Hacker News Reader

Comment by zajio1am | Hacker News Reader

> The primary "ethical loophole" here is that there is no viable ethical alternative. Something can not be immoral if it is the best of a series of bad options, and if you want to exsist in the world and protect your privacy, the only real option is to create a persona.

There are simple ethical alternatives, just not disclose that information, or just avoid that questions. Lying in this case is clearly unacceptable.

It is also a signalling issue. There is a universal social contract not to lie. If someone is willing to lie in such minor issues, then such person is totally untrustworthy, because there is no reason to assume they would not lie or hold other social contracts in more serious cases when it does not suit them.

View on HN

> There are simple ethical alternatives, just not disclose that information, or just avoid that questions.

That's not always possible.

> Lying in this case is clearly unacceptable.

In what case?

If you're really taking the stance that anonymity is never ethically more important than honesty, that's a pretty extreme stance. Are women being stalked by an ex who is a cop required to be honest about their identities? Are reporters investigating sex trafficking required to be honest about their identities?

In a more broad sense, there are many corporations and governments out there who follow no ethical rules whatsoever and are sucking up as much information on everyone as they can. These people don't have any sort of right to that information, and don't have a right to my honesty. If anything, I think the moral thing to do, if any, is to hamper these people's efforts by feeding them as much incorrect information as much as possible.

> It is also a signalling issue.

Everything is a signaling issue. Your post, for example, signals you as a person who has not-very-nuanced opinions about nuanced topics, and therefore can't be trusted in nuanced situations. If you wouldn't lie to the police to protect a pot smoker, or lie to an advertiser to protect my privacy, you aren't an ethical person by my standards. I do believe you have good intentions, but intentions that don't translate into the correct actions don't mean much.

> There is a universal social contract not to lie.

This is what I mean about not-very-nuanced opinions.

> If someone is willing to lie in such minor issues, then such person is totally untrustworthy, because there is no reason to assume they would not lie or hold other social contracts in more serious cases when it does not suit them.

1. What issues are you considering minor? You seem extraordinarily willing to generalize some specific-but-not-described situation you're imagining to all of reality.

2. There are lots of reasons to assume that someone who lies to cops won't lie to me, for example.

> > Lying in this case is clearly unacceptable.

> In what case?

> If you're really taking the stance that anonymity is never ethically more important than honesty, that's a pretty extreme stance. Are women being stalked by [...]

You are building a strawman argument right in front of our eyes. GP literally writes _in this case_ and you insinuate they argue for _always_ and then you are going on and on why that's extreme. Of course it is, but that's not what they wrote nor what this topic is about.

I'm quite enjoying the good faith portions of this discussion tree as I'm intruiged by the ethical dilemma of what can be considered lying in such cases.

But when strawmen are built then that's arguing in bad faith. Then the goal is not to reach new insights and understanding, but only to be right. That's pretty sad.

Please don't do this, it makes the discussion less interesting for everybody.

> You are building a strawman argument right in front of our eyes. GP literally writes _in this case_ and you insinuate they argue for _always_ and then you are going on and on why that's extreme. Of course it is, but that's not what they wrote nor what this topic is about.

I'm insinuating that they argue for _always_ because they are being extremely vague about what "this case" is. If they aren't arguing for _always_, they can answer the question.

Notably, they responded to my post with an explanation of what they think "this case" is, and it's... a straw man that the original article wasn't talking about.

> I'm quite enjoying the good faith portions of this discussion tree as I'm intruiged by the ethical dilemma of what can be considered lying in such cases.

I'd be happy to have such a discussion with you if you can illuminate what "such cases" are.

To be clear, the original article wasn't discussing lying "just to avoid awkward social interactions". That's a straw man.

> But when strawmen are built then that's arguing in bad faith. Then the goal is not to reach new insights and understanding, but only to be right. That's pretty sad.

Agreed!

> That's not always possible.

In most cases it is. And the article suggested preemptive approach, which implies lying in all cases while being in persona.

> In what case?

In situations described in the discussed article: "If you defiantly refuse to say who you are, it can make people angry that you’re upsetting social reciprocity". I.e. to lie just to avoid awkward social interactions instead of explicitly or implicitly refuse. People being too agreeable in their social interactions so that they would rather lie than cause discomfort. This kind of casual lying.

> Everything is a signaling issue. Your post, for example, signals you as a person who has not-very-nuanced opinions about nuanced topics

Or perhaps you just ignore the context of the article to strawman my position.

> What issues are you considering minor?

Where the cost of not telling a lie is just some social cost unrelated to personal security, employment or other similarly important needs.

> In most cases it is.

If you protect your anonymity in 999,999 cases out of 1,000,000, your anonymity is blown. "Most cases" isn't enough.

> And the article suggested preemptive approach, which implies lying in all cases while being in persona.

Yes. Because lying ex-post-facto after people have already started trying to figure out who you are doesn't work.

> In situations described in the discussed article: "If you defiantly refuse to say who you are, it can make people angry that you’re upsetting social reciprocity". I.e. to lie just to avoid awkward social interactions instead of explicitly or implicitly refuse. People being too agreeable in their social interactions so that they would rather lie than cause discomfort. This kind of casual lying.

The article doesn't say anything about it being "to avoid awkward social interactions". On the contrary, the reason given for doing so is as a further protection of one's anonymity.

And to be clear, there are many cases where any reasonable person would agree it's ethical to lie to protect one's anonymity, some of which I've described in my previous post.

> If someone is willing to lie in such minor issues, then such person is totally untrustworthy

What’s the backing for this? If a stranger asks me what my favorite color is, I don’t feel any particular obligation to give them a truthful answer. But at least in my experience, that hasn’t manifested as a willingness to lie or deceive in cases where it matters. I think it’s possible that your personal social contract is not as universal as you think.

> What’s the backing for this?

I guess that for truthful people, lying is something that they do not even consider as an option. They could be pressed to it if situation is dire. But if someone consider lying as an option in a banal case, then they could consider it in any case. There are obviously other reasons why not to lie or deceive in particular issues, so 'totally untrustworthy' is likely too strong.

> If a stranger asks me what my favorite color is, I don’t feel any particular obligation to give them a truthful answer.

I do not feel particular obligation to give them answer altogether, but if i decide to do, i would feel obligation it to be truthful.

I think you may want to revisit whether your guess is actually accurate. As others have pointed out, "little white lies" are a relatively prevalent part of society.

To pick a mundane example: if somebody asks me "how's it going", I'm almost certainly going to say "good", even if it's not.

I lied the last time in September 2014. I exaggerated a man’s height. And yes, I tell everybody if it’s not going well. I don’t need to be awkward like in “The Big Bang Theory” or something either. I can be nice in every single situation without lying. Empathy and trust help a lot.

Just because something is prevalent, it doesn’t make it good, or necessary.

> "little white lies" are a relatively prevalent part of society.

And many consider them bad and cowardly.

> To pick a mundane example: if somebody asks me "how's it going", I'm almost certainly going to say "good"

That is not really white lie, more a phrase / exchange with established meaning, both sided knows the protocol.

Hard to draw the line though?

Situation 1: Daughter of 5 years was drawing a house and a dog. Looks terrible. Asks me how I find it. It reply "good job! what a nice house and dog!" It's a blatent lie. But obviously she'd been crushed had I replied otherwise and never drawn anything else.

Situation 2: Random acquaintance got a new hair cut. Looks terrible, asks how she looks. I reply "fits your face!" Not true, but any real criticism would have been inappropriate. We are not that close.

Situation 3: Colleague asks me casually in a team lunch setting about my favorite color. It's brown, but I don't want to say since 10 min ago the topic of nazis came up, turns out they are jewish and lost all their grandparents in concentration camps. So I reply "depends on the day". Clear lie about "something as mundane as their favourite color".

Which of these situations was an unacceptable lie and which was a "phrase / exchange with established meaning, both sided knows the protocol."

Nonchalantly redefining lying just because everyone is vaguely aware the lie exists is silly.

You do realize you can just adjust your original absolutist position on lying = indicator of future trustworthiness by just recognizing the nuance of human communication, correct?

It's not a redefinition. Lying requires the purpose of deception. When you ask me how I'm doing as part of a greeting ritual and I say "good" as a response neither of us actually believes we're communicating anything meaningful about our states. In that circumstance it's understood and even expected that the response will be superficial. Indeed, malicious honesty could be entirely impolite. For example if you say "how are you?" and I say "well I was doing really poorly, but then I took a giant crap in the office restroom and now I feel better" and then continue with full and excruciating honesty to describe all the gory details you might not appreciate that oversharing.

I'm glad you're around to arbitrate what's a cowardly white lie and what's a societally normal false phrase.

You're welcome to find lying reprehensible in all cases. But "there is a universal social contract not to lie" seems clearly false.

> There is a universal social contract not to lie.

The entire concept of “white lies” existing would indicate that it’s not nearly that universal.

I don't agree that your RL identity is a "minor" thing. It's right up among the most important things.

That entirely depends on who you’re interacting with and the context of that interaction.

Your best friend? I would hope you feel comfortable enough sharing your RL identity or deeper secrets.

A random company you interact with? Why would it matter, let alone be one of the most important things?

The fact that the first person you mention is "your best friend" is an indication of the importance you're placing on it. Nobody is using a nom de plume for their electric bill, you're being deliberately obtuse.

I mentioned two extremes.

A best friend, by definition, is one of the people you choose to trust the most. If you want to replace it with someone else significant in your life, by all means, it doesn’t change the point in any way shape or form.

A random company is the other end of the extreme, it’s an example of a very limited relationship.

The point is that the bigger your relationship, the more you’d entrust them with secrets. Secrets like your real identity. It’s a pretty basic and obvious concept.

If and only if the anonymous individual is untrustworthy.

I'm not sure that there is a universal social contract in place. There are many situations where a lie is acceptable or even expected.

In business dealings it's acceptable to lie about the price you are willing to pay (or receive) for a service. It is however completely unacceptable to lie about business finances when communicating with investors or the tax office.

Even in personal matters, if someone told you information to keep in confidence, and then someone else asked if you know anything about it, it is acceptable (even honorable) to lie to maintain the trust with the first person. However, there are also situations where revealing the information to the second person is the more honorable action.

My preference is simply down to he act of lying increasing my cognitive load to engage with others. If I choose not to tell someone something, that's relatively easy. If I tell them something artificial, I have to maintain and harmonize that falsehood for the duration of the interaction.

Yes, I have a Blind account. In that context, I have a handle, but I resolutely refuse to knowingly say anything untrue. It's just too much work to be bothered.

Telling you a fake location would likely be an indication of a lack of trust, in you.

Have you never told a lie? Should I trust the answer if it is “no?”

There is emphatically no "universal social contract not to lie," nor should there be, because what this leads to is "invisible obligations to parties more powerful than you, since you're expected to tell the truth to whoever asks it." -- but right to truth ought to be earned.

It is true that it most cases it's not favorable, but the way you're putting it is the stuff of repression.

Self defense, it's good to misinform bad actors, Santa Claus, surprise parties,etc.

> There is emphatically no "universal social contract not to lie," nor should there be, because what this leads to is "invisible obligations to parties more powerful than you, since you're expected to tell the truth to whoever asks it."

That implication does not hold. Even if i accept 'universal social contract not to lie' for voluntary conversations, then i am not expected tell the truth, just not to lie, therefore there is no implicit obligation to answer such questions. One could avoid the question, reject the question explicitly, or leave the conversation.

Oh really? You’re gonna have a hard time with the monsters in WITSEC then.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com