At Fri, 2 Apr 1999 09:06:43 -0800 (PST), you wrote:
>ES> I was always taught that in order for something to be a lie
>> three conditions must be met..
>> a) the statement must be untrue
>> b) the purpose of the statement is to deceive
>> c) the person it is told to is entitled to the truth
>> In the case of the Jews/SS an argument could be made for the fact that
>> the SS were simply not entitled to that information. Therefore the
>> statement could be considered as something else than unethical lying..
>ML> That is the definition of libel, not of lying.
>Libel further requires actual harm and intent to harm.
>Most of the examples of "ethical lying" people come up
>with are simply self-defense as in the above example.
>The use of fraud in self-defense is the same as the use
>of violence in self-defense. Lies to the government
>are included here as well.
The subtext of this discussion is that it was no business of Ken Starr's where Bill Clinton poked his Pee-Pee, a conclusion with which I heartily concur.
>A more interesting question is how unethical are lies
>told because they are utterly inconsequential? Say you
>are having a conversation at a party with someone you
>know you will never see again--why not be entertaining
>by describing your trip to Europe that you never took?
>What about lies of mere convenience? "I was over at
>Charlie's watching the game" rather than "It's none of
>your damned business where I was and I don't want to
>tell you and I don't want to argue about it."
>Lee Daniel Crocker <firstname.lastname@example.org> <http://www.piclab.com/lcrocker.html>
>"All inventions or works of authorship original to me, herein and past,
>are placed irrevocably in the public domain, and may be used or modified
>for any purpose, without permission, attribution, or notification."--LDC
Joe E. Dees
Poet, Pagan, Philosopher