Summary Of ' What Is Meant By Telling The Truth? '

After reading both stories, I found that I enjoyed Stephanie Ericsson’s, “The Ways We Lie” the most. This story was very interesting and made me think of many different things. I did not realize that there were so many different ways to lie. I was guilty of doing a few of them. After reading the section about the white lie, I realized that I do this sometimes without even noticing it. Ericsson gives the example of when your friend may look terrible one day, but you tell them that they look nice just so they would feel better. Most people, along with myself, do not see this as a bad thing because you are doing something good for someone else, but either way you are still lying. As I continued reading, I was also shocked about a few parts, especially

In the article “It’s the truth: Americans Conflicted About Lying” the author believes that lying is only justified if it doesn’t hurt anyone. The author supports his claim by stating “Apparently white lies are acceptable, even necessary, part of many lives-even though we dislike the idea of lying.” This supports his claim by saying that lying is sometimes necessary. Also, the article states that 65 percent of Americans voted that it was ok to lie sometimes. This also helps his claim by stating that people will lie to protect each other or to not cause harm. The author also supports his claim by stating “Not only is lying justified, It is sometimes a moral duty.” (Randy Cohen) This also supports the claim by saying sometimes you have to lie

Mill and Singer agree that consequences are more important than motive yet disagree on motive’s relevance. Mill states that right actions do “not necessarily indicate a virtuous character” and that blamable actions “often proceed from qualities entitled to praise” (Mill 20). Similarly, Singer states that “there is no intrinsic difference between killing and allowing to die” (Singer 224). He uses the analogy of the travelling salesman to illustrate this argument. In this analogy, a travelling salesman sells tinned food that he knows contains a contaminant that will double the risk of stomach cancer. He sells the food nonetheless, with no identifiable victims and no certainty (Singer

There are several occasions in one’s life that he should have spoken up or had not said a lie to where it hurt another, yet the fact is, he is only human and everyone is guilty of making these choices. Why does this become habitual? Is it because integrity is holding him back? These questions are always hard to answer, because no one really thinks about integrity, honesty, or the need to speak up. William Buckley and Stephanie Ericsson, however, do address these topics with a huge amount of thought and purpose. Buckley and Ericsson, under the thematic concept of ethics, have valid points concerning ethics within their rhetoric and style.

In “The Ways we Lie,” Stephanie Ericsson expresses her own life experience as an example to show, how difficult it is to balance the moral value of living a lie and the consequences of telling the truth in real life. Ericsson expresses her views thoroughly on how “we all lie” for different reasons and for different purposes. In “The Way We Lie,” informational essay, some of the words contradict each other, for example, she explains the impossibility and the consequences of telling the truth all the time, while she explains the consequences of telling a lie without taking a side. She used those statements to build a strong bond with readers by eliminating judgment and creating humble moments. Ericsson’s essay grasped my attention easily and intrigued me so much that, I couldn’t keep my eyes of the pages; the end of each paragraph brought me to have text-to-self connections.

The psychology of lying is an interesting one because everyone at some point engages in lying. The audiences in of this works are the students and the teaching fraternity. The purpose of this work is to explore compelling reasons that make people lie. Unlike other phenomenon, lying is a relatively old phenomenon that exists throughout the world. This lying habit has been in existence for centuries and people find a way to lie about different things based on a subjective outcome intended by the lying party. Since lying has developed over many years, it has become a functional set of the social system and many people’s lives. The main challenge with lying is that it has a way of catching up with a person. When the

is false, because there are cases where a person is morally responsible for what she has done even if she could not have done otherwise (835-6). Call such cases Frankfurt-style cases. A lot of literature thereafter has been targeted on these Frankfurt-style cases, particularly whether it’s really possible to construct them. Among critics of Frankfurt, David Widerker (2003) takes one step further and he grants, for the sake of his argument, that it is possible to construct Frankfurt-style cases ; however, he argues that even so, Frankfurt’s argument still fails because there are counter-examples to Frankfurt-style cases, which are in favor of PAP (60-2).

Mill and Singer agree that consequences are more important than motive yet disagree on motive’s relevance. Mill states that right actions do “not necessarily indicate a virtuous character” and that blamable actions “often proceed from qualities entitled to praise” (Mill 20). Similarly, Singer states that “there is no intrinsic difference between killing and allowing to die” (Singer 224). He uses the analogy of the travelling salesman to illustrate this argument’s dependence on consequence. In this analogy, a travelling salesman sells food that he knows contains a contaminant that doubles the risk of stomach cancer, yet he continues to sell the food. His lack of certain, identifiable victims does not render this

In Morality: An Introduction to Ethics, Bernard Williams aims to question the figure of the amoralist. The amoralist can be characterized as a person who, regardless of acknowledging the world’s claims of moral considerations, does not possess these sensitivities himself. Furthermore, the foundational values of morality, which direct—for the most part—the actions of others, do not influence the amoralist’s judgments similarly. When Williams addresses the amoralist, he wants to show how someone might be able to convince another individual who is insensitive to moral concerns to be swayed in hopes of look at morality as a way of decision-making.

Truth can be defined as conformity to reality or actuality and in order for something to be “true” it must be public, eternal, and independent. If the “truth” does not follow these guidelines then it cannot be “true.” Obviously in contrary anything that goes against the boundaries of “truth” is inevitably false. True and false, in many cases does not seem to be a simple black and white situation, there could sometimes be no grounds to decide what is true and what is false. All truths are a matter of opinion. Truth is relative to culture, historical era, language, and society. All the truths that we know are subjective truths (i.e. mind-dependent truths) and there is nothing more to truth than what we are willing to assert as true

In this sense, a person can do the “right” thing, but if it is not done by his own will or choice, it is not morally virtuous. The claims of Books II and III directly contradict each other. The former argues that force must play a part in the development of moral virtue, while the latter explicitly states that what is done by force is not at all morally virtuous.

The original state of knowledge is truth. There is a clear negation in declaring that 'Dr. Smith is aware that that X is correct, even supposing X is false.' One may maintain to know or deem or find out that X is true, which is attuned with declaring that X is false. A query one may regard as then is: What is truth? There are those who consider Protagoras, a philosophical opponent of Socrates, that there are as a lot of interpretations of the notion of truth as there are people who declare that for some statement, X, is accurate for them. Some contemporary and modern supporters of Protagoras consequently say that truth is comparative.

What are lies? A lie is defined as follows: To make a statement that one knows to be false, especially with the intent to deceive. There are several ways that lies are told for instance, there are white lies, lies of omission, bold faced lies, and lies of exaggeration. No matter what type of lie that one chooses to tell many people believe that lies do more harm than good.

We live in a society in which unethical actions are always justified as moral because the majority are involved in the deeds. We always face an ethical dilemma in different situations, and it becomes difficult to make a rational decision. This reflection paper aims at exploring the issue of moral disengagement. Reasons for moral disengagement will be discussed.

Kant’s choice of exemplification scenarios further asserts that no action that is done from inclination have any moral worth and that only the actions from duty have moral worth. According to Kant, a good or right course of action is not necessarily that which is inscribed in the society’s code of ethical reference but it is that which one undertakes since they feel it is their duty or obligation to perform it (Stratton-Lake, 322). Doing the right thing does nothave limitations or a comparison index but is rather based on one's rationale and free will. The duty to do the right thing manifests itself as an internal urge towards fulfilling a certain quest. That quest is makes one have the free will to perform or not perform a certain deed without regarding the consequences that would have on their life and society. Fossee notes that Kant’s argument is therefore shaped in a way that any conflict between duties is nullified or not considered in the analyses (3). That is made possible from Kant’s earlier classification of needs into perfect and imperfect needs. The superiority of the perfect needs means that the rationale of a person is guided to ensure that categorical imperatives take precedence and acts as a determinate factor for the morality of an action.