning behind each case can be so rich and varied .

    Thank you for posting up this excellent topic for debate. 


  • OppolzerOppolzer 191 Pts   -  

    This is an interesting topic because it integrates the sentiment of “What constitutes a lie?”

    What defines “lying” is subjective and different for everyone. Therefore, regarding omitting essential information depends on the circumstances and the nature of the information you’re concealing:

    Instance 1: When one leaves out critical information with the intention to deceive, I will consider it is lying. The person deceiving is conscious that by omitting the significant information, someone is going to adopt a belief that’s untrue. For example, if you are applying for a job and fail to impart that you were arrested a few months ago, it would be lying by omission. Another postulate would be not telling someone something that they have a right to know. For example, you’ve been cheating with your spouse or significant other. Both instances lead someone to a false conclusion in which they have a right to know.

    Instance 2: When one leaves out significant information concerning their privacy, then nobody can demand you to assert something against your will. If there’s information that’s merely about you that no one has any specific right to, you’re not obliged to tell it. That’s mere irreverence. For example, if someone asks “How are you doing?” and you deliberately omit the part where you were diagnosed with a deadly form of leukemia, that would be leaving out significant information. Albeit, with something regarding that, they have no right to know the whole truth, but it could technically be acknowledged lying by omission.

    I conclude that withholding essential information that someone needs to know or has the right to know is considered lying by omission. Therefore, withholding information that’s private and an intrinsic right to you, I don’t regard lying by omission.

Sign In or Register to comment.

Back To Top

DebateIsland.com

| The Best Online Debate Experience!
© 2023 DebateIsland.com, all rights reserved. DebateIsland.com | The Best Online Debate Experience! Debate topics you care about in a friendly and fun way. Come try us out now. We are totally free!

Contact us

customerservice@debateisland.com
Terms of Service

Get In Touch