Lying v. Misleading Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1750 words

fiction v. Misleading - Essay ExamplePhilosophers leave not only tried to characterize the difference amongst lies and misleading statements, but also have debated over the moral significance of each kind of utterance. Therefore, the 2 main question s are what speech act is required for fable, as opposed to be misleading and what is the moral difference between the two acts of speech. One theory, from a linguistic point of view, check to Stokke (2), is that in that location are different ways of conveying information, which immorals, in turn, that there is a difference in the speech acts involved in both misleading and craft. When sensation is lying, the mode of communication is saying. This means that lying requires saying something, and being misleading is conveying information without coming right out and saying it. The manakin that Stokke (1) gave was a person who is looking forward to deprivation to a party that evening after work. other person, a co-worker, comes up and says that she doesnt want to go to the party unless person A is going. To which, person A scarcely says I have to work. But person A is actually going to be going to the party. This is misleading, because A implies that she wouldnt be going to the party by her statement. But she wasnt lying she did have to work that day. Lying would mean that person A would come right out and say no, I am not going to go the party tonight, when she really is. As it was, the scenario was an example of merely misleading person B. Green (160) makes the attribute between lying and misleading by stating that lying is telling a false statement, while misleading involves stating something that is true, but is calculated to draw the inference of a lie. Stokke (348) further makes distinctions between lying and misleading, and the ethical implications of each. mortal might lie without the intent to deceive. This is because there are reasons for lying that do not have to do with deception. For inst ance, a person can lie on the witness stand because he fears reprisals, not that he wants to deceive everybody. This is especially true when it is clear that he did see the murder, or whatever it is that he is lying about on the witness stand. He knows that he isnt deceiving anybody, and that was never his intent. Rather, his intent was to simply secure his suffer safety or the safety of others who he might be protecting as well. Therefore, some philosophers have try oned to craft categories of lying where there is not an intent to deceive, such as the case above. In this definition, a lie is a lie even if there is not an attempt to deceive, as farsighted as there is a warrant for the truth (Stokke, 349). Since one can warrant for the truth, while clear-sighted that the statement is false, even if that person did not indicate to deceive, then this would still be considered to be a lie. Therefore, there does not necessarily have to be an intent to deceive for the statement to be considered to be a lie (Stokke, 349). This would contradict the basic formula which is put in place by Stokke (348), which is that a person lies a person A makes a knowing false statement to person B, and there is also an intention to deceive person B. This somewhat complicates the ethical consequences of a lie, according to Stokke (350). this is because there is one traditional school of thought that lying is morally wrong when one nail downs to deceive. But, if there is not an attempt at deception, is this lie morally wrong? Stokke (350) states that it still is morally wrong, even if the person does not intend to deceive, and, in fact, deceives nobody (such as the witness to the murder, when that witness was caught on tape actually witnessing the murder. He doesnt intend to deceive