Prep101 - Free Writing Sample Feedback (summer 2011)

[cyv]

Lies come in different forms. It may be a direct propagation of a fact that is untrue or it may entail omissions of important facts. There are big lies and there are small lies or fibs. Although we teach our children that lying is bad and telling the truth is good, lying can often do less harm to that telling the truth. Lying can prevent emotions from being hurt and in some instances it may even provide a medical benefit. For example, a doctor may give a patient a sugar pill while telling the patient that this is a specific medication that will alleviate the symptoms of the patient’s ailment. Although the pill is only composed of sugar, the belief the patients has in the ability of the pill to be beneficial can actually lead to improvements in the patients symptoms. This is the placebo effect. By the same logic, it can be argued that informing a patient’s about negative results can lead to a decline in the patient’s condition. In this case a lie may do less harm to the patients than the truth.

 

However, in some instances a lie can be detrimental. William Pickton is a Canadian serial killer found responsible for the brutal murder and disappearances of dozens of women in the Vancouver area from the 1980s to 2000s. Several years before his capture, police questioned an acquaintance of Pickton’s who was believed to have knowledge of the murders. Despite persistence questioning, she vehemently denied having any information relating to these crimes. Years later, it was revealed that she had actually witnessed a dead body on Pickton’s farm. This information could have lead to the capture of Pickton several years earlier and prevented the death of many women. In this case, a lie costs the lives of many.

 

Whether or not a lie causes less harm than the truth depends on the outcome of the lie. A lie that causes physical harm to another individual or society as a whole is unacceptable, however a lie that alleviates physical pain or discomfort can be beneficial. In the case of William Pickton, had his acquaintance told the truth she could have saved many women from death. A doctor prescribing placebos to his patients may be morally controversial act, but his lie helps the patient feel physically better.

 

Thanks!

[tsuki_123]

Lies are often less harmful than the truth.

 

Task #1:

Honesty is a virtue of truth. Truth is difficult to define, as it can be described in a multitude of ways. For the purpose of this discussion, it will be defined as "the accuracy of describing events and feelings". To lie, then, is to do the opposite. White lies are instances in which telling lies potentially yields less harm. For example, consider this situation. A doctor has a cancer patient who is going into surgery - she is very anxious and has unstable vitals. Her blood pressure and heart rate fluctuate greatly when she feels slightly overwhelmed. The doctor knows that if he tells her about how risky the surgery is, the patient will become unstable and the chances that the surgery succeeds would depreciate. Hence, the doctor consults with the patient's closest family members and they agree to instead encourage her by telling her that the surgery will go well. In this situation, lying has the effect of changing one's beliefs for the better at a critical instant of their life. As a result, a lie here would benefit the patient because of how it changes her attitude positively about the dangerous surgery.

 

Task #2:

However, a lie is still a lie. Its purpose is to conceal the truth, and therefore in some situations telling a lie is actually more harmful than telling a truth. People say that "when one talks the talk, they should walk the walk". A political example would be George W. Bush, and how he promised during one of his campaigns that he would lower taxes. Certainly, his speech impressed the public because of the promises he made. Nonetheless, he lied. Taxes were raised due to the inability of incorporating tax reductions into the budget. As a result, President Bush gained much disfavour from the public. The purpose behind this empty promise was most likely for self-gain. Therefore, the act of lying - that is, promising something and not carrying through with it - damaged Bush's reputation and jeopardized the chances he would be re-elected.

 

Task #3:

To summarize, lies are a double-edged sword. It can be used to yield favourable or terrible outcomes. The method of determining when a lie is more or less harmful than a truth would be gauged from the consequences as well as the intentions of an individual's lie. A doctor who attempts optimize the attitude of a patient prior to a dangerous surgery has purely good intentions for them. Despite the blurriness of the outcome of the surgery, by cheering the patient up the doctor is increasing the chances that the patient will survive the operation. However, if a person intends to lie for personal gains , such as the example with George W. Bush for the elections, then the consequences will be serious because of how millions of people were lied to for the sake of being elected president. Ultimately, one should critically consider the reactions of people who will be lied to if they discover the lie. If wielded correctly for right intentions, a lie can prove to be a useful tool to heal the unfortunate by the means of giving them hope; if yielded incorrectly, a lie usually causes irreparable destruction..

[bored]

Lies are often less harmful than the truth.

 

Describe a specific situation in which the truth might be less harmful than lies. Discuss what you think determines whether or not lies are less harmful than the truth.

 

 

“A little white lie never hurts a fly” is a proverb often repeated to us by our parents when we catch them lying. A lie is when a person is knowingly spreading out false information, this is often less harmful to the greater good than the truth. A discussion on lies and truths often comes down the individual ethics on the matter of greater good. When looking at an ethical dilemma, one of the ways of assessing the situation is by assessing the greater good. This method states that if the greater good out weights the wrong doings done to achieve the greater good, then that is worth the wrong doings. If however the greater good does not outweigh the wrong doings necessary to get to that good, then the good is not worth perusing. Often times, when I was younger my parents had said many lies to me. One such lie was of Santa Clause. They said that there was a man sitting in the heavens and he was counting all my good deeds and all my bad deeds. They told me that at the end of the year, that person will come down from the sky and gift me with what I deserve. As I grew older, I started questioning my parents on this matter. In the end, they told me that it was only a white lie, intended for the good of the childhood me. They were protecting me from doing bad deeds to the society by telling me that there was a greater power monitoring my activities. This issue is very similar to that of man and religion. When man was very young, when civilizations were just forming, organization was very important. One theory according to many historians is that the scholars of this early era realized that organization is at the utmost importance of a civilization. Therefore they decided to create religion. Because of these religions, our human race united under one umbrella, they began working together to solve their problems. Man organized themselves into hierarchy so that better governing can be conducted. Man worked together in fear of a being watching their actions. In this context, the potential lie created by these scholars was for the greater good and in the end has definitely been the foundation of today’s society. Without religion, man would never have united and would never have cooperated with their fellow. The reason why religion can be seen as a white lie is because there is no proof that god actually exists in the world, yet people still follow the religion. Religion helped achieve the greater good that is our society today. This little lie created by scholars of the ancient times has definitely outweighed its wrong doings, and still helps mankind today.

 

The power of religion in today’s world is slowly decreasing. Today, man is given the truth instead of the lie. This truth comes into form of science. Man is told all that he needs to know to make proper decisions and he is able to use that truth to a much greater extent than he would be able to use religion. As time has gone by, the power of religion has slowly decreased, and the power of science has increased. People are rejecting religion and using Science to build their societies. In this case, the truth, science is much more useful then the lie of religion. The reason why science is more beneficial compared to religion is because there are many religions whereas there is only one science. The wars and problems caused by religion slowly go away as the power of science increases. Therefore, in today’s modern world, the use of science was more influential and efficient than the use of religion.

 

The line between truth and lie is drawn by the greater good achieved from those actions. If a lie is helping civilization as religion has, than it definitely is worth it because the greater good outweighs the wrong doings conducted by the lie. We are able to have a civilization which we would not have if religion was not invented. However, as we start learning about the truth, it is beneficial to bring the truth out because if we did not, than man would never evolve. The same wars of the past between religions would go on forever, the same problems will continue. Thus if the truth exists, than it is much more beneficial compared to a lie. For the longest time, Science was not able to answer much of the questions that were answerable by religion, therefore in that time scholars saw fit to use religion to answer question that the mankind asked. But as time passed, and science grew, it was able to answer a lot of the questions that religion once did. At this time, scholars decided to leave religion behind and follow the path of science. It is always more beneficial to follow the truth if the truth is available, however, when the truth is not available, a white lie can be used to answer the questions of mankind.

 

---------------------------

 

Hey Anita, Thanks for editing.. I only had 10 minutes for the last two paragraphs so they might not be as good as the first one.. I also tried to edit my work as I was doing it. Thank you very much once again for editing.

[gotlactose]

Lies are often less harmful than the truth.

 

Describe a specific situation in which the truth might be less harmful than lies. Discuss what you think determines whether or not lies are less harmful than the truth.

 

 

Lies are fabrication of the truth, intended to make reality less harmful to those who believe the lies. People of all ages and backgrounds tell lies to make the situation seem less threatening than it actually is. For example, a mother tells her child that the child will recover successfully from late stage brain cancer. The mother makes the reality of her child's death less threatening by telling her child positive news and easing her child's anxiety. In this situation, the lie that the mother tells her child does not treaten her child's life: the lie is independent from her chances of survival. It only serves to ease the child's mind, which is psychologically therapeutic for the child.

 

On the other hand, if a person tells a lie that covers up a truth that endangers their lives, then telling the truth would present less danger to his life. Take, for example, a drug addict who has acute liver failure brought on by a disease transmitted through the administration of the drug. If he does not tell the truth to his doctors, then his doctors will not know how to correctly treat the underlying condition that is causing his symptons. This drug addict may die if he does not tell the truth about his lifestyle. Since the truth would save his life, the drug addict would be better served by telling the truth to his doctors as opposed to covering up his drug addiction problem with lies.

 

In conclusion, the threat to a person's well being is the factor that decides whether the truth or the lie is less harmful to the person. When the lies provide the peace of mind that the truth cannot offer and telling lies does not change the circumstances of one's health, then the lies are less harmful compared to the truth. But if the truth is what can save the person's life, then the person should tell the truth to preserve their life. Not telling the truth would be more harmful than persisting to tell ies because the person will ultimately lose their life trying to keep up a inaccurate set of information. THe preservation of life is the ultimate factor that determines whether the truth brings more harm than the lies do.

 

Thanks!

[Iluvsoccer]

Lies are often less harmful than the truth.

 

Describe a specific situation in which the truth might be less harmful than lies. Discuss what you think determines whether or not lies are less harmful than the truth.

 

"It will be a day of meditation and prayers", these were the words of Mahatma Gandhi when he planned an entire day for all the Indian people to spend at home and abstain from working under the 'British Raj'. The use of this 'lie' proved to be very useful and albeit, a lot less harmful than annoucing a day of rioting and opposing the British suppression of India's fight for independence. When India was fighting for independence during the 1940s under the direction of Mohandas Gandhi, the British viceroy made it clear that any outright revolution and violence will be crushed with a heavy hand. Thus, the use of a lie such as this, whereby Gandhi used the excuse of prayers for delivering an economic blow to the British rule was quite beneficial and a lot less harmful for the Indian population. Hence, it is indeed beneficial to use a lie in order to fulfill needs and demands for the greater good.

 

On the other hand, not all needs can be fulfilled with a lie and can instead, cause a great deal of harm. A prime example of this is when the Bush administration invaded Iraq under the claims of suspecting the presence of "Weapons of Mass Destruction" (WMDs). Although it seemed like a justified idea at the time of invasion, when the WMD inspectors later admitted to not having found any WMDs, the public outrage was substantial. Both the American as well as the international society at large, expressed a great deal of disagreement and lose of trust in the Bush administration. This jeopardized George W. Bush's legacy as the President and also brought into question his own personal agenda behind the Iraq invasion. The use of USA resources, loss of lives and economic costs associated with the invasion seemed utterly unnecessary to many. Therefore, telling a lie does not always prove to be more beneficial than telling the truth.

 

The deciding factor as to what determines whether a lie can be beneficial over telling the truth is determining whether the lie benefits one's own personal agenda or whether the lie is for the greater good. In the case of Mahatma Gandhi, the lie of taking a day off for prayers and abstaining from work accomplished the greater good of fighthing for India's independence. It was saved thousands of lives, which would have been lost had he instead annouced a day of rioting against the british government. On the other hand, using the 'cloak' of WMDs to invade Iraq in order to fulfill personal agendas and motives, the Bush administration suffered more harm than good. This lie not only compromised their integrity on the international stage, but also at home. The American people, through their demonstrations and peaceful rallies, showed that they no longer trust the Bush administration and did not appreciate the use of American resources for meeting personal agendas. Thus, a lie such as this cost the Bush government a loss of faith among the American people and subsequently, a loss in the political field by losing to the Democrats in the 2008 election. Hence, when determining when a lie can prove more useful than the truth, it is crucial to weigh the benefits of the people at large versus one's own motives and always, ensure that the importance is given to the greater good of the people.

 

I know there are some grammatical errors but I hope it won't cost me too much - thanks for grading!

[Sebriz]

To tell the truth is often more harmful then telling lies. Telling the truth involves not providing false information and harmful means resulting in negative consequences. There are countless situations when telling the truth results in negative consequences. Private Manning of the U.S military found himself in a moral dilemma after uncovering top secret documents that show that the U.S. was involved in war crimes. He encountered videos and evidence of marines attacking unarmed civilians in the war in Iraq and instances of excessive force used. Manning could not keep this information to himself and released it to a media organization keen on releasing government secrets and advocates of truth, Wikileaks. By doing this he essentially told the truth to the world about what was really going on in Iraq to the public even though he knew it was against the law. He was later caught and is now being held in a jail cell waiting for his court date where he may be found guilty of treason. Despite public outcry, the U.S. government refuses to release him. Another situation where lieing resulted in negative consequences was during the Columbine shootings in the first decade of the new millenium. A shooter went on a killing spree at his school killing people because of their beliefs or popularity. A girl was asked if she believed in god and she said yes, knowing that she would be killed for telling the truth. She was executed by the gunmen. Both Manning and the girl in the Columbine shootings believed in their convictions and told the truth and recieved harmful negative consequences because of this.

 

Lies are not always less harmful then the truth. In the justice system in the United States and Canada, people being questioned by the police or by lawyers in court are expected to tell the truth. If they are caught lieing, they often recieve negative consequences so it is in their best interests to tell the truth. If someone were to lie to a police worker during interogation they are guilty of falsification. Lieing in this case result in more negative consequences then telling the truth so in this type of situation it is beneficial to tell the truth to avoid harmful consequences.

 

We must consider what is the determining factor in whether lies are more harmful or the truth is more harmful. The deciding factor is the consequences that lieing will bring. In the examples of Private Manning and the Columbine girl, if these people would have not told the truth it would have meant lieing to themselves and not standing up for what they believe is right even if it means that harmful consequences are inevitable. Manning stood up for his own ethics and what he believes is right and the girl spoke the truth of her religious conviction. On the other hand, if lieing means not being truthful to authorities then it is better to tell the truth because the consequences that the court system can bring can be harmful. Overall we can see that lies and the truth both have one thing in common, justice. Sometimes it is better to stand up for our beliefs by lieing and other times it is better to tell the truth; We can lie in the face of justice but the truth cannot hide from justice.

 

 

 

This is most likely my last answer on this post as my MCAT is on friday. Thank you for all your help Anita and best of luck in your medical career. Any last minute tips or advice from what you see?? Thanks

[ecobeco]

Lies are often less harmful than the truth.

 

"You can't handle the truth!" The famous line from the Tom Cruise movie effectively outlines an action that seems almost instinctive to some humans.

In many cases, when people are put on the spot, their first reaction is to lie. It is not known exactly why people have such an automatice tendency to lie, but one can hazard a guess and simply state that oftentimes, the truth causes more damage than good. Lying to other people is beneficial to the liar, as he/she can then exploit the victim. Through lies, one can convince others of various falsities; this enables the liar to manipulate others. Lies are told on a daily basis, and have often been the cause of horrific events. One need only think of the events surrounding the eruption of World War II and theunderlying cause of it - one very outspokenyet mentally unstable man - Hitler. Hitler single-handedly convinced the entire German nation that the cause of the poverty and economic situation at the time had been brought about by a single group of people - the Jews. Branching from this completely absurd mentality, he began preaching about the "perfect race" or the Aryan race.

Gradually, he deceived the German people more and more, forcing them to believe that everyone without blond hair and blue eyes was an enemy and an obstacle to the development of the Aryan race. To the German people at that time, these lies were treated like the words spoken by God himself. Hitler presented a solution to the horrible lifestyle that had developed in many German cities and the people fell for it. To them, these lies were a sort of miracle and helped stregthen their facist state of mind and engulf Europe in War.

 

Although humans seem to have an almost innate ability to lie, it is more often than not, beneficial to the person to tell the truth. In regards to telling people the truth, George W. Bush should have done so when he chose to invade Iraq at the beginning of the 21st century. Looking for "weapons of mass destruction", the American soldiers searchedfor years without finding a single explosive device. By lying to the American nation and the world, Bush painted a very deceitful picture of himself - it may have been to his benefit to tell the truth from the beginning. Lying not only raised people's hopes of apprehending the people responsible for the 9/11 attacks but it also drew doubt into the mind's of skeptics across the world. 10 odd years later, a single "WMD" has yet to be found and the U.S has got a new president. Had Bush been truthful

and honest from day one, many thousands of lives would have been spared in search of these imaginary weapons. However, he lied, and many people paid the ultimate price.

 

It is very tempting to lie when under pressure. For some people, it is very tempting to lie even when nothing will come out of the lie. What determines whether or not lies areless harmful than the truth is the severity of the lie and the consequences of finding out the truth. Pathological liars are known to lie pretty much about everythingand this is a special case in which the person does not realize that telling the truth will not harm them in any way. They think that they must lie to other people in order to receive some sort of recognition for their efforts. Small lies are usually not harmful and pose no threat to the liar whereas big lies can have severe repercussionsfor all involved in the lie. For example, lying about where somebody was may not seem harmful but it quickly becomes a serious issue when the whereabouts of that somebody arecrucial to solving a homicide. Under such circumstances, lying may not only get someone into trouble, but it may end up destroying an innocent person's life forever.

[Minowa]

Lies are often less harmful than the truth.

 

Describe a specific situation in which the truth might be less harmful than lies. Discuss what you think determines whether or not lies are less harmful than the truth.

 

 

As the Fleetwood Mac song goes, “Tell me lies, tell me sweet little lies”. From a young age, we are told to tell the truth. But we also learn early on in life that telling lies also serves as a means of self protection, as well as a way of sparing someone else’s feelings. Indeed, social mores sometimes require that we tell little fibs. Take the coworker who might comes in with a new haircut that she loves, but that another person finds awful. When asked by the coworker what she thinks of the cut, that person might say, “It’s nice”, in order to spare the coworker’s feelings and to prevent any negative feelings from being projected unto themselves. “Great presentation”, “nice shirt”, “I like your tie”: we learn early on in our working careers that even if we don’t really mean them, niceties such as these add to a feeling of cooperation.

 

But there are certainly situations in which telling a lie is inappropriate, even if we are trying to spare another person from harm. Lying to law authorities about a person’s whereabouts, for example, to protect another person, would be harmful to oneself because of the legal consequences. A corporate board, such as Enron, lying to its shareholders about the value of its stock, would be harmful not only to the company’s future credibility, but is also against the law. But lying does not only have to be against the law in order to be inappropriate. Telling the truth one’s spouse, even if the news is painful, is important in maintaining trust within the relationship.

 

In essence, then, the extent of harm engaged by telling a lie depends not only on the context, but also on the person that we are telling the lie to. The consequences of a lie do not have to be legal in order to be significant. Certainly, little social niceties told in the office workplace do much less damage to a relationship than telling a lie to one’s spouse. While telling a fib in a workplace context might actually help one maintain relationships, conversely, lying to a spouse contributes to the deterioration of the marital relationship.

[bsm]

Lies are often less harmful than the truth.

 

The statement that "Lies are often less harmful than the truth" is an all-encompassing idea that can be interpreted and analysed on many different levels. Lies can be considered on the microscopic (person-to-person) scale, as to whether hiding the truth helps or hurts us when dealing with our friends, family, and coworkers. The concept of lying can also be analysed in an absolute sense, in terms of whether hiding the truth is correct morally or good for humanity as a whole. However, the statement concerning the cost or benefit of lying is most commonly applied in the political arena. When charting a political course, politicans must decide whether it is wise to ever lie to the public that they are serving. In other words, will lying keep or remove politicans from power?

 

Steven Harper, Prime Minister of Canada, certainly benefitted from keeping certain aspects of his political plans hiden from the Canadian public. In 2010, Canadian members of parliament voted to bring the troops home from the Afghanistan war. Harper did not agree with the notion, and argued as much to the Parliament. He believed that maintaining a foreign military presense would ensure stability in Afghanistan and preserve the gains they had made over the previous years. In the end, Harper conceeded to public and political pressure and ended Canadian combat forces in Afghanistan. However, Harper unilaterally decided to keep a minimal number of troops deployed in non-combat, training duties. Harper did not bring up this notion in the parliamentary debates as it would likely have been over-ruled, rather he conceeded on the major issue while keeping a minor aspect of his policy hidden. The move worked because Harper maintained a small presense in Afghanistan while generally garnering public support from this removal of combat troops.

 

However, that is not to say that political lies are always to a politicians benefit. The key is that as lies increase in magnitide and implications, the more dangerous they become to the politicians weilding them. For exmaple, American President George Bush indicated that the primary reason for invading Iraq in 2003 was that the Saddam Hussein regime had "weapons of mass destruction". After the sucessful invasion, this claim was found to be inaccurate. As a result, Bush's approval ratings were abbysmal during the final months of his presidency.

 

In determining whether lies by politicians help keep them or remove them from power, then, we must consider the size of the lie in question. Larger lies have greater effects on society, and thus if found to be lies, will lead to political ruin. The invasion of Iraq was a war that cost billions of dollars and thousands of lives, thus the lie of Iraq having weapsons of mass destruction fatally hurt George Bush. However, Harper's more moderate hiding of the fact that he was keeping a few Canadian troops in Afghanistan has less societal implications, and thus less cost to his political reputation.

 

Thanks Anita

[Kovah]

Thanks!

 

When a one tells a lie to one’s enemy the lie is usually intended to cause harm. This liar will not care whether or not the enemy eventually realizes that they have been lied to because their relationship is not valued by either or them. However, lies between friends are a more complex issue. One may lie to thier friend in order to protect them from a truth. For example, my grandmother is 93 years old and is struggles with depression so my family and I do everything we can to keep her in good spirits so that she can stay healthy. Recently, one of her grandsons was injured in a car accident and was in critical condition for a period of time. It was difficult for us to keep her in the dark about what was happening with her grandson because she had a right to visit him, but we feared that in her mental state it would be unsafe for her to become upset. In my grandmother’s case the truth of her grandson’s condition would have been more harmful to her than the fact that we were lying to her.

 

Another complication arises when the reality of a lie is found out. After the grandson recovered, my grandmother eventually learned that we had not told her about her grandson’s condition and she was quite upset with us. She felt that we did not respect her enough to tell her and our relationship with her was weakened. The shortlived fear that she would have experienced had she learned that her grandson was in danger would have been harmful to her, but the long-term distrust that resulted between her and my family was a much greater harm.

 

Whether or not a lie between friends will be more harmful than the truth depends on whether or not the lie will be discovered for what it is. In general a between friends is done with good intentions and so a person will lie to keep their friend from being hurt by the reality of the truth. A family may lie to their grandmother about her grandson’s ill health because the shock could cause her health to decline as well. However, if a lie is revealed for what it is it usually harms the relationship between the liar and the person who was temporarily decieved. Thus a lie which is meant to prevent a friend from getting hurt will prevent harm only until it is discovered for what it is.

[pacemaker]

Lies are often less harmful than the truth.

 

Describe a specific situation in which the truth might be less harmful than lies. Discuss what you think determines whether or not lies are less harmful than the truth.

 

Truth refers to conveying information in the most accurate and precise manner as possible such that it highly reflects the reality. In contrast, lie refers to distorting information such that it is not a clear reflection of reality. Truth and lies play a major role in our moral thinking. In most modern societies, it is believed that adults over the age of 18 are capable of proper moral judgment. As such, they are believed to be capable of making a distinction between lies and truth and are better able to choose the right course of action under certain circumstances. Moreover, some believe that lies are often less harmful than truth. This is especially true if it is told to help others or to minimize harm to others. For example, if a patient with psychiatric disorder is admitted to a hospital or institution and his/her family members refuse to visit, it may be in his/her best interests for the care providers to say that the family was busy rather than letting the patient know of their resentment towards him/her. It is also important to note that such a lie is told to ensure that the patient does not get depressed or lose the will to live, which would hinder his/her recovery. Furthermore, this lie is being told on a very small scale that only involves one individual and his/her family.

 

In contrast, at times, truth can be less harmful than lies. This is more explicit in the case of politics where it may be better for a politician to speak the truth and be transparent about important political matters. Politicians and other government officials play a major role of representing the voices of their constituents. As such, it is expected for them to be truthful to those they represent. Constituents expect politicians and government officials to be accountable, transparent and truthful. As such, constituents have the right to know about important political matters that will inevitably affect their lives. Thus, in order to ensure that optimal decisions are made within the field of politics, it is the duty of the politicians to inform citizens by telling them the truth. Therefore, by telling the truth to the citizens, it may be possible to come up with better solutions to the problem, thereby truth can be less harmful than lies. Such cases are quite apparent in most democratic countries like Canada and the United States where a huge significance is placed on the voices of citizens. Moreover, this is a situation with a large scope since it involves a huge group of individuals as opposed to the one explained in the example of the psychiatric patient.

 

In conclusion, lies are often less harmful when they are told with the intention to help others or to minimize harms to others and is one that is told on a limited scope (i.e. to one or a few individuals only). This was clearly illustrated by the example of a psychiatric patient admitted to a hospital or institution and her family not wanting to visit her. The lie that the family was busy rather than the truth that they do not wish to see this patient is appropriate in this case as it is being told only to one individual on the basis of good intention. On the other hand, truth can be less harmful than lies when it involves a large group of people and revolves around the situation where one is expected to tell the truth. This was clearly illustrated in the case a politician and other government officials who by the nature of their job are expected to be accountable and transparent to the constituents they represent. Truth in this case can be less harmful than lies as it can lead to better solutions to sociopolitical issues with the help of the citizens.

 

Thanks Anita!

 

Also, I have been getting 5/6 on the last few essays I submitted - just wondering what else I can do to make my essays better and get a higher score.

[anitarama]

Score: 4.5/6

 

Task 1 (Supporting): This is a very philosophical sort of example, and though it is a very interesting one, your essay would have been strengthened by a factual recounting of an actual lie that was told and how it was beneficial. Your example given was rather speculative rather than hard, cold fact.

 

Task 2 (Refuting): This was a much more solid example, as this was an actual event that occured where a lie was told and it was harmful.

 

Task 3 (Resolution): This is a good resolution criteria, well done.

 

Lies are often less harmful than the truth.

 

 

A lie can be defined as a distortion of reality. As can be imagined the intent of a lie is to hide the truth in order to avoid undesirable consequences that would have resulted if the truth was known. Though it is often taught to children that honesty is the best policy, there are many times, when telling the truth creates unnecessary problems. This happens when telling the truth does not add to the understanding of a person. If the understanding of a person is not affected by the truth, then in that case, often ignorance is indeed bliss. What is the use of reality or truth when it will not change one’s opinion from when he/she had not known the truth. In this situation, instead of being useful truth can indeed harm a person. For example, if after Darwin’s theory of evolution, which was considered to be proof that: human beings are not special in this world, and there human beings’ existence was a mere fluke. This brought the existence of God into doubt. However, did this deduction help the average human being? The fact that God does not exist (considering Darwin’s Theory) only deprived people of hope. As human beings, we look for someone who is greater than our own existence and that powerful being is the source of our hope – a miracle. However, if an average person is deprived of this due to the truth of the matter, he/she will lose all hope, and then life just becomes a string of breaths. In this case, it would have been better to lie to the general public and to let them continue to believe in God, so that they can continue to hope – what is the point of knowing that Darwin’s theory implies that no God exists when all that does is deprive one of hope.

 

However, lies are not always less harmful than the truth. There can be times when honesty is indeed the best policy. For example, the CEO of Philip Morris (a tobacco company in U.S.), after pledging to speak the truth, said that he believes nicotine is not addictive. This is an obvious lie that he is telling in order to benefit himself. Who knows how many barely literate people would have bought cigarettes based on this man’s lie, and set themselves up for a road that leads to lung cancer and premature death. This lie has provided information that makes people justified for doing something that is known to be harmful. In this case, the lie is of course harmful as it is concealing information from the public that will allow them to make an informed and educated decision.

 

In conclusion, whether a lie is less harmful than the truth depends on the nature of the lie. If the lie is concealing information that does not interfere with a person’s belief system, such as believing in God, then it is better to tell a lie, than to tell the truth and deprive someone of hope, as Darwin’s theory did with many people. However, if the lie is concealing information that allows a person to make an informed decision about something that has a lasting effect on the person’s life, such as smoking cigarettes, then it is better to tell the truth, and let the person decide for themselves. All in all, there is no need to overburden people with knowledge that has no consequential influence on their life.

[anitarama]

Score: 4.5/6

 

Task 1 (Supporting): Interesting example. I think if you had perhaps mentioned an example where a person's positive psychological mindframe helped them when they were suffering a specific chronic disease this paragraph would be stronger.

 

Task 2 (Refuting): This is a good example in relation to the first.

 

Task 3 (Resolution): Good resolution criteria.

 

Often, it is more beneficial to lie to an individual than to tell them the whole truth. When someone is suffering from a grave, potentially life-threatening chronic disease, it is often beneficial to lie to them about their health status and try to assure them that their chances of recovery are greater than they actually are. This gives the individual hope and puts them in a positive frame of mind. Further, it has often been shown through psychological analysis that a positive emotionality is associated with actual physiological benefits. Therefore, if the patient thinks that they're feeling better or that their condition is not gravely serious, they may have a greater chance of being able to overcome their ailments.

 

On the other hand, when an individual's disease or ailment is one that has a minimal chance of improvement, it is often better to tell the person the truth and allow them to cope with the implications of their illness realistically. If a person with terminal cancer would be persuaded they are doing better every day, they may not be compelled to set their affairs in order, and may leave their will unfinished. This would put their relatives and anyone close to them in a very awkward position. Thus, if the lie would most likely hinder any actions that the patient would take to prepare for the consequences of their illness, the truth should be divulged to them.

 

It is often difficult to tell a patient about the gravity of their disease. How does one know when to lie to the patient about their condition or tell them the truth? The important factor to consider is the chance of recovery. If the chances of recovery for the patient are realistic (i.e. it may be unlikely, but it is not uncommon to hear of recoveries from similar maladies), it may be beneficial to lie to them and try to get them in a positive psychological and emotional state to boost their chances of recovery. However, if the chances of recovery from their condition are very slim, then it may be prudent to tell them the truth about the gravity of the situation so that the individual can take care of any affairs that need to be done for either them or their family to be ready for life after their treatment or their death. It is a very difficult thing to face for some people, but this is unfortunately not a reason not to tell an individual the truth.

[anitarama]

Score: 4.5/6

 

Task 1 (Supporting): Good introduction. Your explanation of the placebo effect was good, but rather than switch topics to negative test results, you could have continued on exploring the placebo effect, such as its use in RCTs, etc.

 

Task 2 (Refuting): This is a solid example of how lies can be harmful.

 

Task 3 (Resolution): Good resolution criteria.

 

Lies come in different forms. It may be a direct propagation of a fact that is untrue or it may entail omissions of important facts. There are big lies and there are small lies or fibs. Although we teach our children that lying is bad and telling the truth is good, lying can often do less harm to that telling the truth. Lying can prevent emotions from being hurt and in some instances it may even provide a medical benefit. For example, a doctor may give a patient a sugar pill while telling the patient that this is a specific medication that will alleviate the symptoms of the patient’s ailment. Although the pill is only composed of sugar, the belief the patients has in the ability of the pill to be beneficial can actually lead to improvements in the patients symptoms. This is the placebo effect. By the same logic, it can be argued that informing a patient’s about negative results can lead to a decline in the patient’s condition. In this case a lie may do less harm to the patients than the truth.

 

However, in some instances a lie can be detrimental. William Pickton is a Canadian serial killer found responsible for the brutal murder and disappearances of dozens of women in the Vancouver area from the 1980s to 2000s. Several years before his capture, police questioned an acquaintance of Pickton’s who was believed to have knowledge of the murders. Despite persistence questioning, she vehemently denied having any information relating to these crimes. Years later, it was revealed that she had actually witnessed a dead body on Pickton’s farm. This information could have lead to the capture of Pickton several years earlier and prevented the death of many women. In this case, a lie costs the lives of many.

 

Whether or not a lie causes less harm than the truth depends on the outcome of the lie. A lie that causes physical harm to another individual or society as a whole is unacceptable, however a lie that alleviates physical pain or discomfort can be beneficial. In the case of William Pickton, had his acquaintance told the truth she could have saved many women from death. A doctor prescribing placebos to his patients may be morally controversial act, but his lie helps the patient feel physically better.

[anitarama]

Score: 5.5/6

 

Task 1 (Supporting): Very well-explained terms and your example was solid with good expansion and detail. Including parameters such as the patient's vitals and the family's considerations makes the argument logical.

 

Task 2 (Refuting): Well-explained refuting argument.

 

Task 3 (Resolution): Strong resolution criteria and explanation.

 

Lies are often less harmful than the truth.

 

Task #1:

Honesty is a virtue of truth. Truth is difficult to define, as it can be described in a multitude of ways. For the purpose of this discussion, it will be defined as "the accuracy of describing events and feelings". To lie, then, is to do the opposite. White lies are instances in which telling lies potentially yields less harm. For example, consider this situation. A doctor has a cancer patient who is going into surgery - she is very anxious and has unstable vitals. Her blood pressure and heart rate fluctuate greatly when she feels slightly overwhelmed. The doctor knows that if he tells her about how risky the surgery is, the patient will become unstable and the chances that the surgery succeeds would depreciate. Hence, the doctor consults with the patient's closest family members and they agree to instead encourage her by telling her that the surgery will go well. In this situation, lying has the effect of changing one's beliefs for the better at a critical instant of their life. As a result, a lie here would benefit the patient because of how it changes her attitude positively about the dangerous surgery.

 

Task #2:

However, a lie is still a lie. Its purpose is to conceal the truth, and therefore in some situations telling a lie is actually more harmful than telling a truth. People say that "when one talks the talk, they should walk the walk". A political example would be George W. Bush, and how he promised during one of his campaigns that he would lower taxes. Certainly, his speech impressed the public because of the promises he made. Nonetheless, he lied. Taxes were raised due to the inability of incorporating tax reductions into the budget. As a result, President Bush gained much disfavour from the public. The purpose behind this empty promise was most likely for self-gain. Therefore, the act of lying - that is, promising something and not carrying through with it - damaged Bush's reputation and jeopardized the chances he would be re-elected.

 

Task #3:

To summarize, lies are a double-edged sword. It can be used to yield favourable or terrible outcomes. The method of determining when a lie is more or less harmful than a truth would be gauged from the consequences as well as the intentions of an individual's lie. A doctor who attempts optimize the attitude of a patient prior to a dangerous surgery has purely good intentions for them. Despite the blurriness of the outcome of the surgery, by cheering the patient up the doctor is increasing the chances that the patient will survive the operation. However, if a person intends to lie for personal gains , such as the example with George W. Bush for the elections, then the consequences will be serious because of how millions of people were lied to for the sake of being elected president. Ultimately, one should critically consider the reactions of people who will be lied to if they discover the lie. If wielded correctly for right intentions, a lie can prove to be a useful tool to heal the unfortunate by the means of giving them hope; if yielded incorrectly, a lie usually causes irreparable destruction..

[anitarama]

Score: 4.5/6

 

Task 1 (Supporting): Try not to write in the first person perspective; if you wanted to discuss Santa then you could do so in more generic terms.

 

Task 2 (Refuting): You have turned the prompt into a much more convoluted and difficult argument about science vs. religion. I feel that in this case you have in fact bitten off more than you can chew in 30 minutes. Try to go for straightforward, direct and somewhat simpler examples.

 

Task 3 (Resolution): Good Resolution Paragraph.

 

Lies are often less harmful than the truth.

 

Describe a specific situation in which the truth might be less harmful than lies. Discuss what you think determines whether or not lies are less harmful than the truth.

 

 

“A little white lie never hurts a fly” is a proverb often repeated to us by our parents when we catch them lying. A lie is when a person is knowingly spreading out false information, this is often less harmful to the greater good than the truth. A discussion on lies and truths often comes down the individual ethics on the matter of greater good. When looking at an ethical dilemma, one of the ways of assessing the situation is by assessing the greater good. This method states that if the greater good out weights the wrong doings done to achieve the greater good, then that is worth the wrong doings. If however the greater good does not outweigh the wrong doings necessary to get to that good, then the good is not worth perusing. Often times, when I was younger my parents had said many lies to me. One such lie was of Santa Clause. They said that there was a man sitting in the heavens and he was counting all my good deeds and all my bad deeds. They told me that at the end of the year, that person will come down from the sky and gift me with what I deserve. As I grew older, I started questioning my parents on this matter. In the end, they told me that it was only a white lie, intended for the good of the childhood me. They were protecting me from doing bad deeds to the society by telling me that there was a greater power monitoring my activities. This issue is very similar to that of man and religion. When man was very young, when civilizations were just forming, organization was very important. One theory according to many historians is that the scholars of this early era realized that organization is at the utmost importance of a civilization. Therefore they decided to create religion. Because of these religions, our human race united under one umbrella, they began working together to solve their problems. Man organized themselves into hierarchy so that better governing can be conducted. Man worked together in fear of a being watching their actions. In this context, the potential lie created by these scholars was for the greater good and in the end has definitely been the foundation of today’s society. Without religion, man would never have united and would never have cooperated with their fellow. The reason why religion can be seen as a white lie is because there is no proof that god actually exists in the world, yet people still follow the religion. Religion helped achieve the greater good that is our society today. This little lie created by scholars of the ancient times has definitely outweighed its wrong doings, and still helps mankind today.

 

The power of religion in today’s world is slowly decreasing. Today, man is given the truth instead of the lie. This truth comes into form of science. Man is told all that he needs to know to make proper decisions and he is able to use that truth to a much greater extent than he would be able to use religion. As time has gone by, the power of religion has slowly decreased, and the power of science has increased. People are rejecting religion and using Science to build their societies. In this case, the truth, science is much more useful then the lie of religion. The reason why science is more beneficial compared to religion is because there are many religions whereas there is only one science. The wars and problems caused by religion slowly go away as the power of science increases. Therefore, in today’s modern world, the use of science was more influential and efficient than the use of religion.

 

The line between truth and lie is drawn by the greater good achieved from those actions. If a lie is helping civilization as religion has, than it definitely is worth it because the greater good outweighs the wrong doings conducted by the lie. We are able to have a civilization which we would not have if religion was not invented. However, as we start learning about the truth, it is beneficial to bring the truth out because if we did not, than man would never evolve. The same wars of the past between religions would go on forever, the same problems will continue. Thus if the truth exists, than it is much more beneficial compared to a lie. For the longest time, Science was not able to answer much of the questions that were answerable by religion, therefore in that time scholars saw fit to use religion to answer question that the mankind asked. But as time passed, and science grew, it was able to answer a lot of the questions that religion once did. At this time, scholars decided to leave religion behind and follow the path of science. It is always more beneficial to follow the truth if the truth is available, however, when the truth is not available, a white lie can be used to answer the questions of mankind.

[anitarama]

Hey guys, sorry, there's a bit of a delay on my part. I'll finish marking all the posted essays and post a new prompt tomorrow.

 

Cheers!

[tsuki_123]

Score: 5.5/6

 

Task 1 (Supporting): Very well-explained terms and your example was solid with good expansion and detail. Including parameters such as the patient's vitals and the family's considerations makes the argument logical.

 

Task 2 (Refuting): Well-explained refuting argument.

 

Task 3 (Resolution): Strong resolution criteria and explanation.

 

Thanks Anita! What is the difference between a 5 and a 6? What could I do to earn that extra 0.5? Is it the overall writing style?

[anitarama]

Score: 5/6

 

Task 1 (Supporting): Good example and explanation.

 

Task 2 (Refuting): Good counter-argument.

 

Task 3 (Resolution): Solid resolution.

 

Miscellaneous: You have completed all of the tasks, but your examples could have been more detailed or further explored to separate you from the average-above average essays.

 

Lies are often less harmful than the truth.

 

Describe a specific situation in which the truth might be less harmful than lies. Discuss what you think determines whether or not lies are less harmful than the truth.

 

 

Lies are fabrication of the truth, intended to make reality less harmful to those who believe the lies. People of all ages and backgrounds tell lies to make the situation seem less threatening than it actually is. For example, a mother tells her child that the child will recover successfully from late stage brain cancer. The mother makes the reality of her child's death less threatening by telling her child positive news and easing her child's anxiety. In this situation, the lie that the mother tells her child does not treaten her child's life: the lie is independent from her chances of survival. It only serves to ease the child's mind, which is psychologically therapeutic for the child.

 

On the other hand, if a person tells a lie that covers up a truth that endangers their lives, then telling the truth would present less danger to his life. Take, for example, a drug addict who has acute liver failure brought on by a disease transmitted through the administration of the drug. If he does not tell the truth to his doctors, then his doctors will not know how to correctly treat the underlying condition that is causing his symptons. This drug addict may die if he does not tell the truth about his lifestyle. Since the truth would save his life, the drug addict would be better served by telling the truth to his doctors as opposed to covering up his drug addiction problem with lies.

 

In conclusion, the threat to a person's well being is the factor that decides whether the truth or the lie is less harmful to the person. When the lies provide the peace of mind that the truth cannot offer and telling lies does not change the circumstances of one's health, then the lies are less harmful compared to the truth. But if the truth is what can save the person's life, then the person should tell the truth to preserve their life. Not telling the truth would be more harmful than persisting to tell ies because the person will ultimately lose their life trying to keep up a inaccurate set of information. THe preservation of life is the ultimate factor that determines whether the truth brings more harm than the lies do.

[anitarama]

Score: 5/6

 

Task 1 (Supporting): Good example and introduction.

 

Task 2 (Refuting): Be mindful of grammar and spelling mistakes. Give yourself time at the end to proofread.

 

Task 3 (Resolution): Very good job relating back to the examples for your resolution criteria.

 

Lies are often less harmful than the truth.

 

Describe a specific situation in which the truth might be less harmful than lies. Discuss what you think determines whether or not lies are less harmful than the truth.

 

"It will be a day of meditation and prayers", these were the words of Mahatma Gandhi when he planned an entire day for all the Indian people to spend at home and abstain from working under the 'British Raj'. The use of this 'lie' proved to be very useful and albeit, a lot less harmful than annoucing a day of rioting and opposing the British suppression of India's fight for independence. When India was fighting for independence during the 1940s under the direction of Mohandas Gandhi, the British viceroy made it clear that any outright revolution and violence will be crushed with a heavy hand. Thus, the use of a lie such as this, whereby Gandhi used the excuse of prayers for delivering an economic blow to the British rule was quite beneficial and a lot less harmful for the Indian population. Hence, it is indeed beneficial to use a lie in order to fulfill needs and demands for the greater good.

 

On the other hand, not all needs can be fulfilled with a lie and can instead, cause a great deal of harm. A prime example of this is when the Bush administration invaded Iraq under the claims of suspecting the presence of "Weapons of Mass Destruction" (WMDs). Although it seemed like a justified idea at the time of invasion, when the WMD inspectors later admitted to not having found any WMDs, the public outrage was substantial. Both the American as well as the international society at large, expressed a great deal of disagreement and lose of trust in the Bush administration. This jeopardized George W. Bush's legacy as the President and also brought into question his own personal agenda behind the Iraq invasion. The use of USA resources, loss of lives and economic costs associated with the invasion seemed utterly unnecessary to many. Therefore, telling a lie does not always prove to be more beneficial than telling the truth.

 

The deciding factor as to what determines whether a lie can be beneficial over telling the truth is determining whether the lie benefits one's own personal agenda or whether the lie is for the greater good. In the case of Mahatma Gandhi, the lie of taking a day off for prayers and abstaining from work accomplished the greater good of fighthing for India's independence. It was saved thousands of lives, which would have been lost had he instead annouced a day of rioting against the british government. On the other hand, using the 'cloak' of WMDs to invade Iraq in order to fulfill personal agendas and motives, the Bush administration suffered more harm than good. This lie not only compromised their integrity on the international stage, but also at home. The American people, through their demonstrations and peaceful rallies, showed that they no longer trust the Bush administration and did not appreciate the use of American resources for meeting personal agendas. Thus, a lie such as this cost the Bush government a loss of faith among the American people and subsequently, a loss in the political field by losing to the Democrats in the 2008 election. Hence, when determining when a lie can prove more useful than the truth, it is crucial to weigh the benefits of the people at large versus one's own motives and always, ensure that the importance is given to the greater good of the people.

[anitarama]

I apologize for not being able to give you feedback before you actually wrote your MCAT. Hope it went well! I will still give you feedback, as it is always helpful to you and may be helpful to others as well.

 

Score: 5/6

 

Task 1 (Supporting): Two very interesting examples chosen and both well-explained; in this case two examples seems fine because they are both explored adequately.

 

Task 2 (Refuting): Be mindful that it is "lying" not "lieing". This example was not as strong as the first two, as it was less detailed and more generic.

 

Task 3 (Resolution): Good resolution.

 

To tell the truth is often more harmful then telling lies. Telling the truth involves not providing false information and harmful means resulting in negative consequences. There are countless situations when telling the truth results in negative consequences. Private Manning of the U.S military found himself in a moral dilemma after uncovering top secret documents that show that the U.S. was involved in war crimes. He encountered videos and evidence of marines attacking unarmed civilians in the war in Iraq and instances of excessive force used. Manning could not keep this information to himself and released it to a media organization keen on releasing government secrets and advocates of truth, Wikileaks. By doing this he essentially told the truth to the world about what was really going on in Iraq to the public even though he knew it was against the law. He was later caught and is now being held in a jail cell waiting for his court date where he may be found guilty of treason. Despite public outcry, the U.S. government refuses to release him. Another situation where lieing resulted in negative consequences was during the Columbine shootings in the first decade of the new millenium. A shooter went on a killing spree at his school killing people because of their beliefs or popularity. A girl was asked if she believed in god and she said yes, knowing that she would be killed for telling the truth. She was executed by the gunmen. Both Manning and the girl in the Columbine shootings believed in their convictions and told the truth and recieved harmful negative consequences because of this.

 

Lies are not always less harmful then the truth. In the justice system in the United States and Canada, people being questioned by the police or by lawyers in court are expected to tell the truth. If they are caught lieing, they often recieve negative consequences so it is in their best interests to tell the truth. If someone were to lie to a police worker during interogation they are guilty of falsification. Lieing in this case result in more negative consequences then telling the truth so in this type of situation it is beneficial to tell the truth to avoid harmful consequences.

 

We must consider what is the determining factor in whether lies are more harmful or the truth is more harmful. The deciding factor is the consequences that lieing will bring. In the examples of Private Manning and the Columbine girl, if these people would have not told the truth it would have meant lieing to themselves and not standing up for what they believe is right even if it means that harmful consequences are inevitable. Manning stood up for his own ethics and what he believes is right and the girl spoke the truth of her religious conviction. On the other hand, if lieing means not being truthful to authorities then it is better to tell the truth because the consequences that the court system can bring can be harmful. Overall we can see that lies and the truth both have one thing in common, justice. Sometimes it is better to stand up for our beliefs by lieing and other times it is better to tell the truth; We can lie in the face of justice but the truth cannot hide from justice.

[anitarama]

Score: 4.5/6

 

Task 1 (Supporting): Good opening paragraph, just make sure you give yourself time to proofread at the end to catch typos and grammar errors.

 

Task 2 (Refuting): Another well-explained example.

 

Task 3 (Resolution): Your Resolution Paragraph woul have benefitted from you relating directly back to the examples you introduced.

 

Lies are often less harmful than the truth.

 

"You can't handle the truth!" The famous line from the Tom Cruise movie effectively outlines an action that seems almost instinctive to some humans.

In many cases, when people are put on the spot, their first reaction is to lie. It is not known exactly why people have such an automatice tendency to lie, but one can hazard a guess and simply state that oftentimes, the truth causes more damage than good. Lying to other people is beneficial to the liar, as he/she can then exploit the victim. Through lies, one can convince others of various falsities; this enables the liar to manipulate others. Lies are told on a daily basis, and have often been the cause of horrific events. One need only think of the events surrounding the eruption of World War II and theunderlying cause of it - one very outspokenyet mentally unstable man - Hitler. Hitler single-handedly convinced the entire German nation that the cause of the poverty and economic situation at the time had been brought about by a single group of people - the Jews. Branching from this completely absurd mentality, he began preaching about the "perfect race" or the Aryan race.

Gradually, he deceived the German people more and more, forcing them to believe that everyone without blond hair and blue eyes was an enemy and an obstacle to the development of the Aryan race. To the German people at that time, these lies were treated like the words spoken by God himself. Hitler presented a solution to the horrible lifestyle that had developed in many German cities and the people fell for it. To them, these lies were a sort of miracle and helped stregthen their facist state of mind and engulf Europe in War.

 

Although humans seem to have an almost innate ability to lie, it is more often than not, beneficial to the person to tell the truth. In regards to telling people the truth, George W. Bush should have done so when he chose to invade Iraq at the beginning of the 21st century. Looking for "weapons of mass destruction", the American soldiers searchedfor years without finding a single explosive device. By lying to the American nation and the world, Bush painted a very deceitful picture of himself - it may have been to his benefit to tell the truth from the beginning. Lying not only raised people's hopes of apprehending the people responsible for the 9/11 attacks but it also drew doubt into the mind's of skeptics across the world. 10 odd years later, a single "WMD" has yet to be found and the U.S has got a new president. Had Bush been truthful

and honest from day one, many thousands of lives would have been spared in search of these imaginary weapons. However, he lied, and many people paid the ultimate price.

 

It is very tempting to lie when under pressure. For some people, it is very tempting to lie even when nothing will come out of the lie. What determines whether or not lies areless harmful than the truth is the severity of the lie and the consequences of finding out the truth. Pathological liars are known to lie pretty much about everythingand this is a special case in which the person does not realize that telling the truth will not harm them in any way. They think that they must lie to other people in order to receive some sort of recognition for their efforts. Small lies are usually not harmful and pose no threat to the liar whereas big lies can have severe repercussionsfor all involved in the lie. For example, lying about where somebody was may not seem harmful but it quickly becomes a serious issue when the whereabouts of that somebody arecrucial to solving a homicide. Under such circumstances, lying may not only get someone into trouble, but it may end up destroying an innocent person's life forever.

[anitarama]

Score: 5/6

 

Task 1 (Supporting): Good introduction and example.

 

Task 2 (Refuting): Well-explained specific counter-argument.

 

Task 3 (Resolution): Solid Resolution Paragraph.

 

Lies are often less harmful than the truth.

 

Describe a specific situation in which the truth might be less harmful than lies. Discuss what you think determines whether or not lies are less harmful than the truth.

 

 

As the Fleetwood Mac song goes, “Tell me lies, tell me sweet little lies”. From a young age, we are told to tell the truth. But we also learn early on in life that telling lies also serves as a means of self protection, as well as a way of sparing someone else’s feelings. Indeed, social mores sometimes require that we tell little fibs. Take the coworker who might comes in with a new haircut that she loves, but that another person finds awful. When asked by the coworker what she thinks of the cut, that person might say, “It’s nice”, in order to spare the coworker’s feelings and to prevent any negative feelings from being projected unto themselves. “Great presentation”, “nice shirt”, “I like your tie”: we learn early on in our working careers that even if we don’t really mean them, niceties such as these add to a feeling of cooperation.

 

But there are certainly situations in which telling a lie is inappropriate, even if we are trying to spare another person from harm. Lying to law authorities about a person’s whereabouts, for example, to protect another person, would be harmful to oneself because of the legal consequences. A corporate board, such as Enron, lying to its shareholders about the value of its stock, would be harmful not only to the company’s future credibility, but is also against the law. But lying does not only have to be against the law in order to be inappropriate. Telling the truth one’s spouse, even if the news is painful, is important in maintaining trust within the relationship.

 

In essence, then, the extent of harm engaged by telling a lie depends not only on the context, but also on the person that we are telling the lie to. The consequences of a lie do not have to be legal in order to be significant. Certainly, little social niceties told in the office workplace do much less damage to a relationship than telling a lie to one’s spouse. While telling a fib in a workplace context might actually help one maintain relationships, conversely, lying to a spouse contributes to the deterioration of the marital relationship.

[ecobeco]

Thanks so much Anita! Just a question, how does the 6-point scale translate to the MCAT letter grade? What would a 4.5 be? Around an O/P?

[anitarama]

Score: 5/6

 

Task 1 (Supporting): Strong introduction and detailed example.

 

Task 2 (Refuting): Another very well-explained example.

 

Task 3 (Resolution): Your resolution was not quite as clear as your other two tasks, as the correlaton between political standing and harm was not directly explained, though it was touched upon in the Supporting Paragraph.

 

Lies are often less harmful than the truth.

 

The statement that "Lies are often less harmful than the truth" is an all-encompassing idea that can be interpreted and analysed on many different levels. Lies can be considered on the microscopic (person-to-person) scale, as to whether hiding the truth helps or hurts us when dealing with our friends, family, and coworkers. The concept of lying can also be analysed in an absolute sense, in terms of whether hiding the truth is correct morally or good for humanity as a whole. However, the statement concerning the cost or benefit of lying is most commonly applied in the political arena. When charting a political course, politicans must decide whether it is wise to ever lie to the public that they are serving. In other words, will lying keep or remove politicans from power?

 

Steven Harper, Prime Minister of Canada, certainly benefitted from keeping certain aspects of his political plans hiden from the Canadian public. In 2010, Canadian members of parliament voted to bring the troops home from the Afghanistan war. Harper did not agree with the notion, and argued as much to the Parliament. He believed that maintaining a foreign military presense would ensure stability in Afghanistan and preserve the gains they had made over the previous years. In the end, Harper conceeded to public and political pressure and ended Canadian combat forces in Afghanistan. However, Harper unilaterally decided to keep a minimal number of troops deployed in non-combat, training duties. Harper did not bring up this notion in the parliamentary debates as it would likely have been over-ruled, rather he conceeded on the major issue while keeping a minor aspect of his policy hidden. The move worked because Harper maintained a small presense in Afghanistan while generally garnering public support from this removal of combat troops.

 

However, that is not to say that political lies are always to a politicians benefit. The key is that as lies increase in magnitide and implications, the more dangerous they become to the politicians weilding them. For exmaple, American President George Bush indicated that the primary reason for invading Iraq in 2003 was that the Saddam Hussein regime had "weapons of mass destruction". After the sucessful invasion, this claim was found to be inaccurate. As a result, Bush's approval ratings were abbysmal during the final months of his presidency.

 

In determining whether lies by politicians help keep them or remove them from power, then, we must consider the size of the lie in question. Larger lies have greater effects on society, and thus if found to be lies, will lead to political ruin. The invasion of Iraq was a war that cost billions of dollars and thousands of lives, thus the lie of Iraq having weapsons of mass destruction fatally hurt George Bush. However, Harper's more moderate hiding of the fact that he was keeping a few Canadian troops in Afghanistan has less societal implications, and thus less cost to his political reputation.