You've Got to Be Kidding!: How to Keep Your Job Without Losing Your Integrity

Is a Lie Ever Justified?

To give good reason for lying, the person doing the deceiving must be able to explain his lie in such a way that other reasonable people would agree with him that a lie was the best solution to a particular dilemma. This is the “publicity test” whereby the reason for the lie is judged to be reasonable by reasonable people. For instance, most reasonable people would find it justifiable to lie to a gunman holding hostages in a bank lobby. “If it saves some lives, tell him whatever he needs to hear” would be a rational reaction that falls under the category of “whatever it takes.” Additional justification would be: Lying to a liar doesn’t count! Moral absolutists, however, would argue that it is still morally wrong, no matter what the circumstances. These people would contend that “the absolute truth” will always be a better solution. In the case of the hostages in the bank lobby, absolutists might make a case that the gunman is mentally unstable, and that any attempt to lie—should the gunman detect it—would result in even more people being killed.

I’m on the side of the “reasonable” argument. I find public scrutiny to be a reliable and useful way to link personal moral behavior with the community’s standards. It is, in my opinion, the best way to identify deceptive practices and separate the justifiable lies from the indefensible ones.

Justification for a lie cannot be a discussion between the liar and his conscience. The liar’s perspective is distorted, ...