Would the world be better without lies and deceit?

So as I was driving to the grocery store earlier today, I started falling down my own mental rabbit hole. I was just thinking about how rotten mango recently did an interview with Karen Reed from the Karen Reed case. I wondered how Stephanie Soo would feel if it ever came out that Karen Reed was the murderer. While you can absolutely say that the law enforcement officers mishandled the case, what if Karen Reed really was guilty? Then I thought to myself, wouldn’t life be so much easier if people couldn’t lie?

Someone, somewhere knows the truth of that case, and if they came forward and were just honest, you wouldn’t have to second guess trusting someone. If no one could lie, life would be so much easier, right? 

Then I jumped down another rabbithole. What if no human could lie at all for an entire day? Imagine if randomly, for an entire 24 hours, not a soul could lie. Now, for someone on an undercover mission, who is lying to keep themselves safe that would be an utter nightmare. 

But could you imagine what would happen if there were world leaders meeting that day? What would that do to the security of their nations? 

Deeper down the hole I went. I began to question, should lying exist? If we lived in a world without any lying, would the world be a better place?

Well what exactly is lying? Is it just not being truthful? Is it being intentionally misleading? People can speak the truth but still be deceptive and misleading. I mean think of all of the marketing ploys that exist. Calling something gluten free, that has always been gluten free, like popcorn or fruit just to convince people to buy your product. So is lying deceit or just stating false things as truth? 

If humanity couldn’t lie, would that mean we couldn’t tell stories? Or create fantasy worlds? 

The definition of a lie is: to make an untrue statement with the intent to deceive. (Merriam Webster definition.)

Is story telling deceitful? 

Then, consider people who lie to themselves. If people had no choice but to be honest for a full 24 hours, how many lives would change because of that. Would it be for the better, or for the worst? I think it would reveal the evil in a lot of people, the ignorance in others, and it would force some to face realities they may have never faced in their lifetimes. 

I have to consider the reality that there are many times when ignorance is bliss. Where it is nice to be shielded from the truth because sometimes the truth isn’t beneficial. Sometimes, I’d rather be blissfully unaware. 

But then you have to ask, is omission of the truth considered lying? By definition no, because to lie is to make a deceitful statement. Omitting the truth means not making a statement to begin with. 

So then maybe it isn’t about lying, maybe it’s about deceit. Would the world be better without the human capacity to be deceitful? I mean, good people engage in deceit to reveal others deceptiveness. So if there was no deceit to begin with, others wouldn’t need to engage in it. 

The definition of deceive is: to cause to accept as true or valid what is false or invalid. (Again Merriam webster definition.) 

So then, someone making just a false statement, isn’t a lie because it lacks intent to be deceptive? So if I walked around oblivious to truth, and told people factually incorrect things, by that definition, I wouldn’t be lying. I would be stating the truth? Simply because to my awareness, what I am stating is true because I am unaware that it is not untrue? 

So what is the truth then? Is it subjective to my level of knowledge and understanding? Or is the act of lying not even related to truth? And what does it mean to be false? 

The definition of truth is: the body of real things, events, and facts. 

The definition of false is: not genuine, or intentionally untrue, or adjusted or made so as to deceive. 

The definition of a fact is: something that actually exists or occurs: an actual event, situation, etc. 

Deeper down this rabbithole we fall: 

Okay, well what about people who have hallucinations? How do we define something as actually existing? Is it just something we can perceive? Because some people perceive hallucinations. They exist to that person. If they didn’t exist, they wouldn’t be perceived right? So then, if a hallucination is something that actually exists, because it’s perceived, someone could see or believe their hallucination, and tell others about this hallucination, and be telling the “truth” because it is real thing to them, and so then by telling someone about this hallucination, the idea of it exists in the new persons mind, and so now this hallucination could continue on as being “true” because it exists?

The definition of exist is: to have real being whether material or spiritual. 

The definition of material is: relating to, derived from or consisting of matter. 

The definition of spiritual is: of, relating to, consisting of, or affecting the spirit. 

The definition of spirit is: an animating or vital principle held to give life to physical organisms, OR: the immaterial intelligent or sentient part of a person.

Okay, so thoughts are the immaterial intelligent part of a person right? So then thoughts exist. 

So if thoughts are real things, therefore they are truth. We know that thoughts are real because we have them right. They are something that exists, so then are thoughts not facts? 

Thoughts occur, and a fact is something that actually exists or occurs. 

The definition of occur is: to come into existence. 

Existence is defined as: the state or fact of having being especially independently of human consciousness and as contrasted with nonexistence. 

So then for something to exist it needs to be independent from human consciousness? So then do thoughts not exist? 

But existence is also defined as “the state or fact of having being.”

Being is defined as: the quality or state of having existence. 

Well that’s confusing, because if existence is having being and being is having existence that is circular logic. 

Another definition of being is: Something that is conceivable and hence capable of existing. 

Okay, so something just has to be conceivable then to exist? 

Conceived is defined as: to take into ones mind, OR: to apprehend by reason or imagination. 

So then something simply has to be imagined, or taken into the mind to be conceivable. Which is a requirement to exist.

The definition of truth is: the body of real things, events, and FACTS →A fact is something that actually exists or occurs. →To exist is to be conceived, →which is to be taken into mind.

Therefore, thoughts are truth? 

I’ve jumped so far down this rabbithole, that it makes me wish I wouldn’t have withdrawn from my intro to formal logic class in college. (If you’re not familiar, formal logic involves turning sentences into symbols then using math to then determine if a conclusion must be true.)

But back to my original question. Ultimately, I think if we didn’t have lies and deceit life would be less interesting. I think that lies and deceit have a purpose and that to lie isn’t inherently evil or bad. It is one of the complexities that makes us human. Think of how one dimensional life would be without the capacity to lie or deceive. Therefore, I do not think that life or the world would be better without lies or deceit. It is morally grey.

Also, by all the definitions used in this post, apparently truth is rather subjective. Which makes you wonder if the whole concept of something being “my truth,” carries more weight.

But I also don’t know if the definition of truth found on merriam-websters website has changed or not.

Also, let the record show I do not partake in mind altering substances. I just have fun following my train of thought and seeing where it leads me. 

Hope you had some fun following me down this rabbithole.

-K.M.