DEBATE ANALYSIS:
The act of lying

(Ashken, Yefery, Leslie, Martha, and Randy)

When asked about whether or not the act of lying is considered to be acceptable in some cases and the need to always tell the truth is the right thing to do, all sorts of arguments will appear and will create an attention-grabbing combination or exchange of different ideas and perceptions about what is right or wrong. This discussion of ideas if done in an organized way will provide an audience with an increased understanding of different and intricate issues and will help to identify which arguments are better and well-supported than others.

This formal discussion of ideas took place few days ago in our Critical Thinking class. The topic was “a young brother is always telling lies. What is your response? Is it necessary to tell the truth always?” On one side were my classmates Ashken, Yefery, and Randy who believe lying is alright as long as its outcomes are positive and beneficial. On the other hand, there were Martha and Leslie who believe lying is unconstructive and can become very a negative habit. Both sides seemed to believe in what they were saying and looked convincing and well-informed, however when discussing complex topics such as the morality of lying or the justification for it, subjective arguments tend to prevail over objectives ones.

For instance, Ahsken presented a good persuasive argument full of examples and questions that made us think about the benefits of lying. However, there were some statements in her presentation that made me think again about her credibility. Askhen said, “We lie to maintain relationships and please others” and “We lie to avoid punishment” These two statements or reasons present the act of lying as the only way to maintain a relationship and avoid punishment. It might be true that lying can help people keep relationships in good shape and interact well with others but there are also other ways to achieve those objectives. Commitment, respect, and understanding among others characteristic are elements to create and keep good long-term relationships and healthy social interactions. Furthermore, lying to avoid punishment is as well only one way to solve problems and evade negative consequences. Wouldn’t be better to think objectively before we do or say something? I’m not sure but I believe Askhen’s thesis statement was “Lying is the answer to protect our privacy and also for success” If this is her thesis statement, I don’t frankly see a solid connection between her thesis statement and reasons or evidences provided. On the other hand, what I really like about Ashken’s presentation was her ability to put us in different situations by asking us intricate questions in which lying seems to be the only solution.

Alternatively, on the other side of this in-class debate was Martha who believes that “lying is bad because it’s something that good people don’t do”. She suggests that telling lies frequently may become a habit and cause problems within your family and social lives. As it stands, this statement supports the idea that when something is done continuously it becomes a routine either positive or negative and that the outcomes of it may result in unpleasant situations within our lives. On the contrary, Martha also stated that “lying is an unavoidable part of human nature”. Although it can be true, the accuracy of this statement is quite difficult to prove. There is no an accurate definition of the human nature concept. We don’t know whether or not lying is part of the set of characteristics that we all human beings have in common. It is very risky to express an idea about the human nature concept like Martha did if you don’t provide it with strong evidence to support that belief. Your credibility can be perfectly questioned. Even though, Martha did not ask us self-reflection questions as Ashken did, she gave us examples about specific situations in our daily lives that made us see her argument in a closer way. Martha’s thesis and reasons share the common denominator of morality. Lying is wrong, dishonest, and destructive. However, her argument still needs accurate and further evidence to support it.

To put it briefly, this in-class debate about the ethics of lying had no “winners” but it brought up a complex moral question about when it is right or wrong to tell a lie. I believe Yefery used a famous quote by the political theorist Machiavelli who stated that “the ends justify the means” and I asked myself, how can we be objective enough to measure the ends without getting involved in subjective observations in order to justify the means? What are the universal standards that dictate what is right or wrong? I believe this kind of questions will still remain unanswered and will be debated for the next centuries.