skip to Main Content

Why Lying is Sometimes Better Than Telling the Truth

In practically every case, telling the truth is always the simple way out, no matter how difficult the situation becomes for you. Since infancy, we have been taught and sought to incorporate the moral of telling the truth into our actions. Although it is one of the most admirable traits in a person, there are various occasions in which expressing the truth may hurt feelings or exacerbate the situation for the one receiving it. As a result, it is not always mandatory that revealing the truth be advantageous. We must first recognize the seriousness of the issue before deciding whether to speak the truth or lie. As a result, this article on the website of Chicago Booth Review lists several ways to draw comparisons between the impacts of telling the truth and lying, demonstrating that it is sometimes preferable to lie than make the situation worse by revealing the truth.

Lying is sometimes better than telling the truth

According to the introduction of the article, lying is most usually used when telling the truth might harm the other person’s feelings or self-esteem. However, research by Chicago Booth’s Emma Levine, on which the piece is heavily based, reveals that simply protecting someone’s feelings is insufficient justification for lying. The essay highlights that lying is only considered ethical when telling the truth risks causing unnecessary harm. The article defines ‘unnecessary harm’ as a consequence of how much long-term worth the truth has, whether you can learn and develop from it, and how much emotional anguish and suffering it will cause you. According to Levine, many people believe lying is justified if sharing the truth will inflict someone emotional grief and suffering without resulting in growth or long-term worth. Levine conducted a series of trials with hundreds of volunteers to understand at a fundamental level how individuals make moral judgments about honesty and dishonesty, which is discussed further in the article. According to the study’s findings, Levine identified eight community standards of deceit, which means she discovered eight typical scenarios in which lying is considered acceptable. Her study implies that lying to those who are emotionally weak, approaching death, or would be bewildered by the truth is appropriate. They also believed that lying was more ethical when it helped others save themselves from humiliation in public or concentrate on something essential. Subjective or inconsequential lies, as well as those involving a circumstance over which the addressee had no influence, were also regarded permissible. She also discovered that the lower the perceived value of telling the truth and the greater its perceived harm, the more likely research participants were to approve of lying. Another instance described in the article in which lying was preferred above telling the truth was when the situation could not be changed. Finally, when a deception plainly includes needless harm, targets and communicators generally believe it is better than the truth, the article suggests.

Since telling the truth has always been viewed as a moral responsibility, everyone considers telling the truth to be a preferable alternative to merely lying and saving someone from unnecessary harm. The aforementioned text, however, contradicts the assertion by providing one of the most effective explanations.

Another way to become a better professional is through an executive education program like the Chicago Booth Accelerated Development Program (Chicago Booth ADP) offered by the University of Chicago Booth School of Business.

Back To Top