A world without lies

[Kato]

Okay guys, another little thought experiment fodder:
What if humans were unable to lie? Ignoring the "why" question, let's assume like some fictional races humans are so innocent they can't even think of lying (anymore), including half-truths or anything like that. Of course this doesn't mean a person can not be "wrong", it just means they can't be intentionally wrong.

I think (citation needed) the idea of abstract thought which directly leads to the ability to lie when speech comes into the picture is considered an important feature of humans and likely part of the reason we are so successful as a species, so we won't retroactively assume we never were able to speak falsities but from now on, everything a person communicates must be their honest thoughts.

So, after every politician lost his job and nine out of ten relationships are destroyed, how long until the human race stops to exist after we apply this new rule to human society? :smalltongue:


edit: Attempt to clarify the scenario: Again, without taking into account "how", people can not lie, or rather they feel no need to lie. Or conceal anything. Yes, this clearly disregards any thought on the consequences of telling the truth but let us assume people do just that. It still allows for people to have differing opinions, clearly, as different knowledge or just different evaluation or interpretation of knowledge allows for differing opinions but one can not (to further one's own or in someone else's favor) withhold the truth let alone announce something that is by their knowledge false or even feel the need to do so. It doesn't mean you will constantly blurt out things you previously lied about but the next time you are asked about something you'd rather hide or have hidden so far you can't do so anymore. (Insert your own examples)

(I guess the question in how far this would affect fiction writers/actors/etc is kind of tricky... strictly those jobs would die out and this alone would probably would have sufficient consequences on humanity)

I hope this helps a little?

[The Succubus]

If it includes lying to yourself, I would generously give the world 60 minutes before anarchy and chaos destroyed civilization.

[Spiryt]

Standard issue boring answer would be probably that humanity is band of marauding hunter/gatherer creatures that behave about like dog packs...

Although even dogs do have at least significant enough concept of a lie to try 'no, I don't have that strawberry in my mouth, at all'. :smalltongue:

[EmeraldRose]

I think it is very likely humans would somehow manage to find a way to continue to conceal truth, without actually lying.

[Grinner]

I think it is very likely humans would somehow manage to find a way to continue to conceal truth, without actually lying.

Lies of omission. Simply avoiding the subject altogether. And so on.

[EmeraldRose]

Lies of omission. Simply avoiding the subject altogether. And so on.

Exactly. Or misdirection.

[SiuiS]

I find the definition of lying to be too slippery for this to make any sense.

Like, bluffing in combat is deception but not lying. Looking at multiple facets of a thing using excluding requires not acknowledging facts but isn't lying.

[Kato]

After the first few posts, I think I'll have to go back and edit the starting post... be right back :smallwink:

[Ravens_cry]

Well, there wouldn't be any fiction for one. What is fiction but lying for mutual enjoyment? Role playing games also wouldn't exist.

[Kajhera]

Fiction (and roleplaying) involves brainstorming the consequences of a hypothetical scenario. There's generally no particular deceit involved.

[IamL]

Fiction (and roleplaying) involves brainstorming the consequences of a hypothetical scenario. There's generally no particular deceit involved.

Exactly. It can be interpreted more as a "suppose (x) were to be the case" thing.

[EmeraldRose]

But what would this mean in terms of things like Santa or the Toothy Fairy? Would they simply not exist?

[SiuiS]

But what would this mean in terms of things like Santa or the Toothy Fairy? Would they simply not exist?

> implying Santa doesn't exist

[Asta Kask]

And what do you do when your friend asks you if hir horrible outfit looks good?

[Ravens_cry]

Fiction (and roleplaying) involves brainstorming the consequences of a hypothetical scenario. There's generally no particular deceit involved.
Except you are asked to consider something true for the duration. It's asking you to feel for figments of ones imagination, to be angry at the villains and hope for the heroes, to, in a certain sense, think as if these people exist and the reported actions happened. It's a socially acceptable form of lying, but it's lying nonetheless. Similarly to role playing games, acting is even worse than writing as not only is the author lying, you have actors lying as well, claiming to have feelings and have experiences that relate to untrue events.

And what do you do when your friend asks you if hir horrible outfit looks good?
Give your honest opinion? Or remain silent. A world where lying was impossible would place less stigma on brutal honesty by necessity.

[Zorg]

If it includes lying to yourself, I would generously give the world 60 minutes before anarchy and chaos destroyed civilization.

/thread :smallamused:

[LaZodiac]

http://www.entertainmentwallpaper.com/images/desktops/movie/the_invention_of_lying02.jpg

[Cuthalion]

If suddenly nobody in this society could lie... it would take about ten minutes.

"No, <insert political leader here>, we shouldn't do that, you lily-livered baboon."

[Telonius]

We'd have to come up with a new trope for twin guards (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0327.html).

[Mauve Shirt]

What about being uncertain? I mean, I guess we'd know the legitimacy of the various religions of the world if we couldn't espouse something untrue.

[Lord Raziere]

I watched a movie about this actually.

there was no such thing as fiction.

people watched purely factual things such as the history of whatever, and even on dates people spouted out the real reasons they were dating to each other.

civilization was the same, but everyone seemed depressed.

until the protagonist invented lying. somehow his brain did something when he was stressed, he lied about how much money he wanted from the bank, and they just took him at his word and he got money he didn't even have because no one ever lied before.

he then gone on to invent god and the ten commandments, rewrite an entire century to be more interesting and uh well, basically had the time of his life, I didn't watch the whole thing.

I think it was called The Invention of Lying.

[sparky9042]

I think in order to figure out what a world without lying might conceivably look like, we'd need to figure out what lying is first. This seems trivial, but it already appears more difficult than it seems, as evidenced by comments in the thread that seem to think that fiction-writing would die out.

One reason to think that fiction writing would remain largely intact (though I cannot speak for the remaining fiction's quality or nature), is that it makes no attempt to deceive the reader. Lying, on the other hand, does. One could not in our hypothetical society attempt to deceive someone.

A society without lies, then, would be one without any intention to deceive. The questions we ought to be asking are ones related to the current social role played by deceit.



There seems to be a recurring bit about how we'd lose access to the ability to deliberately hold a false statement, even if we knew it to be untrue. I don't quite see how that follows from a premise of "no lies allowed", considering that false statements aren't necessarily lies. If I ask someone to hold a statement I know to be false for the purpose of a thought experiment designed to disprove that statement, for example, you wouldn't take me to have lied to them when making the first false statement, you would take me to be asking them to suppose that a statement were true.

[BaronOfHell]

Just because you can't lie, doesn't mean you're forced to answer every question.

Also there's always interpretations involved, especially when it comes to people close to you.

[Ravens_cry]

I disagree, fiction IS about deceiving the reader. People wouldn't split into Team Jacob Team Edward if they did not, on some level, feel for those characters as real people, caring about their 'future' and emotional connections. No, they are emotionally invested in those characters. Even more minor forms, the simple desire to keep reading, is a matter of caring for the fate of the characters and their world, even if only a sadistic 'I want to see how they die.' The fact we can think of them as 'they' at all shows deception, as all they are is false words upon a page, or acted actions and lines by someone on stage or screen. Immersion is partly a reflection how good the work is at this, how it goes beyond a conscious agreement into actively subverting our knowledge and emotions.
Hells, I doubt this 'us without lying' could have hypotheticals very easily, as the first step is the same as lying, thinking something you know not to be true, or at least may not, and relating it to others.

[Lord Raziere]

I disagree, fiction IS about deceiving the reader. People wouldn't split into Team Jacob Team Edward if they did not, on some level, feel for those characters as real people, caring about their 'future' and emotional connections. No, they are emotionally invested in those characters. Even more minor forms, the simple desire to keep reading, is a matter of caring for the fate of the characters and their world, even if only a sadistic 'I want to see how they die.' The fact we can think of them as 'they' at all shows deception, as all they are is false words upon a page, or acted actions and lines by someone on stage or screen. Immersion is partly a reflection how good the work is at this, how it goes beyond a conscious agreement into actively subverting our knowledge and emotions.
Hells, I doubt this 'us without lying' could have hypotheticals very easily, as the first step is the same as lying, thinking something you know not to be true, or at least may not, and relating it to others.

yea in the movie I saw? the people that weren't the protagonist couldn't even imagine that he was stating something false. they just accepted everything he said, didn't even think he was mistaken. no lies means no skepticism or doubt, because there is no reason to presume what other people are saying might be untrue, and therefore no reason to believe anything- because when everything you know is true, everything is certain, and therefore there is no need for faith, why believe in something when you know its already reliable? its all fact.

[Alad]

Ugh, it'd certainly make my family life rough as hell.
Aside from that I might enjoy it. I suppose since everyone would be on the same footing, being a little blunt would be far more forgivable.:smallbiggrin:

[valadil]

One of the sections of Gulliver's Travels included a race of horses who didn't lie and were totally offended by the idea of lying. To them, the point of speech was to share information and spreading false information was downright evil.

[Ravens_cry]

yea in the movie I saw? the people that weren't the protagonist couldn't even imagine that he was stating something false. they just accepted everything he said, didn't even think he was mistaken. no lies means no skepticism or doubt, because there is no reason to presume what other people are saying might be untrue, and therefore no reason to believe anything- because when everything you know is true, everything is certain, and therefore there is no need for faith, why believe in something when you know its already reliable? its all fact.
Well, I am not sure that would be the case. You could still have people whose world view was sufficiently off the norm that it is rejected from the group agreement on what is 'reality'. Something too obviously false might simply be dismissed as insane.

[Knaight]

What about being uncertain? I mean, I guess we'd know the legitimacy of the various religions of the world if we couldn't espouse something untrue.

Saying something inaccurate that you believe to be true isn't a lie, so this wouldn't help. As a comparison - a student writing a wrong answer on a test isn't lying, they're just wrong.

[Mauve Shirt]

What about fair and balanced news reporting? Could news stations say "The president is a lizardperson!" simply because he's never said he isn't a lizard person?

[Aedilred]

I think in order to figure out what a world without lying might conceivably look like, we'd need to figure out what lying is first. This seems trivial, but it already appears more difficult than it seems, as evidenced by comments in the thread that seem to think that fiction-writing would die out.

One reason to think that fiction writing would remain largely intact (though I cannot speak for the remaining fiction's quality or nature), is that it makes no attempt to deceive the reader. Lying, on the other hand, does. One could not in our hypothetical society attempt to deceive someone.
Perhaps it wouldn't die out (although I accept other points made earlier in the thread that question it) but it would become a lot more boring, because the characters within the fiction wouldn't be able to lie either. Whole genres of fiction would become extinct.

It's worth asking whether the OP means lying as in verbal untruthfulness specifically, or whether all untruthfulness would be erased from society: makeup to disguise physical blemishes, for instance; making purchases on credit to present a more affluent persona; a large proportion of theft*.

Realistically, I don't think it would work, regardless of extent. Or it would, but not in a way anyone would like. Society is a delicate construct in which everyone lies to everyone else all the time; not just the obvious "does this dress make me look fat" but generally burnishing the self-esteem of underachievers (in any field), or for that matter a lot of what we consider courtesy or politeness (actually, I'd rather go through that door first, but I'm going to pretend I don't mind that you do). Without that social grease and ointment, things are going to ossify. The beautiful and intelligent will become and remain successful, because people will take kindly to them and/or they have the inherent ability to do well. The ugly, the stupid, the mentally ill or physically disabled, will be shut out, because people will be unable to disguise feelings of antipathy and prejudice. That would probably lead to a catastrophic drop in productivity without even considering the effect on mental and social health.

*At some point, theft of non-consumables involves somebody, whether the intitial thief or someone further down the chain, passing off something they acquired illegally as their property or as something legitimate. If this becomes impossible, the proceeds of crime dry up.

[sparky9042]

What about fair and balanced news reporting? Could news stations say "The president is a lizardperson!" simply because he's never said he isn't a lizard person?

Is that statement:

1. Intended to deceive?
2. Believed to be false by the person saying it?

If (1&2), then that statement is a lie.

[Kato]

http://www.entertainmentwallpaper.com/images/desktops/movie/the_invention_of_lying02.jpg
Yeah, I kind of stumpled upon it later when googling the idea but without having seen the movie and from a short review I don't think it quite goes into the problem, rather showing the advantages of one person being able to lie in a world full of people unable to..



If suddenly nobody in this society could lie... it would take about ten minutes.

"No, <insert political leader here>, we shouldn't do that, you lily-livered baboon."
Why? I was joking about the end of the civilication in the starting post but how exactly would it come to pass as such? Because someone in all seriousness insults another world leader? Of course it's not good etiquette but who is so petty to destroy another country over a personal insult?


What about being uncertain? I mean, I guess we'd know the legitimacy of the various religions of the world if we couldn't espouse something untrue.
Well, believe is a tricky subject... If you believe something to be true, it's not lying to say otherwise. Yeah, you'd probably find out how much people believe in certain things and how some people just use belief to further their personal goals but there'd still be religion.


What about fair and balanced news reporting? Could news stations say "The president is a lizardperson!" simply because he's never said he isn't a lizard person?
As sparky said, if he for some reason really believes it, yes. However... why would he do that?


It's worth asking whether the OP means lying as in verbal untruthfulness specifically, or whether all untruthfulness would be erased from society: makeup to disguise physical blemishes, for instance; making purchases on credit to present a more affluent persona; a large proportion of theft*.

While the matter of "what exactly is untruthfulness" e.g. in regard to things like makeup (is dressing lying because you hide parts of your body?) is ambivalent, it's not meant to be limited to verbal lying.
I think the concept of deceit is the most fitting to summarize the prohibited behavior (while make up certainly also serves to deceit to an extent). If you do something with the aim to deceit others, then you can't do it.

[SiuiS]

And what do you do when your friend asks you if hir horrible outfit looks good?

Tell them it's a horrible outfit. That's what you should do anyway.


I watched a movie about this actually.

there was no such thing as fiction.

people watched purely factual things such as the history of whatever, and even on dates people spouted out the real reasons they were dating to each other.

civilization was the same, but everyone seemed depressed.

until the protagonist invented lying. somehow his brain did something when he was stressed, he lied about how much money he wanted from the bank, and they just took him at his word and he got money he didn't even have because no one ever lied before.

he then gone on to invent god and the ten commandments, rewrite an entire century to be more interesting and uh well, basically had the time of his life, I didn't watch the whole thing.

I think it was called The Invention of Lying.

That was a terrible movie, it's premise was flawed. The writers either made a set of assumptions and never elaborated on them, or don't understand what "fact" means.

For example; it was default for people who didn't like each other to get into contractual marriages because everyone does so and the resultant offspring would be of higher quality generic stock. Because it's a fact, apparently, that without lying, only the stock of offspring matters?

Except "I cannot stand you", "I find you entertaining", "I enjoy your odor" and "your irreverence pleases me" are all also facts, and far more likely reasons people would shack up. That's so dumb because everyone would have been fine in this factual world if thy actually stuck to facts. "We got married because we both have very light libidos and I frankly don't want to deal with a man who competes for Man Points" is far more accurate a reason to marry someone than "you're a jerk but our kid will have great teeth". :smallsigh:



While the matter of "what exactly is untruthfulness" e.g. in regard to things like makeup (is dressing lying because you hide parts of your body?) is ambivalent, it's not meant to be limited to verbal lying.
I think the concept of deceit is the most fitting to summarize the prohibited behavior (while make up certainly also serves to deceit to an extent). If you do something with the aim to deceit others, then you can't do it.

This is a terribly simplified concept, to the point that it no longer has any value.

Makeup isn't deceptive in any way. Make up on a face does not make it a different face by default. Makeup enhances something by highlighting it. Thinking for even an instant that makeup could be deceptive inherently, is equivalent to thinking that any form of visible radiation except sunlight is lying to you by altering the hues of objects you see.

Does anyone believe neon light-bars are lying to them? Neon lights change saturation after all.
Or signs. Does anyone think a neon sign is lying? It's not really a drinking cowboy, after all. It's a bunch of symbols formed by bars of glass with glowing gas inside. And amazon dot com's logo? Is it an arrow? Or a smile? It must be lying!

Make up is about women lying about what they look like and how pretty they are, sweet goddess kids these days, always framing everything as malice and affront, ramble ramble uphill ramble snow yadda yadda both ways. ;)

[Lord Raziere]

Yeeeeeaaaaaah.....I'm not going to buy that its horrible just cause you say so.

I mean I hear that a lot of things I like are horrible Siuis. which makes me unable to trust other people about their judgement about these sorts of things. so unless you have more, I'm afraid I can't trust you on that.

[SiuiS]

Yeeeeeaaaaaah.....I'm not going to buy that its horrible just cause you say so.

I mean I hear that a lot of things I like are horrible Siuis. which makes me unable to trust other people about their judgement about these sorts of things. so unless you have more, I'm afraid I can't trust you on that.

You could always read past the sentence "that movie was horrible" and read the paragraphs where I explicitly lay out parts of the premise and explain why I think it's horrible. I mean, if it's not too much trouble. If you want.
/Fluttershy

[Lord Raziere]

You could always read past the sentence "that movie was horrible" and read the paragraphs where I explicitly lay out parts of the premise and explain why I think it's horrible. I mean, if it's not too much trouble. If you want.
/Fluttershy

I did. still need more.

[SiuiS]

I did. still need more.

In the abstract, "the movie purports no lying but instead assumes a specific pseudoscientific viewpoint without reason and overlooks very obvious fixes in pursuit of potential comedy in an awkward fashion" is all I needed, personally.

But there's always Netflix! You could watch it and come back. :3

[Finlam]

There is a core phenomenon and function of the human mind called cognitive dissonance (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance). This phenomena occurs when humans encounter contradictory information, specifically information that contradicts our views of the world or our views of ourselves; cognitive dissonance is the innate need of the human mind to resolve these contradictions, to make the world make sense. In a world where we often don't have the information or desire to do that, it leads to an awful lot of lying to ourselves and others.

For example,
Bob asks Alice out on a date. Bob gets turned down, Alice goes about her evening and thinks no more about it. Why does this bother Bob and not Alice?
Bob thinks She can't have turned me down based on looks. Because Bob thinks he's hot stuff and admitting that he might not be would conflict with his view of himself.
Bob thinks She can't have turned me down based on my approach. Because Bob thinks he's really smooth, and it would conflict with his world view to admit that maybe he's not.
Ultimately, Bob will go on to blame his failure on some external factor i.e. she probably already has a boyfriend, clearly I'm just off my game tonight, she probably doesn't even like men anyway, etc

A small but common example of a lie told to oneself to preserve one's perception of reality. These thoughts are usually subconscious , quick, and unnoticeable; from an outside perspective it wouldn't count as a lie. People do this a thousand times a day in a thousand different ways: telling small lies to ourselves so that we can continue to believe that our perception matches extant reality.

With this in mind, there are two logical interpretations of the question:
What happens when we remove the ability of humans to tell lies to other people?
The answer is very simple: we all become Bob to the Nth degree, where every word we speak is true, because we believe it be so. The fantastical mental gymnastics that our mind will jump through to resolve the dissonance would put an Olympic athlete to shame. We would then live in a world where no information could be trusted to any degree because it would be impossible for a person to know if their own information had already been warped by a mind struggling to reconcile extant reality with its own twisted and drastically flawed perspective.

No progress can be made in science; every time a minus is misplaced or a new but not verified discovery is made, it is treated as truth automatically, because only an inexperienced or dumb person would make such a mistake, and scientists clearly are not dumb and they certainly can't lie about it. Relationships between people, countries, and nations break down. The President begrudgingly admits that those jeans do make his wife look fat. Tension increases as diplomats are unable to hide behind the small lies that are of critical of importance to their mission. International conflicts escalate as entire nations admit that they really do hate each other and would better off if the other people didn't exist. Nukes fly, mostly on target. Life on earth ends. Except in Australia, where it's business as usual.

-or-

What happens when we remove the ability of humans to tell lies even to themselves?
In this case, the brain has lost its most common method of reconciling conflicting information with its world view. People will grow increasing tense and barbaric as the dissonance builds within their minds. Unable to relieve the uncomfortable and pervasive feeling of dissonance by telling themselves simple harmless lies, people will instead seek to eliminate dissonance by forcing reality to mold to their warped perception. People who disagree will be met with outward hostility as the dissonance builds and every single contradiction brings with it the full discomfort and pain of prodding at an open wound that cannot be allowed to heal.

It will not be long before humanity is torn apart as people are no longer able to tell those necessary lies to themselves that enable them to work and interact with others. Within a year, each human has become an insane being hell bent on forcing reality to conform their perception, which itself is like a funhouse mirror reflection. Twisted, insane, and in a constant state of unimaginable discomfort, the last human dies unable to comprehend what is killing him because his death cannot happen within his own reality.

In short: you've killed all of humanity, you monster.

[Kato]

This is a terribly simplified concept, to the point that it no longer has any value.

Makeup isn't deceptive in any way. Make up on a face does not make it a different face by default. Makeup enhances something by highlighting it. Thinking for even an instant that makeup could be deceptive inherently, is equivalent to thinking that any form of visible radiation except sunlight is lying to you by altering the hues of objects you see.

Hey, I was merely referring to Aedilred's point above. :smalltongue:
While I prefer women without makeup I really don't have a strong opinion on it... Though, I'd tend to be willing to accept make-up as somewhat deceptive because it not only highlights things but is often also used to hide things (e.g. pimples if I understand correctly) Not that there's really anything substantially wrong about that it's still... deceiving. (Albeit not as deceiving as a low down, dirty... deceiver)
But as I said, with that train of thought clothing is also deceiving, or can be.
(More abstractly: Highlighting certain things to distract from others, unwelcome things is also deceit, e.g. highlighting unimportant news events to distract from more essential ones :smalltongue:)


Though, I'm willing to agree from what you said about the relevant movie it seems stupid. But it got me curious to see how bad it is.

[Aedilred]

Hey, I was merely referring to Aedilred's point above. :smalltongue:
While I prefer women without makeup I really don't have a strong opinion on it... Though, I'd tend to be willing to accept make-up as somewhat deceptive because it not only highlights things but is often also used to hide things (e.g. pimples if I understand correctly) Not that there's really anything substantially wrong about that it's still... deceiving. (Albeit not as deceiving as a low down, dirty... deceiver)
Well, my original point was along these lines; I was thinking more about makeup to disguise spots and minor scarring, etc. rather than in a general sense. But now that it's been raised I think the general sense also needs consideration:



(More abstractly: Highlighting certain things to distract from others, unwelcome things is also deceit, e.g. highlighting unimportant news events to distract from more essential ones :smalltongue:)
Indeed, and this applies to makeup too. The general principle is to make the face appear more attractive than it is, which is by its very nature intentionally deceptive. It still applies to mere "enhancement" since the point is to accentuate the best features and disguise the less favourable ones, thus distorting the viewer's perception of the face. The only way it wouldn't be deceptive is if it were entirely clear that the person in question was wearing makeup (and what makeup they were wearing), but other than going over the top (Pierrot clown face, for instance), there's no practical way to do that. You can't even really make the argument that you assume everyone wears it, because a lot of people (especially men) don't.

The same applies in more general terms to all aesthetic presentation, including clothes and accessories (obviously depending on specifics) and to, say, art. Still life and landscape as forms of art would become rather pointless, as the inability to modify them to make them more attractive would mean that photography would become the best means of portrayal. (Of course, people being what they are, such artwork might still be a thing, but in this case it would all be art that made the subject look worse, since portraying something inaccurately but to the best of your ability wouldn't be lying, per se).

Favourable lighting might still be ok, though, since you're not necessarily portraying anything dishonestly. It partly depends on the extent to which the initial rule applies - essentially, are you allowed to lie by omission? If so, you could shoot a person (or object) from the most favourable angle in the most favourable light and that would just about be ok, because they actually do look like that from that perspective. But when you start applying temporary modifications to the person (or object) itself to make it appear different, that's inherently deceptive unless it's made clear exactly what those modifications are and what effect they are supposed to have.

[SiuiS]

Hey, I was merely referring to Aedilred's point above. :smalltongue:


If I was being serious I wouldn't have small text'd at the end.


Though, I'm willing to agree from what you said about the relevant movie it seems stupid. But it got me curious to see how bad it is.

Watch it. It's not too bad, and you'll be better off having first hand experience than not.



Indeed, and this applies to makeup too. The general principle is to make the face appear more attractive than it is, which is by its very nature intentionally deceptive.

AU contraire. The point of makeup is not to make the face look "better than it is", that's a side effect of human patterning. Make up does absolutely nothing except say "look at this feature. This particular feature is nice". Any assumption of a lie is on you; in your eyes. The lie no more exists in actuality than an optical illusion is "lying" to you by having two pictures.

Lying in this fashion requires the faulty concept of truth being a binary without nuance. A face is not something that is totaled up and given as a single sum. A face is composed of parts, some good, some bad. Preferring some parts, or preferring to look at some parts, or preferring to have some parts looked at, isn't a lie. It's a preference. Boiling all of human interaction, the whole spectrum of history into a binary based on subjective desires to be an authority over whether others have or have not complied with 110% disclosure to you, even the general you and not you, Aedilred, is silly. There's a point where you can't simplify any further and maintain the concept. This is one of those points.

[Aedilred]

AU contraire. The point of makeup is not to make the face look "better than it is", that's a side effect of human patterning. Make up does absolutely nothing except say "look at this feature. This particular feature is nice". Any assumption of a lie is on you; in your eyes. The lie no more exists in actuality than an optical illusion is "lying" to you by having two pictures.

Lying in this fashion requires the faulty concept of truth being a binary without nuance. A face is not something that is totaled up and given as a single sum. A face is composed of parts, some good, some bad. Preferring some parts, or preferring to look at some parts, or preferring to have some parts looked at, isn't a lie. It's a preference. Boiling all of human interaction, the whole spectrum of history into a binary based on subjective desires to be an authority over whether others have or have not complied with 110% disclosure to you, even the general you and not you, Aedilred, is silly. There's a point where you can't simplify any further and maintain the concept. This is one of those points.
Well, I don't entirely agree, but I do see where you're coming from. However I think this is as much a problem with the thread concept as anything. It's so difficult to pin down even a subjective truth, and it's debatable an objective truth even exists (didn't we have a recent thread on that?) to the point where, taken to a logical extreme, the concept of deception and therefore lying inevitably loses all meaning. Essentially, the argument on whether or not makeup constitutes deception is semantic only. I think we can all agree that, even if it is, it's by no measure a harmful deception.*

Which is, I think, the point. Society exists in a grey area between truth and untruth. Whether society itself even exists as a meaningful entity is itself debatable. In Hogfather Pratchett rather aptly (and memorably for me at least) indicated that humans require lies in order to be human. Perhaps the world would be a better place if people were in general more honest, but a world in which everyone is prohibited from being anything else would be utterly dysfunctional and terrifying, as various people above have commented.

To take a cue from another great philosopher of our age, what is lying for if not to weasel out of things? That shouldn't be discouraged: it's weaselling out of things that separates us from the animals. Except the weasel.


*Leaving aside obvious exceptions, like lead-constituted whitener, and social attitudes fostered by certain marketing of cosmetics, but that's a problem of application rather than with the concept itself.

[Coidzor]

It won't prevent people from having mistaken beliefs, I suppose, but I imagine it would make communication and correction of such easier.


And what do you do when your friend asks you if hir horrible outfit looks good?

You're supposed to duck the question anyway, not lie to them. :smallconfused: That or beat them with a stick for asking the question. I forget which.

[KillianHawkeye]

It would mean the end of politics and religion.

[Kato]

What happens when we remove the ability of humans to tell lies even to themselves?[...]
Maybe I would be more willing to believe it if you're example wasn't phrased in such a way to imply all people are unable to recognize their own faults...
Certainly, people will lie to themselves. But it's not like (most) people are constantly lying to themselves because they won't admit they are not perfect.
I guess this differs a lot between people but suggesting we'd all go crazy (fast) seems unlikely.


It would mean the end of politics and religion.
You really think so? Sure, there would be massive changes in both but people would still believe in stuff and politics as in "the existence of governments" (unless my definition of politics is off) would still be a thing. Just... they'd have to work very different.

[Ravens_cry]

People can have differences of opinion I assume still. What one thinks is best to run a nation will still vary. Other than that, I don't think we can really say.

[Duck999]

We are human. There will always be those who can simply bend something so it is technically true, but not getting the truth across correctly. However, according to this scenerio, people can't even fathom how horrible it would be to lie. In this case, it would be very... interesting.

[tensai_oni]

In short: you've killed all of humanity, you monster.

This. And the whole post, really.

Everyone lies to each other and to themselves constantly. You do that. I do that. Everyone does that. And there's nothing cynical or heart-breaking about it. It's what keeps you sane and lets society exist.

[KillianHawkeye]

You really think so? Sure, there would be massive changes in both but people would still believe in stuff and politics as in "the existence of governments" (unless my definition of politics is off) would still be a thing. Just... they'd have to work very different.

I probably shouldn't elaborate due to it being an inappropriate subject matter.

[Hyena]

World very quickly ends in nuclear war, because politicians and diplomats suddenly discovered their inability to stop speaking their mind.

[Kislath]

There was a movie a few years back based on this very thing, called The Invention of Lying. Humans couldn't lie, at ALL, and they were also very forthcoming with information that they should have just kept to themselves. It was pretty funny.
The story centered around one guy, a mutant of a sort, who discovered one day that he had the power to say things that weren't true.
In fact, the words & concepts of TRUE & FALSE were incomprehensible to most people, since there was no untruth in the world, and as such they couldn't even formulate the comparison in their minds. When he showed off his new ability to some friends, they marveled at his strange power to say something that..wasn't.
He had a bit of fun with it at first, but quickly decided that he was better than that.

[Kato]

This. And the whole post, really.

Everyone lies to each other and to themselves constantly. You do that. I do that. Everyone does that. And there's nothing cynical or heart-breaking about it. It's what keeps you sane and lets society exist.

Clearly people lie... often. (Most people likely daily) And it's an integral part of society, or the whole idea would be pointless.
But subproject's post more or less suggests, we are never able to admit the truth/ are entirely unable to face the truth and that seems over the top cynical and also incorrect to me.

[Cuthalion]

World very quickly ends in nuclear war, because politicians and diplomats suddenly discovered their inability to stop speaking their mind.

But could they withhold their opinions?

"So, what do you think?"
"..."
"Well?"
"..."

[Duck999]

But could they withhold their opinions?

"So, what do you think?"
"..."
"Well?"
"..."

As of the first post, no.
According to it, humans feel no need to conceal anything, so they would just go spouting information.
"How was your day?"
"Snow is white."
Okay, maybe not quite like that.

[Cuthalion]

As of the first post, no.
According to it, humans feel no need to conceal anything, so they would just go spouting information.
"How was your day?"
"Snow is white."
Okay, maybe not quite like that.

Hm. We could start a FFRP where everyone has to say a truth and not conceal anything. As a social experiment?

[Duck999]

Hm. We could start a FFRP where everyone has to say a truth and not conceal anything. As a social experiment?

Oh my god yes. I would go into large detail about it, but that would be going way off topic.:smallsmile:

Really though, if you want to try this Cuthalion, PM me and I can work, through it with you.

[IamL]

In said society, crime would be almost impossible to get away with.

"Did you murder this man?"
"...Yes."

[Hyena]

On the plus side, during the short time before word's conflicts escalate into nuclear war, we would enjoy fantastically honest trailers and advertisement.
- Shamwow! Just like your ordinary piece of rug. But you WILL be saying "wow" every time you see Vince Offer.

[WarKitty]

But could they withhold their opinions?

"So, what do you think?"
"..."
"Well?"
"..."

Certainly "I would rather not say" would still be an acceptable statement.

[Asta Kask]

In said society, crime would be almost impossible to get away with.

"Did you murder this man?"
"...Yes."

There's a difference between lying and not telling the truth. It's only lying that's ruled out.

[Kato]

Hm. We could start a FFRP where everyone has to say a truth and not conceal anything. As a social experiment?


Oh my god yes. I would go into large detail about it, but that would be going way off topic.:smallsmile:

Really though, if you want to try this Cuthalion, PM me and I can work, through it with you.
Heh, count me in :smallbiggrin:


In said society, crime would be almost impossible to get away with.

"Did you murder this man?"
"...Yes."
Yeah, that's certainly an aspect. If you are committing a crime you'd need to be ready to face the consequences. Yeah, you could murder a person, but yo better be ready to go to jail for it. Or try to fight your way out or hide for the rest of your life...


There's a difference between lying and not telling the truth. It's only lying that's ruled out.
No. Sorry if it's still not entirely clear but it's not so much lying as it is deceit. The idea is you're not trying to hide the truth by misinformation or otherwise.

[Cuthalion]

Heh, count me in :smallbiggrin:

There has got to be a better way to communicate than through my overstuffed PM box. Perhaps an OOC thread in the FFRP section to discuss it?

[Ravens_cry]

There has got to be a better way to communicate than through my overstuffed PM box. Perhaps an OOC thread in the FFRP section to discuss it?
That'd work. I may also be interested in this.

[ForzaFiori]

I would assume you still have the ability to phrase your sentence how you wish, so long as you fully answer the question? So, for instance, if someone asks if their pants make them look fat, and I think they do. I could say "Yes, but your still pretty (assuming the friend is pretty)", I could say "Of course they do", or I could say "H*** yes, you fat person, you.", etc, as long as I say I agree, and, I would assume, I am not adding anything hyperbolic. Saying "I prefer your other pants" or "You still look pretty" aren't allowed because they don't answer the question, and anything as outrageous as "yes, you fat sow" would also be disallowed, since the friend is not a sow, nor as large as a fat one.

Even with those restrictions though, the different answers have different connotations. You can be insulting, comforting, etc, and still convey the truth. In the example above, the first is all true, but saying, in a way, that it's ok. The next is just a straight answer, and the last is an insult. All are true and could be your answer to the question. If war breaks out, the way a person who supports the war and a person who doesn't support it tells their friends will be very different, but they both are telling the truth.

I think we'd become experts at wording, learning the exact way to weave truths to appeal to emotions (which isn't deceitful, its the part of the purpose of language and sounds, so it's implied that it'll happen when you talk to someone.) You'd have to have diplomats who are incredibly good at learning exactly how to phrase their truths.

The only other thing I can think of is something like this. Lets say you have a distant relative who dies. You know them well enough to recognize them, but it's not your mom or like, your favorite aunt or something. He leaves you ALOT of money. Like, a life changing amount of money. Now, when your telling your friend about this, are you sad about it or not? Clearly, you are unhappy about a relative you knew and liked is dead. At the same time, no one is going to be unhappy about suddenly having a huge amount of cash. Yes, you could say that one over weighs the other, but in your head, it's not like you become "kinda sad", because you have a really bad thing happen and a kinda good thing happen. You have both feelings in your head at the same time - it leads to some really fun psychiatry classes, I'm sure. So if he asks "are you sad" can you say "yes" and just leave it, would "yes and no" or "its complicated" be enough, or do you have to say "I'm very sad, but I'm also a little happy because I'm now a billionaire?"

[blunk]

If you define "lying" broadly, I don't believe empathy would be possible any longer. Imagining yourself in another's shoes is a form of lying to yourself, just in a highly-controlled, elective environment: "for the moment, I am so-and-so; how do I feel about such-and-such?" One might not be able to make the jump to such self-convincing imaginings without also being able to lie to others.

Even if your definition of lying is different, this would be an interesting line of real-world research - do there exist organisms that are capable of empathy but not of lying??

[Kato]

Even if your definition of lying is different, this would be an interesting line of real-world research - do there exist organisms that are capable of empathy but not of lying??

While the idea is interesting I'm neither sure whether this would qualify as "lying" nor how one would go about to do research about it. The question of who/what is capable of empathy is difficult enough but the thought of whether someone/thing is capable of lying... It would be a curious thought experiment, but for real research I don't see how it could be done.

[blunk]

While the idea is interesting I'm neither sure whether this would qualify as "lying" nor how one would go about to do research about it. The question of who/what is capable of empathy is difficult enough but the thought of whether someone/thing is capable of lying... It would be a curious thought experiment, but for real research I don't see how it could be done.I'm pretty sure there are established tests for empathic ability; find people who are incapable of lying due to brain injury or condition (I'd think you could confirm this with an EEG), then test their empathic ability.

This approach would be better at disproving the idea than proving it, but with a large sample, you could establish some confidence.

Here's a completely unscientific quote (from TV Tropes (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/CannotTellALie), no less) that I just found:


Many people with autism, Asperger Syndrome, or the like have a hard time lying to others. Aspergers can impair the capability to think in 'abstract' concepts, and the ability to put oneself in another's shoes, so the concept of deception (which requires the use of abstract thought and imagining what others think to effectively construct a believable lie) is often difficult for someone with Asperger's syndrome to grasp. It varies on a case-by-case basis; people with mild autism/Aspergers can often lie easily, while those with a more severe version often have to enact significant mental preparations before being able to lie, for making things up on the spot is much harder for them.This is useless as evidence, but does suggest that it's worth researching further.

Not for me, though - I already have way too many half-baked theories to look into. :smallwink:

[SiuiS]

No. Sorry if it's still not entirely clear but it's not so much lying as it is deceit. The idea is you're not trying to hide the truth by misinformation or otherwise.

So feinting, camouflage, makeup, loose clothing, "bling", яolex watches, spices, and diet supplements are nonexistent?


If you define "lying" broadly, I don't believe empathy would be possible any longer. Imagining yourself in another's shoes is a form of lying to yourself, just in a highly-controlled, elective environment: "for the moment, I am so-and-so; how do I feel about such-and-such?" One might not be able to make the jump to such self-convincing imaginings without also being able to lie to others.

Lying is not imagination. You can imagine how you would feel if the same thing happened to you without imagining you are another person, and there is no inherent deception in it regardless. The Socratic exercise is "assuming X is true, what are the consequences" which cannot be lying because there is no deceiving, there is no obfuscation and there is no hiding of truth.

[Duck999]

Only if you wear it to create a false image of yourself. If you wear the clothes with no intention of decieving others, they are just making an assumption because of whag you wear.

[blunk]

Lying is not imagination. You can imagine how you would feel if the same thing happened to you without imagining you are another person, and there is no inherent deception in it regardless. The Socratic exercise is "assuming X is true, what are the consequences" which cannot be lying because there is no deceiving, there is no obfuscation and there is no hiding of truth."I am X, and Y has happened to me" and "I am me, but Y has happened to me" are both, I believe, what psychology calls "counterfactual thinking" (a term which is telling in itself), and I submit that someone incapable of lying could not enter into either of those thoughts.

I'm not sure that we can proceed beyond "lying is not imagination" vs. "imagination is counterfactual thinking and counterfactuals are lying", but that's why I think research would be helpful.

I agree that someone who couldn't lie could perform your Socratic exercise. Would you consider that a form of empathy?

[SiuiS]

Only if you wear it to create a false image of yourself. If you wear the clothes with no intention of decieving others, they are just making an assumption because of whag you wear.

But if you commit a lie of omission without intending deception it's still lying.

The base premise is unrealizable, basically. By the time you've harrowed 'deception' down to a concrete enough form to say "none of these things" it's either completely useless as an idea and identical to now except everyone is a Romance Novel Villain, or it's so specific that society and even higher thought aren't possible.

[SiuiS]

"I am X, and Y has happened to me" and "I am me, but Y has happened to me" are both, I believe, what psychology calls "counterfactual thinking" (a term which is telling in itself), and I submit that someone incapable of lying could not enter into either of those thoughts.

Where are you getting "Y happened to me"? "How would I feel if Y happened to me?" Is sufficient for empathy.

[blunk]

Where are you getting "Y happened to me"? "How would I feel if Y happened to me?" Is sufficient for empathy.Pardon me. I believe that both:

* "If I were X, and Y were to have happened to me, how would I feel?"
* "If I were me, but Y were to have happened to me, how would I feel?"

... are termed "counterfactual thinking". The rest of my post stands as-is.

[Duck999]

But if you commit a lie of omission without intending deception it's still lying.

The base premise is unrealizable, basically. By the time you've harrowed 'deception' down to a concrete enough form to say "none of these things" it's either completely useless as an idea and identical to now except everyone is a Romance Novel Villain, or it's so specific that society and even higher thought aren't possible.

That seems to close to
If you mislead somekne without intending, it is false, yet I thought that lying when you believe you are tellig he truth was allowed, because you do not mean to lie.

[Kato]

But if you commit a lie of omission without intending deception it's still lying.

The base premise is unrealizable, basically. By the time you've harrowed 'deception' down to a concrete enough form to say "none of these things" it's either completely useless as an idea and identical to now except everyone is a Romance Novel Villain, or it's so specific that society and even higher thought aren't possible.

Well, it's only a thought experiment. Obviously, it wouldn't work and while I'll admit I didn't think the matter of "what is okay within the setting" would be so disputable I guess it's harder to pin down. Good thing, we are able to lie and don't have to seriously concern ourselves with it. :smallbiggrin:

[Asta Kask]

How about padded bras?

[SiuiS]

Pardon me. I believe that both:

* "If I were X, and Y were to have happened to me, how would I feel?"
* "If I were me, but Y were to have happened to me, how would I feel?"

... are termed "counterfactual thinking". The rest of my post stands as-is.

Well, it may be the qualities involved, but one is an actual risk assessment and the other is make-believe by adding things that aren't true. What I was trying to say is I think there's a way to empathize without any counter factual thinking, but I'm not up to making sure by looking into it at a scientific level. scientific levels bypass a lot of nuance by reducing details to base level, which doesn't work when details matter.


That seems to close to
If you mislead somekne without intending, it is false, yet I thought that lying when you believe you are tellig he truth was allowed, because you do not mean to lie.

If telling a falsehood when you don't mean to lie and believe it to be the truth is okay, then why would someone saying there is a difference between lying and 'not telling the truth' be corrected?


Well, it's only a thought experiment. Obviously, it wouldn't work and while I'll admit I didn't think the matter of "what is okay within the setting" would be so disputable I guess it's harder to pin down. Good thing, we are able to lie and don't have to seriously concern ourselves with it. :smallbiggrin:

Oh no, it's a success. The answer is that the premise doesn't work as intended! Just reformulate.


How about padded bras?

Exactly!

[blunk]

Well, it may be the qualities involved, but one is an actual risk assessment and the other is make-believe by adding things that aren't true. What I was trying to say is I think there's a way to empathize without any counter factual thinking, but I'm not up to making sure by looking into it at a scientific level. scientific levels bypass a lot of nuance by reducing details to base level, which doesn't work when details matter.I'm speculating, myself, which is why I'd like to look at research. My initial reaction to the OP's question was, "I bet if you changed the human brain to remove the ability to lie, you'd lose all sorts of other abilities," but it all depends on how the brain is structured.

[Kato]

How about padded bras?
Basically comes down to aout the same area as make up which we also agreed to disagree on, I think :smallbiggrin:
Feints in sport might be acceptable as "part of the game" and such... camouflage, likely as part of warfare, would be more difficult... I guess war itself would change A LOT in the scenario.


If telling a falsehood when you don't mean to lie and believe it to be the truth is okay, then why would someone saying there is a difference between lying and 'not telling the truth' be corrected?
I'm... also not sure what duck intended to say there.


Oh no, it's a success. The answer is that the premise doesn't work as intended! Just reformulate.
Hm? Reformulate the premise? :smallconfused: As in, you can (literally) not lie? Well, obviously this would only lead to other forms of half truths... It might make life more complicated but wouldn't change much. Or we need to formulate strict rules about what qualifies as deceit.. I feel hard pressed to properly do that and taking everything into account...

In the upcoming RP thread the question of crimes/punishments came up. As in, if people can't lie about not intending to commit crimes again, what would you do with them?


Exactly![/QUOTE]

[TuggyNE]

I guess war itself would change A LOT in the scenario.

What is this "war" of which you speak?

[Duck999]

What is this "war" of which you speak?

It is something bad that happens when politicians can't hide the truth.

[tomandtish]

If telling a falsehood when you don't mean to lie and believe it to be the truth is okay, then why would someone saying there is a difference between lying and 'not telling the truth' be corrected?



I'm... also not sure what duck intended to say there.
[/QUOTE]

Actually, I think I see what Duck is saying here. It's looking at intent. Let me use examples and see if I'm right.

We have Jack and Diane (just 2 American kids in the heartland). They are at school.

Scenario 1: Jack tells Diane he is going to the library. However, out of sight of her, he actually leaves campus. When teachers ask Diane where Jack is, she says "He's at the library".

There's no problem with Diane saying the library in this example. As far as she knows, that's where Jack is. She's wrong, but it's not a lie and she has no intent to conceal information.

Scenario 2: Jack tells Diane he is going to the library. However, she looks out a window and sees that he actually leaves campus. When teachers ask Diane where Jack is, she says (not wanting him to get in trouble) "He's at the library".

This is an outright lie. Not allowed by the rules of the OP.

Scenario 3: Jack tells Diane he is going to the library. However, she looks out a window and sees that he actually leaves campus. When teachers ask Diane where Jack is, she says (not wanting him to get in trouble) "He told me he was going to the library".

While technically true (that is what he said to her), she knows he is not there and is thus concealing the truth of where he is. That is, she technically hasn't lied, but she has also knowingly not told the truth of the situation. As I understand OP, they are saying people can't/don't do this either.

It certainly becomes more interesting with non-verbal issues such as clothing and makeup. For instance, if I truly believe in wearing clothes that "define me", then can I wear clothes that don't? What if I work at a place that has a dress code? For that matter, what happens to Halloween?

Since the OP did clarify the post to indicate that we feel no need to lie or conceal as opposed to can't, AND since this is something that has apparently come upon us vs. something we have always had, I'm not sure fiction writers, actors, etc. are in that much trouble. They are simply story tellers in various forms. Everyone knows they are stories going into it so there is no lying or deception involved. What you might not have anymore are movies/shows/etc. "based on true events" where certain liberties are taken to enhance the story (not without being clear what those liberties were).

[Duck999]

I agree with all that, but I was using it in different circumstances, non verbal.

Scenario: Bob wears very expensive jewelery. Whether or not Bob is rich, Fred might look over and think, Bob must be rich. Now let's say Bob is not rich, he never lied, Fred just made an assumption. If Fred had asked Bob if he were rich, and Bob said yes, it would be a lie. If he were wearing the jewelry to make himself look rich, it would be concealing. If Bob is not asked anything, and is wearing the jewelry just because he likes it, he never lied.

[Kato]

It is something bad that happens when politicians can't hide the truth.
I'll assume you are joking because this is a pretty terrible definition of war :smalltongue:


I agree with all that, but I was using it in different circumstances, non verbal.

Scenario: Bob wears very expensive jewelery. Whether or not Bob is rich, Fred might look over and think, Bob must be rich. Now let's say Bob is not rich, he never lied, Fred just made an assumption. If Fred had asked Bob if he were rich, and Bob said yes, it would be a lie. If he were wearing the jewelry to make himself look rich, it would be concealing. If Bob is not asked anything, and is wearing the jewelry just because he likes it, he never lied.

I think I was confused at the "lying when you believe you are tellig he truth" part of your statement which may come down to different definitions of lying but in my understanding if you think something is true you are not lying, you are merely wrong. And obviously, you can't make people all-knowing. So this is of course okay and the worst that could be said about it is "you should know this" if it's something important enough.

[Anarion]

Is the scenario in this thread also one that assumes there are no awkward topics of conversation and embarrassment doesn't exist? If someone is thinking about how pretty a girl is and randomly gets asked what he was thinking about, would he blush and tell the truth in our no-lie world, or would it be a casual answer with no particular emotional weight?

Honestly, if the rest of the world with all its taboos stuck around, there would probably be societal consensus to never ever discuss certain subjects outside of formalized educational material.

On the other hand, a world in which people find nothing taboo and freely discuss their innermost feelings all the time can get really weird, really fast. It implies totally different cultural norms, maybe not even monogamy as a standard for relationships, I'm not sure. It also implies considerable trust with others, and I'm not really sure how criminals or others with bad intent could even exist in such a society. So, it would be a kind of utopia, with more sex than such a term usually implies, I think.

On the related topic of what lying means, our imaginary world probably requires more accurate information disclosure. You can't say where somebody else is without a tracking device, you have to instead say "he told me he would be at X location" which would be highly likely since nobody can lie, but still leaves open the possibility of interference by outside circumstances without spreading falsehood.

[Kato]

Is the scenario in this thread also one that assumes there are no awkward topics of conversation and embarrassment doesn't exist? If someone is thinking about how pretty a girl is and randomly gets asked what he was thinking about, would he blush and tell the truth in our no-lie world, or would it be a casual answer with no particular emotional weight?
Well, yeah, you would tell the truth, with all the possible implications. As we at some point said it would be a sudden change of our world, not a rewritten history I'm sure it would take quite a while for people to get used to it... And while there are certainly a lot of "do these pants make me look fat?" moments, there would likely be as many or more "yeah, I was looking at you because you are really pretty/handsome" moments.


[...]maybe not even monogamy as a standard for relationships, I'm not sure. It also implies considerable trust with others, and I'm not really sure how criminals or others with bad intent could even exist in such a society. So, it would be a kind of utopia, with more sex than such a term usually implies, I think.
I wouldn't be so sure on the monogamy... As in, really not sure. I'll asusume, yeah, many people even in a happy relationship are often thinking about sex with other people. On the other hand, eve if I might honestly think about cheating on my partner and even if a potential lover agrees on it, I might still decide against it because I can evaluate the effect it would have on my partner if s/he would (in this scenario more likely) find out about it.
sidenote: Wait, utopia doesn't imply unlimited free sex? What kind of utopia would that be? :smalltongue:



On the related topic of what lying means, our imaginary world probably requires more accurate information disclosure. You can't say where somebody else is without a tracking device, you have to instead say "he told me he would be at X location" which would be highly likely since nobody can lie, but still leaves open the possibility of interference by outside circumstances without spreading falsehood.
Well, overly carefully phrasing your statements might be better, but at least I don't consider stating a not completly proven statement to be a lie. Unless you have good reason to not trust the given location.

[SiuiS]

Well, yeah, you would tell the truth, with all the possible implications. As we at some point said it would be a sudden change of our world, not a rewritten history I'm sure it would take quite a while for people to get used to it... And while there are certainly a lot of "do these pants make me look fat?" moments, there would likely be as many or more "yeah, I was looking at you because you are really pretty/handsome" moments.

It's amazing to me that people think "no lying" means "full disclosure". Is "I don't want to tell you/no comment/that's classified" not a viable response? Sure, the second two could be out of bounds (one on basis that you have comments you don't want to make but that do exist, the other based on the natures of classification and withholding), but "I am not going to tell you" is always allowable.

[Aedilred]

It's amazing to me that people think "no lying" means "full disclosure".
I'm pretty sure that was part of the premise as suggested by the OP - that, at least on enquiry, you had to divulge the whole truth.

In any case, in the case of the classic "does this make me look fat?" question, surely "no comment" basically means "yes". And will be taken as such.

[Kato]

It's amazing to me that people think "no lying" means "full disclosure". Is "I don't want to tell you/no comment/that's classified" not a viable response? Sure, the second two could be out of bounds (one on basis that you have comments you don't want to make but that do exist, the other based on the natures of classification and withholding), but "I am not going to tell you" is always allowable.

Well, while I wouldn't consider it "lying" per se but if you could just withhold any information you don't want to give freely it would drastically change the scenario, I think. The idea was for people to be unable to hide things from one another and this would greatly negate that.

[SiuiS]

I'm pretty sure that was part of the premise as suggested by the OP - that, at least on enquiry, you had to divulge the whole truth.

In any case, in the case of the classic "does this make me look fat?" question, surely "no comment" basically means "yes". And will be taken as such.

That says more about the people speaking than anything else. "This is a subject I am not comfortable talking about regardless of answer" is perfectly fine, in that people often don't want to talk not because it would be incriminating now but because the subject is is one of impropriety.

And the OP has changed a bit since last I was there, I assume?


Well, while I wouldn't consider it "lying" per se but if you could just withhold any information you don't want to give freely it would drastically change the scenario, I think. The idea was for people to be unable to hide things from one another and this would greatly negate that.

Ah, no. Freely withholding any information means withholding information selectively even from within an idea.

However, not answering at all is not selective in that sense. Saying "I don't want to tell you" is the truth. They could find out why (by asking) but it's no different than not talking at all.

[Kato]

And the OP has changed a bit since last I was there, I assume?
I'm afraid not. I think I haven't updated it since after the first page when it seemed my initial phrasing was very poor. As we are still arguing more about what entails a lie and what the rules should be rather than about what the consequences would be I'm not sure what to add :smallredface:



Ah, no. Freely withholding any information means withholding information selectively even from within an idea.
Sorry, I'm afraid I don't understand what you mean to say.


However, not answering at all is not selective in that sense. Saying "I don't want to tell you" is the truth. They could find out why (by asking) but it's no different than not talking at all.
Okay, I understand that. And I can't argue with it being a valid response, even though it may not be an answer if the question is phrased with sufficient care. But I guess "I don't want to tell you" at some points is an answer in itself... So this might become one of the most often used phrases in the scenario. :smalltongue:

[Anarion]

The "do I look fat" question isn't the important one. We lie to spare feelings, but people could learn to adjust to criticism and understand that someone who says something harsh still cares about them.

No, the important question is when somebody tries to build a new apartment building and the neighbors don't like the shadow it will cast, or when two people both want to open the same businesses at the same location. Because those kind of fights make people hate each other. And if you strip away the veneer of civility that enables people who hate each other's guts to converse, I think there would be serious problems, maybe even violence.