LYING

-What is lying?
-Since when do human lie?
-Why do originally people lie?
-What happens in our brain when we lie?
-How our body react when we conscious/unconsciously lie?
-What are the effect of lying, internally and externally?
-Do different person have different ways of lying? Why?
-How to detect a liar?
-Are there any kinds of lying? What are those?
-Are there such thing called white lies? WTF is that?
-Fun facts about lying? How many times a day? What kind of person who mostly
lie? Is lying a good thing, or a bad thing?
-How to deal with a liar?

1. Traditional Definition of Lying

There is no universally accepted definition of lying to others. The dictionary

definition of lying is to make a false statement with the intention to deceive
(OED 1989) but there are numerous problems with this definition. It is both too
narrow, since it requires falsity, and too broad, since it allows for lying about
something other than what is being stated, and lying to someone who is believed
to be listening in but who is not being addressed.

The most widely accepted definition of lying is the following: A lie is a statement
made by one who does not believe it with the intention that someone else shall
be led to believe it (Isenberg 1973, 248) (cf. [lying is] making a statement
believed to be false, with the intention of getting another to accept it as true
(Primoratz 1984, 54n2)). This definition does not specify the addressee, however.
It may be restated as follows:

(L1) To lie =df to make a believed-false statement to another person with the
intention that the other person believe that statement to be true.

L1 is the traditional definition of lying. According to L1, there are at least four
necessary conditions for lying. First, lying requires that a person make a

statement (statement condition). Second, lying requires that the person believe
the statement to be false; that is, lying requires that the statement be untruthful
(untruthfulness condition). Third, lying requires that the untruthful statement be
made to another person (addressee condition). Fourth, lying requires that the
person intend that that other person believe the untruthful statement to be true
(intention to deceive the addressee condition).

These four necessary conditions need to be explained before objections to L1 can

be entertained and alternative definitions can be considered.
1.1 Statement Condition

According to the statement condition, lying requires that a person make a

statement. Making a statement requires the use of conventional signs, or
symbols. Conventional signs, such as WOMEN on the door to a restroom, are
opposed to natural or causal signs, or indices, such as women coming in and out
of a restroom, as well as signs that signify by resemblance, or icons, such as a
figure with a triangular dress on the door to a restroom (cf. Grotius 2005, 2001;
Pierce 1955; Grice 1989). Making a statement, therefore, requires the use of
language. A commonly accepted definition of making a statement is the
following: x states that p to y =df (1) x believes that there is an expression E
and a language L such that one of the standard uses of E in L is that of
expressing the proposition p; (2) x utters E with the intention of causing y to
believe that he, x, intended to utter E in that standard use (Chisholm and
Feehan 1977, 150).

It is possible for a person to make a statement using American Sign Language,

smoke signals, Morse code, semaphore flags, and so forth, as well as by making
specific bodily gestures whose meanings have been established by convention
(e.g., nodding one's head in response to a question). Hence, it is possible to lie
by these means. If it is granted that a person is not making a statement when he
wears a wig, gives a fake smile, affects a limp, and so forth, it follows that a
person cannot be lying by doing these things (Siegler 1966, 128). If it is granted
that a person is not making a statement when, for example, she wears a
wedding ring when she is not married, or wears a police uniform when she is not
a police officer, it follows that she cannot be lying by doing these things.

In the case of a person who does not utter a declarative sentence, but who
curses, or makes an interjection or an exclamation, or issues a command or an
exhortation, or asks a question, or says Hello, then, if it is granted that she is
not making a statement when she does any of these things, it follows that she
cannot be lying by doing these things (Green 2001, 163164; but see Leonard
1959).

An ironic statement, or a statement made as part of a joke, or a statement made

by an actor while acting, or a statement made in a novel, is still a statement.
More formally, the statement condition of L1 obeys the following three
constraints (Stokke 2013a, 41):

If x makes a statement, this does not entail that x believes the statement to
be true;
If x makes a statement, this does not entail that x intends her audience to
believe the statement to be true;
If x makes a statement, this does not entail that x intends her audience to
believe that x believes the statement to be true.

The statement condition is to be distinguished from a different putative

necessary condition for lying, namely, the condition that an assertion be made.
The assertion condition is not a necessary condition for lying, according to L1.
For example, if Yin, who does not have a girlfriend, but who wants people to
believe that he has a girlfriend, makes the ironic statement Yeah, right, I have a
girlfriend in response to a question from his friend, Bolin, who believes that Yin
is secretly dating someone, with the intention that Bolin believe that he actually
does have a girlfriend, then this irony lie is a lie according to L1, although it is
not an assertion.

According to the statement condition, it is not possible to lie by omitting to make

a statement (Mahon 2003; Griffiths 2004, 33). So-called lies of omission (or
passive lying (Opie 1825)) are not lies (Douglas 1976, 59; Dynel 2011, 154). All
lies are lies of commission. It is possible for a person to lie by remaining silent,
if the silence is a previously agreed upon signal with others that is equivalent to
making a statement (Fried 1978, 57). However, such a lie would not be a lie of
omission (see People v. Meza (1987) in which, on the basis of Californian
Evidence Code that Statement included nonverbal conduct of a person
intended by him as a substitute for oral or written verbal expression,
prospective jurors Eric Luis Mezas silence and failure to raise his hand in
response to questions was taken for a negative answer, i.e., a negative
statement (People v. Meza 1987, 1647) and he was found guilty of perjury).

Note that the statement condition, all by itself, does not require that the
statement be made to another person, or even that it be expressed aloud or in
writing. Ones inner statements to oneself are statements, and, if other
conditions are also met, can be internal lies (Kant 1996, 553554).
1.2 Untruthfulness Condition

According to the untruthfulness condition, lying requires that a person make an

untruthful statement, that is, make a statement that she believes to be false.

Note that this condition is to be distinguished from the putative necessary

condition for lying that the statement that the person makes be false (Grotius
2005, 1209; Krishna 1961, 146). The falsity condition is not a necessary
condition for lying according to L1.

Statements that are truthful may be false. If George makes the statement to
Hillary (with the intention that Hillary believe that statement to be true), The
enemy has weapons of mass destruction, and that statement is false, he is not
lying if he does not believe that statement to be false.

Statements that are untruthful may be true. In Jean-Paul Sartres short-story, The
Wall, set during the Spanish Civil War, Pablo Ibbieta, a prisoner sentenced to be
executed by the Fascists, is interrogated by his guards as to the whereabouts of
his comrade Ramon Gris. Mistakenly believing Gris to be hiding with his cousins,
he makes the untruthful statement to them that Gris is hiding in the cemetery
(with the intention that they believe this statement to be true). As it happens,
Gris is hiding in the cemetery, and the statement is true. Gris is arrested at the
cemetery, and Ibbieta is released (Sartre 1937; cf. Siegler 1966: 130). According
to L1, Ibbieta lied to his interrogators, although the untruthful statement he
made to them was true, and he did not deceive them about the whereabouts of
Gris (Isenberg 1973, 248; Mannison 1969, 138; Lindley, 1971; Kupfer 1982, 104;
Faulkner 2013).

If a person makes a truthful statement with the intention to deceive another

person, then she is not lying, according to the untruthfulness condition. For
example, if John and Mary are dating, and Valentino is Marys ex-boyfriend, and
one evening John asks Mary, Have you seen Valentino this week?, and Mary
answers: Valentinos been sick with mononucleosis for the past two weeks, and
Valentino has in fact been sick with mononucleosis for the past two weeks, but
it is also the case that Mary had a date with Valentino the night before (Coleman
and Kany 1981, 31), then Mary is not lying to John, even if she is attempting to
deceive John. This is what is called a palter (see Schauer and Zeckhauser 2009;
they illegitimately add that a palter must succeed in deceiving), or a false
implicature (Adler 1997), or an attempt to mislead (Saul 2012b; Webber 2013).

In addition to palters not being lies, a double bluff is not a lie either according to
the untruthfulness condition. If one makes a truthful statement, intending ones
addressee to believe that the statement is false, then one is not lying. Consider
the following joke about two travelers on a train from Moscow (reputed to be
Sigmund Freud's favorite joke) (Cohen 2002, 328):

Trofim: Where are you going?

Pavel: To Pinsk.

Trofim: Liar! You say you are going to Pinsk in order to make me believe you
are going to Minsk. But I know you are going to Pinsk.

Pavel does not lie to Trofim, since his statement to Trofim is truthful, even if he
intends that Trofim be deceived by this double bluff.

One implication of the untruthfulness condition is that if a person makes a

statement that she believes to be neither true nor false, then she cannot be lying
(Siegler 1966, 133; cf. Strawson 1952, 173). For example, if a person begging for
money says All my children need medical attention, but believes that this
proposition is neither true nor false, because he has no children, then he is not
lying, even if he is attempting to deceive (Chisholm and Feehan 1977, 1556; but
see Siegler 1966, 135).

It is a matter of debate as to whether it is possible to lie using metaphors. For

example, if a gardener who has had a very bad crop of tomatoes says Weve got
tomatoes coming out of our ears, intending to deceive about his having a
bumper crop, then this untruthful statement made with an intention to deceive is
typically not considered a lie, because the untruthful statement is metaphorical
(Saul 2012, 16). Nevertheless, some argue that it is possible to lie using
metaphors (Adler 1997, 444 n. 27; Griffiths 2004, 36; Dynel 2011, 149). If
literally false metaphorical statements can be truthful statements, according to
the beliefs of the speaker, and hence, can be untruthful statements, according to
the beliefs of the speaker, then the deceptive gardener is lying in this example
according to L1.
1.3 Addressee Condition

According to the addressee condition, lying requires that a person make an

untruthful statement to another person (or, strictly speaking, to a believed other
person, since one might, e.g., mistake a waxed dummy for another person, and
lie to it). That is, lying requires that a person address another person (Simpson
1992, 626). According to L1, it is not possible for me to lie to no one whatsoever
(i.e., not even myself), and it is not possible to lie to someone whom one is not
addressing but whom one believes is listening in on a conversation. For example,
if Mickey and Danny both believe that the F.B.I. is monitoring their telephone
conversation, and Mickey says to Danny, The pick-up is at midnight tomorrow,
with the intention of deceiving the FBI agents listening in, then Mickey is not
lying to the F.B.I. agents (this is a bogus disclosure (Newey 1997, 115)).

According to L1, it is possible to lie to a general audience. It is possible for a

person to lie by publishing an untruthful report about an event (Kant 1997, 203),
or by making an untruthful statement on a tax return, or by sending an
untruthful e-mail to everyone on a mailing list, or by making an untruthful

statement in a magazine advertisement or a television commercial. In these

cases, the readers, hearers, watchers, etc., are the addressees.

According to the addressee condition, lying necessarily involves addressing

someone whom you believe to be a person capable of understanding your
statement and forming beliefs on that basis. It is not possible to lie to those
whom you believe to be non-persons (goldfish, dogs, robots, etc.) or persons
whom you believe cannot understand the statements that are made to them
(infants, the insane, etc., as well as those whom you believe cannot understand
the language you are speaking in). It is possible to lie to other persons via
intermediaries which are not persons, however (e.g., entering false answers to
questions asked by a banks ATM).
1.4 Intention to Deceive the Addressee Condition

According to the intention to deceive the addressee condition, lying requires that
a person make an untruthful statement to another person with the intention that
that other person believe that untruthful statement to be true. Making ironic
statements, telling jokes, writing fiction, acting in a play, and so forth, without
the intention that the addressee believe these untruthful statements to be true,
is not lying (Morris 1976, 391).

If x makes an untruthful statement to y, without the intention that y believe that

untruthful statement to be true, but with the intention that y believe something
else to be true that x believes to be true, then x is not lying to y, according to L1.
Examples of such non-deceptive untruthful statements include polite untruths
(Kant 1997, 27; Mahon 2003, 109). For example, if servant Igor makes the
untruthful statement to unwelcome visitor Damian, Madam is not at home,
without the intention that Damian believe it to be true that she is not home (that
would be lying on Igors part), but with the intention that Damian believe it to be
true that it is inconvenient for Madam to see Damian now, something that Igor
believes to be true, then according to L1, Igor is not lying to Damian (Isenberg
1973, 256). However, for Igor to intend that Damian believe this, it must be the
case that Igor believes that this is how Damian understands Madam is not at
home. Polite untruths may be said to be examples of falsifications but not lies,
since the person says just what etiquette demands (Shiffrin 2014, 19). As it has
been said about untruthful statements situations in which politeness requires
some sort of remark and the other person knows quite well that the statement
is false, such statements are not really lies (Coleman and Kay 1981, 29). They
are better considered as cases of speaking in code. Another example of a nondeceptive untruthful statement is what has been called an altruistic lie (Fallis
2009, 50; cf. Augustine 1952, 57), such as when a speaker makes an untruthful
statement to a hearer whom he believes distrusts him, in order that the hearer
will believe something that the speaker believes to be true. This is not a lie
according to L1.

Such non-deceptive untruths are not to be confused with white lies, i.e., harmless
lies (Bok 1978, 58; Sweetser 1987, 54; 52 n. 73) or prosocial lies (also called
social lies), i.e., lies that do not harm social life but protect it (Meibauer 2014,
152; Sweetser 1987, 54), or fibs, i.e., inconsequential lies told for selfish reasons
(Sweetser 1987, 54). White lies, prosocial lies, and fibs are all intentionally
deceptive, and are all lies according to L1 (Green 2001, 169). For example, both
American and Ecuadorian cultures would probably consider Jacobos reply to be a
white lie, and hence deceptive, in the following case presented to Ecuadorians
by linguists: Teresa just bought a new dress. Upon trying it on for the first time,
she asks her husband Jacobo, Does it look good on me? Jacobo responds, Yes
even though he really thinks that the dress is ugly and too tight (Hardin 2010,
3207; cf. Dynel 2011, 160). Or, to take another example, Some people would
call it a white lie to tell a dying person whatever he or she needs to hear to die in
peace (Sweetser 1987, 54). Note that both white lies and prosocial lies are to be
distinguished from lies which most people would think justified by some higher
good achieved but which would not be called white lies [or prosocial lies], since
their informational consequences are too major (however moral), such as to lie
to the Gestapo about the location of a Jew (Sweetser 1987, 54).

According to the untruthfulness condition, it is not merely the case that the
person who makes the untruthful statement intends that some other person
believe the untruthful statement to be true; the person intends that the
addressee believe the untruthful statement to be true. Also, according to this
condition, it is not merely the case that the person intends that the addressee
believe some statement to be true that the person believes to be false; the
person intends that the addressee believe to be true the untruthful statement
that is made to the addressee. If Maximilian is a crime boss, and Alessandro is
one of his henchmen, whom he secretly believes is a police informant, and
Maximilian makes the untruthful statement to Alessandro There are no
informants in my organization, without the intention that Alessandro believe
that statement to be true, but with the intention that Alessandro believe that
Maximilian believes that statement to be true, then Maximilian is not lying
according to L1 (Mahon 2008, 220). (Maximilian has, of course, attempted to
deceive Alessandro). This conclusion has prompted some to revise L1 to include
more than one intention to deceive.

According to the untruthfulness condition, it is sufficient for lying that the person
who makes the untruthful statement intends that the addressee believe the
untruthful statement to be true; it is not necessary that the addressee believe
the untruthful statement to be true. That is, a lie remains a lie if it is disbelieved.
If Sophie makes the untruthful statement to Nicole I didnt get any homework
today, with the intention that Nicole believe that statement to be true, and if
Nicole does not believe that statement to be true, then Sophie is still lying. This
is because lie is not an achievement or success verb, and an act of lying is not a
perlocutionary act. The existence of an act of lying does not depend upon the
production of a particular response or state in the addressee (Mannison 1969,
135; Wood 1973: 199; MacCormick 1983, 9 n. 23; but see Reboul 1994). As it has

been said, It is very odd to think that whether a speaker lies hinges upon the
persuasiveness of the speaker or the credulity of the listener (Shiffrin 2014, 13).

Because L1 does not have an assertion condition, however, according to L1 it is

possible to lie by making ironic statements, telling jokes, writing fiction, acting in
a play, and so forth, if the person making the untruthful statement (somehow)
intends that it be believed to be true, as in the case of the irony lie above.
Similarly, if someone intends to deceive using a jokefor example, if con artist
David says Yeah, I am a billionaire. That's why I am in this dive to his mark,
Greg, at a bar, intending that Greg believe that David is a billionaire who is
attempting to to pass incognito in a barthen this joke lie is a lie according to
L1. If a novelist were to write a novel with the intention that her audience believe
that this was a true story disguised as a novela pretend roman clefthen this
fiction lie would be a lie according to L1. If an actor in a play were to deliver an
untruthful statement with the intention that his audience believe the statement
to be truesay, if an an actor delivered a line about his life being too short with
the intention that the audience believed that the actor was actually dying from
some disease (it is possible that the performance is part of an elaborate
deception aimed at getting members of the audience to believe that the
particular line from the play is actually true (Fallis 2009, 56))then this acting
lie would be a lie according to L1.
1.5 Objections to the Traditional Definition of Lying

Two kinds of objections have been made to L1. First, objections have been made
to each necessary condition, on the basis that it is not necessary for lying.
According to these objections, L1 is too narrow. Second, objections have been
made to the four necessary conditions being jointly sufficient for lying, on the
basis that some further condition is necessary for lying. According to these
objections, L1 is too broad.
1.5.1 Conditions Are Not Necessary

Against the statement condition of L1 it has been objected that the making of a
statement is not necessary for lying. Lying to others may be defined as any
form of behavior the function of which is to provide others with false information
or to deprive them of true information (Smith 2004, 14), or as a successful or
unsuccessful deliberate attempt, without forewarning, to create in another a
belief which the communicator considers to be untrue (Vrij 2000, 6).
Importantly, this entails that lying can consist of simply withholding information
with the intent to deceive, without making any statement at all (Ekman 1985, 28;
Scott 2006, 4). Those who make this objection would make lying the same as
intentionally deceiving (Ekman 1985, 26).

Against the untruthfulness condition of L1 it has been objected that an untruthful

statement is not necessary for lying. This objection comes in a variety of forms.

There are those who argue any statement made with an intention to deceive is a
lie, including a truthful statement that is made with an intention to deceive
(Barnes 1994, 11; Davidson 1980, 88). Lying may thus be defined as any
intentionally deceptive message that is stated (Bok 1978, 13). There are also
those who, relying upon a Gricean account of conversational implicature (Grice
1989, 39)), argue that someone who makes a truthful statement but who thereby
conversationally implicates a believed-false statement is lying (Meibauer 2011,
285; 2014a). Importantly, such an untruthful implicature (Dynel 2011, 159
160) is directly intended (Adler 1997, 446). Thirdly, there are those who argue
for the possibility of lying ironically (Simpson 1992, 631), or indirect lying. If a
speaker makes an ironic untruthful statement, then Through this presentation of
himself as insincerely asserting he presents himself as believing the opposite of
what he says, which is capacity to assert in-effect (Simpson 1992, 630). If
the person is insincere in this and actually does believe in the truth of what he
states, despite invoking trust in his believing its opposite, then this is a lie (an
indirect lie, we might say) (Simpson 1992, 630). For example, if a person who is
listening to a sappy pop song at a party is asked if she likes this kind of music
and replies, ironically, Yeah, right, I love this kind of music, then she is lying if
she actually does love this kind of music (cf. Dynel 2011, 148149).

Against the untruthfulness condition it has also been objected that it is not
necessary for lying that the statement that is made is believed to be false; it is
sufficient that the statement is not believed to be true, or is believed to be
probably false (Carson 2006, 298; 2010, 18). As it has been claimed, Agnostics
about the truth of their assertions who nonetheless assert them without
qualification tell lies (Shiffrin 2014, 13).

Against the addressee condition of L1 it has been objected that it is sufficient for
lying that the untruthful statement is made, even if it is made to no one not
even to oneself (Griffiths 2004, 31). Lying may thus be defined as conscious
expression of other than what we believe (Shibles 1985, 33). It has also been
objected that it is possible to lie to third parties who are not addressees. In
general, it is possible to distinguish between cases where the hearer
eavesdrops, unbeknown to the first and second parties (eavesdropping), cases
where the speaker utters p to the interlocutor while the hearer, with the
awareness of both other parties, listens in and knows that the first- and secondparty know he is listening in although it is for the interlocutor that the
utterance is intended (kibbitzing), as well as cases similar to kibbitzing except
that the utterance is also intended for the hearer [who knows that they know
that he is listening in] (disclosure), and cases similar to disclosure except that
although the first and second parties know that the hearer is listening in, the
hearer does not know that they are listening in (bogus disclosure) (Newey 1997,
115). Even if it is not possible to lie to eavesdroppers, or to those merely
listening in, as in the case of kibbitzing, it may be possible to lie in the cases of
bogus disclosure, as in the example above of Mickey saying to Danny, The pickup is at midnight tomorrow, with the intention of deceiving the F.B.I. agents
listening in. It may even be possible to lie in the case of disclosure. In the 1978
thriller Capricorn One about a Mars landing hoax, during a nationally televised

transmission between the astronauts in space and their wives at the control
center, which is being monitored closely by NASA handlers, Colonel Charles
Brubaker tells his wife Kay to tell his son that When I get back, Im gonna take
him to Yosemite again, like last summer. In fact he brought his son to a different
place the previous summer (Flatbush, where a movie was being shot), something
that his wife knows. According to this objection, Brubaker is lying to his NASA
handlers about what he did last summer, even if they are not his addressees.

Against the addressee condition it has also been objected that it is possible to lie
to an animal, a robot, etc., as well as to what might be another personfor
example, if a home owner, woken up in the middle of the night and wondering if
there are burglars below the stairs, shouts down, Im bringing my rifle down
there, although he has no rifle (Chisholm and Feehan 1977, 157).

Against the intention to deceive the addressee condition of L1 it has been

objected that, even if an intention to deceive the addressee is required for lying,
it is not necessary that it be an intention to deceive the addressee about the
content of the untruthful statement; it may be an intention to deceive the
addressee about the beliefs of the speaker abut the statementspecifically, the
belief that the untruthful statement is true (Chisholm and Feehan 1977, 152;
Williams 2002, 74; Reboul 1994, 294; Mahon 2008, 220; Tollefsen 2014, 24).

There are at least two ways in which L1 could be modified in response to this
objection. First, it could be held that what is essential to lying is the intention to
deceive the hearer about the speakers belief that the untruthful statement is
true: x utters a sentence, S, where S means that p, in doing which either x
expresses his belief that p, or x intends the person addressed to take it that x
believes that p (Williams 2002, 74) and the speaker believes [p] to be false
(Williams 2002, 9697). L1 could therefore be modified as follows:

(L2) To lie =df to make a statement that p, where p is believed to be false, to

another person, with the intention that the other person believe that p is
believed to be true. (cf. Williams 2002, 74, 9697)

Alternatively, L1 could be modified to incorporate either intention, as follows:

(L3) To lie =df to make a believed-false statement (to another person), either
with the intention that that statement be believed to be true (by the other
person), or with the intention that it be believed (by the other person) that that
statement is believed to be true (by the person making the statement), or with
both intentions. (Mahon 2008, 227228)

Against this condition it has also been argued that it is not necessary that it be
an intention to deceive the addressee about either the content of the untruthful
statement or about the beliefs of the speaker about the untruthful statement. It
is sufficient that there is an intention to deceive about some matterthat is, it is
sufficient that the speaker intend that the hearer believe to be true something
that the speaker believes to be false. Note that those who make this objection
would turn lying into any deception involving untruthful statements. If this
objection were combined with the objection that lying could be directed to third
parties (as in bogus disclosure, or disclosure), L1 could be modified, as follows:

(L4) To lie =df to make a believed-false statement, to another person or in the

believed hearing of another person, with the intention that some other person
the person addressed or the other person in the believed hearingbelieve some
believed-false statement to be true. (Newey 1997, 100)

Against this condition it has also been objected that although there is a
necessary relationship between lying and deception, nevertheless this intention
should be understood merely as the intention to be deceptive to another person,
which is the intention to conceal information from the other person (Lackey
2013, 57). According to this objection, concealing evidence, understood as
hiding evidence or keeping evidence secret, counts as being deceptive to
another person. L1 could be modified, as follows:

(L5) x lies to y if and only if (i) x states that p to y, (ii) x believes that p is false
and (iii) x intends to be deceptive to y in stating that p. (Lackey 2013, 237)

Finally, against this intention to deceive the addressee condition it has been
objected that no intention to deceive is required for lying (Shibles 1985, 33;
Kemp and Sullivan 1993, 153; Griffiths 2004, 31; Carson et al. 1982; Carson
1988; 2006; 2010; Sorensen 2007; 2010; 2011; Fallis, 2009; 2010; 2012; 2015;
Saul, 2012a; 2012b; Stokke 2013a, 2013b; 2014; Shiffrin 2014). If the sworn-in
witness in the trial of a violent criminal goes on the record and gives untruthful
testimonyin order, for example, to avoid being killed by the defendant or any
of his criminal associateswithout any intention that that testimony be believed
to be true by any person (not the jury, the judge, the lawyers, the journalists
covering the trial, the people in the gallery, the readers of the newspaper
reports, etc.), then the witness is still lying (but see Jones 1986). Such nondeceptive lies are lies according to this objection (but see Lackey 2013 for the
argument that these lies are intentionally deceptive, and Fallis 2015 for the
argument that they are not intentionally deceptive).
1.5.2 Conditions Are Not Jointly Sufficient

It has been objected that L1 is not sufficient for lying because it is also necessary
that the untruthful statement be false (Coleman and Kay 1981, 28; OED, 1989;

Moore 2000). This is the falsity condition for lying (Grimaltos and Rosell
forthcoming, see Other Internet Resources). For most objectors the falsity
condition supplements L1 and makes this definition of lying even narrower (e.g.,
Coleman and Kay 1981). For other objectors the falsity condition is part of a
different definition of lying, and makes that definition narrower (Carson 2006,
284; 2010, 17; Saul 2012b, 6).

It has been objected that L1 is not sufficient for lying because it is also necessary
to intend that that other person believe that that statement is believed to be true
(Frankfurt 1999, 96; Simpson 1992, 625; Faulkner 2007, 527). If Harry makes the
untruthful statement I have no change in my pocket to Michael, but Harry does
not intend that Michael believe that Harry believes it to be true, then Harry is not
lying to Michael, even if Harry intends that Michael believe it to be true (Frankfurt
1986, 85; 1999, 96). This additional condition would make L1 even narrower,
since it would have the result that Maximilian is not lying to Alessandro in the
example above.

Finally, it has been objected that L1 is insufficient because lying requires that an
untruthful assertion be made, and not merely that an untruthful statement be
made. This is the assertion condition for lying. According to this objection, one is
not lying when one makes a deceptive untruthful ironic statement (irony lie), or
a deceptive untruthful joke (joke lie), or a deceptive untruthful fiction (fiction
lie), or deceptive untruthful acting (acting life), since in none of these cases is
one making an assertion. For most objectors the assertion condition supplements
L1 and makes L1 even narrower (Chisholm and Feehan 1977; Fried 1978;
Simpson 1992; Williams 2002; Faulkner 2007). For others the assertion condition
is part of a different definition of lying, and makes that definition narrower
(Sorensen 2007; Fallis 2009; Stokke 2013a).

The most important objection to L1 is that lying does not require an intention to
deceive. This has led to a division amongst those writing on the definition of
lying.
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/lying-definition/

Lying and truth-telling

Lying

A liar should have a good memory

Quintilian

O what a tangled web we weave when first we practice to deceive.

Sir Walter Scott, Marmion

Lying is probably one of the most common wrong acts that we carry out (one
researcher has said 'lying is an unavoidable part of human nature'), so it's worth
spending time thinking about it.

Most people would say that lying is always wrong, except when there's a good
reason for it - which means that it's not always wrong!

But even people who think lying is always wrong have a problem... Consider the
case where telling a lie would mean that 10 other lies would not be told. If 10 lies
are worse than 1 lie then it would seem to be a good thing to tell the first lie, but
if lying is always wrong then it's wrong to tell the first lie...
Acknowledgement

Nobody who writes about lying nowadays can do so without acknowledging an

enormous debt to this groundbreaking book: Lying: Moral choice in public and
private life, by Sisela Bok, 1978.
What is a lie?

Lying is a form of deception, but not all forms of deception are lies.

Lying is giving some information while believing it to be untrue, intending to

deceive by doing so.

A lie has three essential features:

A lie communicates some information

The liar intends to deceive or mislead
The liar believes that what they are 'saying' is not true

There are some features that people think are part of lying but aren't actually
necessary:

A lie does not have to give false information

A lies does not have to be told with a bad (malicious) intention - white lies are
an example of lies told with a good intention

This definition says that what makes a lie a lie is that the liar intends to deceive
(or at least to mislead) the person they are lying to. It says nothing about
whether the information given is true or false.

This definition covers ordinary cases of lying and these two odd cases as well:

the case where someone inadvertently gives true information while believing
that they're telling a lie
I want the last helping of pie for myself, so I lie to you that there is a worm
in it. When I later eat that piece of pie I discover that there really is a worm in it
the case where nobody is deceived by me because they know that I always tell
lies

Lying and statements

Some philosophers believe that lying requires a statement of some sort; they say
that the liar must actually speak or write or gesture.

Sisella Bok, author of a major philosophical book on the subject of lying, defines
a lie as:

an intentionally deceptive message in the form of a statement

Others stretch the definition to include doing nothing in response to a question,

knowing that this will deceive the questioner.

Others include 'living a lie'; those cases where someone behaves in a way that
misleads the rest of us as to their true nature.
Why is lying wrong?

There are many reasons why people think lying is wrong; which ones resonate
best with you will depend on the way you think about ethics.

Lying is bad because a generally truthful world is a good thing: lying

diminishes trust between human beings:
if people generally didn't tell the truth, life would become very difficult, as
nobody could be trusted and nothing you heard or read could be trusted - you
would have to find everything out for yourself
an untrusting world is also bad for liars - lying isn't much use if everyone is
doing it
Lying is bad because it treats those who are lied to as a means to achieve the
liar's purpose, rather than as a valuable end in themselves
Many people think that it is wrong to treat people as means not ends
Lying is bad because it makes it difficult for the person being lied to make a
free and informed decision about the matter concerned
Lies lead people to base their decisions on false information
Lying is bad because it cannot sensibly be made into a universal principle
Many people think that something should only be accepted as an ethical
rule if it can be applied in every case
Lying is bad because it's a basic moral wrong
Some things are fundamentally bad - lying is one of them
Lying is bad because it's something that Good People don't do
Good behaviour displays the virtues found in Good People
Lying is bad because it corrupts the liar
Telling lies may become a habit and if a person regularly indulges in one
form of wrong-doing they may well become more comfortable with wrong-doing
in general
Some religious people argue Lying is bad because it misuses the God-given
gift of human communication
God gave humanity speech so that they could accurately share their
thoughts - lying does the opposite
Some philosophers say lying is bad because language is essential to human
societies and carries the obligation to use it truthfully
When people use language they effectively 'make a contract' to use it in a
particular way - one of the clauses of this contract is not to use language
deceitfully

What harm do lies do?

Lies obviously hurt the person who is lied to (most of the time), but they can also
hurt the liar, and society in general.

The person who is lied to suffers if they don't find out because:

They are deprived of some control over their future because

They can no longer make an informed choice about the issue concerned
They are not fully informed about their possible courses of action
They may make a decision that they would not otherwise have made
They may suffer damage as a result of the lie

The person who is lied to suffers if they do find out because:

They feel badly treated - deceived and manipulated, and regarded as a person
who doesn't deserve the truth
They see the damage they have suffered
They doubt their own ability to assess truth and make decisions
They become untrusting and uncertain and this too damages their ability to
make free and informed choices
They may seek revenge

The liar is hurt because:

He has to remember the lies he's told

He must act in conformity with the lies
He may have to tell more lies to avoid being found out
He has to be wary of those he's lied to
His long-term credibility is at risk
He will probably suffer harm if he's found out
If he's found out, people are more likely to lie to him
If he's found out he's less likely to be believed in future

His own view of his integrity is damaged

He may find it easier to lie again or to do other wrongs

Those who tell 'good lies' don't generally suffer these consequences - although
they may do so on some occasions.

Society is hurt because:

The general level of truthfulness falls - other people may be encouraged to lie
Lying may become a generally accepted practice in some quarters
It becomes harder for people to trust each other or the institutions of society
Social cohesion is weakened
Eventually no-one is able to believe anyone else and society collapses

When is it OK to lie?

The philosopher Sissela Bok put forward a process for testing whether a lie could
be justified. She calls it the test of publicity:

The test of publicity asks which lies, if any, would survive the appeal for
justification to reasonable persons.

Sissela Bok, Lying: Moral Choice in Public and Private Life, 1978

If we were to apply this test as a thought experiment we would bring together a

panel of everyone affected by a particular lie - the liar, those lied to and
everyone who might be affected by the lie.

We would then put forward all our arguments for telling a particular lie and then
ask that 'jury' of relevant and reasonable persons if telling this lie was justified.

But what could we do in the real world?

First inspect our own conscience and ask whether the lie is justified

Second, ask friends or colleagues, or people with special ethical knowledge

what they think about the particular case
Thirdly, consult some independent persons about it

This sort of test is most useful when considering what we might call 'public' lying
- when an institution is considering just how much truth to tell about a project perhaps a medical experiment, or a proposed war, or an environmental
development.

One executive observed to this writer that a useful test for the justifiability of an
action that he was uncertain about was to imagine what the press would write
afterwards if they discovered what he had done and compared it to what he had
said in advance.

In most cases of personal small scale lying there is no opportunity to do anything

more than consult our own conscience - but we should remember that our
conscience is usually rather biased in our favour.

A good way of helping our conscience is to ask how we would feel if we were on
the receiving end of the lie. It's certainly not foolproof, but it may be helpful.

Bok sets out some factors that should be considered when contemplating a lie:

Are there some truthful alternatives to using a lie to deal with the particular
problem?
What moral justifications are there for telling this lie - and what counterarguments can be raised against those justifications?
What would a public jury of reasonable persons say about this lie?

Top
Lying and ethical theory
Lying and ethical theory

Different theories of ethics approach lying in different ways. In grossly oversimplified terms, those who follow consequentialist theories are concerned with
the consequences of lying and if telling a lie would lead to a better result than
telling the truth, they will argue that it is good to tell the lie. They would ask:

Would telling the truth or telling a lie bring about the better consequences?

In contrast, a dutybased ethicist would argue that, even if lying has the better
consequences, it is still morally wrong to lie.
Consequentialists (Utilitarians) and lies

Consequentialists assess the rightness or wrongness of doing something by

looking at the consequences caused by that act. So if telling a particular lie
produces a better result than not telling it, then telling it would be a good thing
to do. And if telling a particular lie produces a worse result than not telling it,
telling it would be a bad thing to do.

This has a certain commonsense appeal, but it's also quite impractical since it
requires a person to work out in advance the likely good and bad consequences
of the lie they are about to tell and balance the good against the bad. This is
hard to do, because:

consequences are hard to predict

measuring good and bad is hard
how do we decide what is good and what is bad?
for whom is it good or bad?
what system of measurement can we use?
what consequences are relevant?
how long a time-period should be used in assessing the consequences?
it requires a person to value everyone involved equally and not to give extra
value to their own wishes
it requires a person to consider the consequences to society in general of
telling lies as well as the consequences for those actually involved

So most Utilitarian thinkers don't apply it on a case by case basis but use the
theory to come up with some general principles -- perhaps along the lines of:

Lying is bad, because

it causes harm to people
it reduces society's general respect for truth;

but there are some cases - white lies or mercy lies - where it may be OK to tell
lies.

This is an example of 'rule-utilitarianism'; considering every single action

separately is 'act-Utilitarianism'.

These two forms of Utilitarianism could lead to different results: An act-Utilitarian

might say that telling a lie in a particular case did lead to the best results for
everyone involved and for society as a whole, while a rule-Utilitarian might argue
that since lying made society a less happy place, it was wrong to tell lies, even in
this particular case.
Deontologists

Deontologists base their moral thinking on general universal laws, and not on the
results of particular acts. (The word comes from from the Greek word deon,
meaning duty.)

An act is therefore either a right or a wrong act, regardless of whether it

produces good or bad consequences.

Deontologists don't always agree on how we arrive at 'moral laws', or on what

such laws are, but one generally accepted moral law is 'do not tell lies'.

And if that is the law then lying is always wrong - even if telling the truth would
produce far better consequences: so if I lie to a terrorist death squad about the
whereabouts of the people that theyre hunting, and so save their lives, I have in
fact done wrong, because I broke the rule that says lying is wrong.

Most of us would accept that an unbreakable rule against lying would be

unworkable, but a more sophisticated rule (perhaps one with a list of exceptions)
might be something we could live with.
Virtue ethics

Virtue ethics looks at what good (virtuous) people do. If honesty is a virtue in the
particular system involved, then lying is a bad thing.

The difficulty with this approach comes when a virtuous person tells a lie as a
result of another virtue (compassion perhaps). The solution might be to consider
what an ideal person would have done in the particular circumstances.

Philosophers on lying
Philosophers on lying
Immanuel Kant in a painted portrait, looking down thoughtfully Immanuel Kant,
18th century portrait
Immanuel Kant

Some philosophers, most famously the German Immanuel Kant (1724-1804),

believed that that lying was always wrong.

He based this on his general principle that we should treat each human being as
an end in itself, and never as a mere means.

Lying to someone is not treating them as an end in themselves, but merely as a

means for the liar to get what they want.

Kant also taught 'Act so that the maxim of thy will can always at the same time
hold good as a principle of universal legislation.' This roughly means that
something is only good if it could become a universal law.

If there was a universal law that it was generally OK to tell lies then life would
rapidly become very difficult as everyone would feel free to lie or tell the truth as
they chose, it would be impossible to take any statement seriously without
corroboration, and society would collapse.
St. Augustine

Every liar says the opposite of what he thinks in his heart, with purpose to
deceive.

St Augustine, The Enchiridon

Christian theologian St. Augustine (354-430) taught that lying was always wrong,
but accepted that this would be very difficult to live up to and that in real life
people needed a get-out clause.

St Augustine said that:

God gave human beings speech so that they could make their thoughts known
to each other; therefore using speech to deceive people is a sin, because it's
using speech to do the opposite of what God intended
The true sin of lying is contained in the desire to deceive

Augustine believed that some lies could be pardoned, and that there were in fact
occasions when lying would be the right thing to do.

He grouped lies into 8 classes, depending on how difficult it was to pardon them.
Here's his list, with the least forgivable lies at the top:

Lies told in teaching religion

Lies which hurt someone and help nobody
Lies which hurt someone but benefit someone else
Lies told for the pleasure of deceiving someone
Lies told to please others in conversation
Lies which hurt nobody and benefit someone
Lies which hurt nobody and benefit someone by keeping open the possibility
of their repentance
Lies which hurt nobody and protect a person from physical 'defilement'

Thomas Aquinas

Thomas Aquinas also thought that all lies were wrong, but that there was a
hierarchy of lies and those at the bottom could be forgiven. His list was:

Malicious lies: lies told to do harm

Malicious lies are mortal sins
'Jocose lies': lies told in fun
These are pardonable
'Officious' or helpful lies
These are pardonable

Top
Lying under serious threat
Lying under serious threat
Strands of a barbed wire fence In a prison camp, lying can be used to gain an
advantage

The reason for lying that gets most sympathy from people is lying because
something terrible will happen if you don't lie. Examples include lying to protect
a murderer's intended victim and lying to save oneself from death or serious
injury.

These lies are thought less bad than other lies because they prevent a greater
harm occurring; they are basically like other actions of justified self-defence or
defence of an innocent victim.

The reasons why we think lies in such situations are acceptable are:

The good consequences of the lie are much greater than the bad
consequences
Such lies are told to protect innocent persons who would otherwise suffer
injustice
Such lies are told to prevent irreversible harm being done
Such situations are very rare, so lying in them doesn't damage the general
presumption that it's wrong to lie

Since such lies are often told in emergencies, another justification is that the
person telling the lie often has not time to think of any alternative course of
action.

Threatening situations don't just occur as emergencies; there can be long-term

threat situations where lying will give a person a greater chance of survival. In
the Gulag or in concentration camps prisoners can gain an advantage by lying
about their abilities, the misbehaviour of fellow-prisoners, whether they've been
fed, and so on. In a famine lying about whether you have any food hidden away
may be vital for the survival of your family.
Lying to enemies

When two countries are at war, the obligation to tell the truth is thought to be
heavily reduced and deliberate deception is generally accepted as part of the
way each side will try to send its opponent in the wrong direction, or fool the
enemy into not taking particular actions.

In the same way each side accepts that there will be spies and that spies will lie
under interrogation (this acceptance of spying doesn't benefit the individual
spies much, as they are usually shot at the end of the day).

There are two main moral arguments for lying to enemies:

Enemies do not deserve the same treatment as friends or neutrals, because

enemies intend to do us harm and can't grumble if we harm them in return by
lying to them
Lying to enemies will prevent harm to many people, so the good consequences
outweigh the bad ones.

Top
Other types of lying
Other types of lying
Mental reservations

This legalistic device divides a statement into two parts: the first part is
misleading, the two parts together are true - however only the first part is said
aloud, the second part is a 'mental reservation'.

Here are some examples:

"I have never cheated on my wife" (except last Thursday)

"I did not steal the cakes" (on Thursday afternoon)
"I did not touch the painting" (but my glove did)

This device seems outrageous to the modern mind, but a few centuries ago it
was much used.

One common occasion for mental reservations was in court, when a person had
sworn an oath to tell the truth and expected God to punish them if they lied.

If they'd stolen some sheep on Tuesday they could safely tell the court "I did not
steal those sheep" as long as they added in their mind "on Monday". Since God
was believed to know every thought, God would hear the mental reservation as
well as the public statement and therefore would not have been lied to.

Sissela Bok says that this device is recommended to doctors by one textbook. If
a feverish patient, for example, asks what his temperature is, the doctor is
advised to answer "your temperature is normal today" while making the mental
reservation that it is normal for a person in the patient's precise physical
condition.
Lying to those with no right to the truth

The Dutch philosopher and lawyer Hugo Grotius (1583-1645) taught that a lie is
not really wrong if the person being lied to has no right to the truth.

This stemmed from his idea that what made a wrong or unjust action wrong was
that it violated someone else's rights. If someone has no right to the truth, their
rights aren't violated if they're told a lie.

This argument would seem to teach that it's not an unethical lie to tell a mugger
that you have no money (although it is a very unwise thing to do), and it is not
an unethical lie to tell a death squad that you don't know where their potential
victim is hiding.

In practice, most people would regard this as a very legalistic and 'small print'
sort of argument and not think it much of a justification for telling lies, except in
certain extreme cases that can probably be justified on other grounds.
Lying to liars

If someone lies to you, are you entitled to lie to them in return? Has the liar lost
the right to be told the truth? Human behaviour suggests that we do feel less
obliged to be truthful to liars than to people who deal with us honestly.

Most moral philosophers would say that you are not justified in lying to another
person because they have lied to you.

From an ethical point of view, the first thing is that a lie is still a lie - even if told
to a liar.

Secondly, while the liar may be regarded as having lost the right to be told the
truth, society as a whole still retains some sort of right that its members should
use language truthfully.

But is it a pardonable lie? The old maxim 'two wrongs don't make a right'
suggests that it isn't, and it's clear that even if the liar has lost their right to be
told the truth, all the other reasons why lying is bad are still valid.

But there is a real change in the ethics of the situation; this is not that a lie to a
liar is forgivable, but that the liar himself is not in a morally strong position to
complain about being lied to.

But - and it's a big 'but' - even this probably only applies in a particular context if I tell you lies about the number of children I have, that doesn't entitle you to lie
to me about the time of the next train to London, although it would make it very
hard for me to complain if you were to lie to me about the number of children in
your family.

Nor does it justify lying to someone because you know they are an habitual liar once again all the other arguments against lying are still valid.
Mutual agreed deception

There are cases where two people (or groups of people) willingly engage in a
mutual deception, because they think it will benefit them. Sisela Bok puts it like
this:

Such deception can resemble a game where both partners know the rules and
play by them. It resembles, then, a pact of sorts, whereby what each can do,
what each gains by the arrangement, is clearly understood.

Sissela Bok, Lying: Moral Choice in Public and Private Life, 1978

An example of this is a negotiation in which both parties will lie to each other
('that's my best price', 'I'll have to leave it then') in a way that everyone involved
understands.
Lies that don't deceive are not sinful lies...or are they?

If both parties know that the liar's statement is NOT intended to be taken as a
definitive and important statement of the truth then it may not count as a sinful
lie, because there's no intention to deceive.

There are many cases where no reasonable person expects what is said to them
to be genuinely truthful.

That may let us off the hook for things like:

Flattery: 'you look lovely'

Gratitude: 'that's just what I wanted'
Formal language conventions: 'sincerely yours', 'pleased to meet you'
Bargaining: 'my best price is 500'
Generalisation: 'it always rains in Manchester'
Advertising: '#### washes whitest'
If believing the advert might lead to bad consequences - for example in
medical advertising - this would not count as a guilt-free lie.
Jokes: 'there was an Englishman, an Irishman and a Scotsman'
Unpredictable situations: 'it won't rain today'
Sporting tips: 'Pegleg is unbeatable in the 3:30 race'
False excuses: 'he's in a meeting'
Conjuring tricks: 'There's nothing up my sleeve'

It's not always easy to see the difference between these statements and white
lies.

Incidentally the Ethics web team disagreed amongst themselves as to the status
of lies that don't deceive - your thoughts are very welcome.
White lies

A white lie is a lie that is not intended to harm the person being lied to - indeed
it's often intended to benefit them by making them feel good, or preventing their
feelings being hurt.

For example, I go to a dinner party and my hostess asks how I like the dish she's
prepared. The true answer happens to be 'I think it tastes horrible' but if I say 'it's
delicious' that's a white lie. Most people would approve of that white lie and
would regard telling the truth as a bad thing to do. (But this lie does do some
harm - the hostess may feel encouraged to make that dish again, and so future
guests will have to suffer from it.)

White lies usually include most of these features:

they are not intended to harm the person lied to

they are not intended to harm anyone else
they don't actually harm anyone (or only do trivial harm)
the lie is about something morally trivial
they aren't told so often that they devalue what you say

White lies are not a totally good thing:

the person being lied to is deprived of information that they might find useful
even if they found it unpleasant
the person telling the lies may find it easier to lie in future and they may come
to blur the boundary between white lies and more blameworthy lies

White lies weaken the general presumption that lying is wrong and may make it
easier for a person to tell lies that are intended to harm someone, or may make
it easier to avoid telling truths that need to be told - for example, when giving a
performance evaluation it is more comfortable not to tell someone that their
work is sub-standard.
Top
Lying and medical ethics
A middle-aged doctor in white coat explains the contents of a medical chart to
her patient, a teenage girl. Photo by Oleg Prikhodko Patients must have the facts
and understanding they need to make an informed choice
Lying and medical ethics

Health professionals have to reconcile the general presumption against telling

lies with these other principles of medical ethics. While healthcare professionals
are as concerned to tell the truth as any other group of people, there are cases

where the principles of medical ethics can conflict with the presumption against
lying.

The fundamental principles of medical ethics are:

Respect for autonomy: acknowledging that patients can make decisions and
giving them the information they need to make sensible and informed choices
Doing no harm: doing the minimum harm possible to the patient
Beneficence: balancing the risks, costs and benefits of medical action so as to
produce the best result for the patient
Justice: using limited medical resources fairly, legally and in accordance with
human rights principles

Telling the truth is not an explicitly stated principle of most systems of medical
ethics, but it is clearly implied by the principle of respect for autonomy - if a
patient is lied to, they can't make a reasoned and informed choice, because they
don't have the information they need to do so.

Respect for patient autonomy is particularly important in the case of people who
are terminally ill, as they are likely to be particularly vulnerable to manipulation
of the truth.

So why might healthcare professionals want to lie 'for the good of patients', and
what are the arguments against this sort of lying?

Lying may be good therapy: the doctor may believe that the patient should
only be given information that will help their treatment
Lying deprives the patient of the chance to decide whether they want the
treatment - highly intrusive treatment near the end of life may prolong life, but
at greatly reduced quality, and the patient, if properly informed, might decline
such treatment
The truth may harm the patient: a patient may, for example, give up hope, go
into a decline or suffer a heart attack if given a depressing diagnosis and
prognosis - they may even choose to kill themselves
Such information should be given in a way that minimizes harm -- the
patient should be appropriately prepared to receive the information and given
proper support after being given bad news
Surveys suggest that patients don't in general go into a severe decline or
choose to kill themselves

Respect for autonomy requires the patient to be given the chance to

consider all legal courses of action, no matter how undesirable other people may
think they are
Lying deprives the patient of the opportunity to take meaningful decisions
about their life, based on accurate medical information
The patient may realise that the symptoms they experience and the way
their disease progresses don't fit what they have been told. They then
experience all the bad consequences of being lied to
The patient wants to be lied to
Surveys suggest that the majority of patients want to be told the truth, even
if it's bad
The patient won't properly understand the truth
It's the duty of the professional to communicate the truth in a way that each
particular patient can understand, and to check that they really have understood
it. (Honesty and intelligibility are particularly important when obtaining patient
consent for a particular treatment or procedure.)
The patient would go into denial and resist the truth if they were told it
Many patients don't go into denial
The patient still has the choice to go into denial
Denial may be an important stage of coming to terms with the inevitable;
the patient should not be deprived of the chance of working through it and
dealing with their life-situation
There is no certain truth: the future course of a disease is almost always
uncertain
The professional should give the patient the range and likelihood of possible
outcomes
The doctor doesn't want to bring the patient bad news
This seems more for the benefit of the doctor than the patient
Telling the patient the truth may cause the patient to use up more of the
healthcare professional's time than telling a lie, when this time could more
beneficially be spent on other patients
Putting proper patient support systems in place will deal with this

Obtaining informed consent

Healthcare professionals must tell the truth and make sure that the patient
understands it properly when they are obtaining the patient's consent to a
procedure or treatment.

If the patient is not told the truth they cannot give 'informed consent' to the
proposed course of action.

A patient can only give informed consent if they know such things as the truth
about their illness, what form the treatment will take, how it will benefit them,
the probabilities of the possible outcomes, what they will experience during and
after the treatment, the risks and side-effects, and the qualifications and trackrecord of those involved in the treatment.

There is also evidence that patients do better after treatment if they have a full
understanding of both the treatment and the illness, and have been allowed to
take some participation and control of the course of their treatment.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/ethics/lying/lying_1.shtml

3
lie
play
verb \l\
Definition of lie
lied
lying
play \l-i\
1. intransitive verb
2. 1 : to make an untrue statement with intent to deceive
3. 2 : to create a false or misleading impression
4. transitive verb
5. : to bring about by telling lies <lied his way out of trouble>

Origin and Etymology of lie

Middle English, from Old English logan; akin to Old High German liogan to lie, Old
Church Slavic lgati
First Known Use: before 12th century
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/lying

.3 Consequences of lying
The consequences of a lie were the next interview topic. Participants mostly pointed out the
consequences that a discovered lie has for the liar, for the lied-to, and for the relationship that
links them. [31]
We observed that descriptions of the reactions of targets of lies were very complex, and that
participants paid uneven attention to particular issues in lying. Our codes allow us to
distinguish several phases in reactions (Table 2). Not every phase was equally stressed by the
participants, nor was each one mentioned in each interview, but we can observe and
characterize the hypothetical process: 1. shock and disbelief, 2. an emotional reaction
(negative emotions emerge such as anger, sadness, regret, antipathy, disappointment), 3. a
cognitive-behavioral reaction. The last phase was at the center of participants' attention (very
prevalent), and it can be described using the following sub-themes: a) distancing: consisting
primarily in losing trust for a long period or permanently, "cooling" of relations with a given
person, increased suspiciousness towards the liar, the emergence of aversion in the
relationship between the liar and the lied-to; b) breakdown: potential for total withdrawal
from the relationship and ending the relationship with the liar; c) thirst for revenge: desire to
exact revenge: "you want to punish someone or end your relationship () or take revenge in
some way;" d) verbal fight: e.g. quarrelling, harsh words; e) social ostracism of the liar; f)
anger at oneself or/and a feeling of humiliation: "I'm mad at myself that () what was I
thinking," "a sort of indignity from the liar, who doesn't feel I'm worth telling the truth to;" g)
crisis: a discovered lie can be a turning point in the relationship, leading either to "the
destruction of the relationship" or to "working on the relationship" (e.g. "these are the
negative consequences that can [] turn into something positive later on").

Theme

Sub-themes

Reaction of a lied-to person as a

process

1. shock and disbelief

2. emotional reaction (anger, sadness, regret,
antipathy, disappointment)
3. cognitive-behavioral reaction
a) distancing
b) breakdown
c) thirst for revenge
d) verbal fight
e) social ostracism of the liar
f) anger at oneself or/and a feeling of

humiliation
4. crisis
5. positive reaction
g) improving the relationship
h) learning something

Factors that may change the

consequences of lying

1. significance of the area of life

2. type of lie
3. possibility of understanding the situation

Table 2: Map of themes and sub-themes in the topic of consequences of lying (Topic 3) [32]
We would like to highlight that the potential for positive consequences of a lie in a
relationship was also mentioned. Discovery of a lie can lead to attempts to improve the
relationship (sub-theme "g," see Table 2)but only in a situation where the detected lie does
not involve values of importance to the participant, where it resulted from weakness rather
than premeditation or the desire to hurt the lied-to on the part of the liar. A positive
restructuring of the relationship seems to be possible only when the individuals concerned are
capable of understanding what exactly happened, why the liar behaved in that way, e.g. "if
the two are able to communicate with each other, collaborate and sort things out." Moreover,
the discovery of a lie may teach the lied-to something (subtheme "h," see Table 2) about life
and other people (e.g. "chalk it up to experience"). [33]
Secondary analysis led to categorization of the sub-themes of cognitive-behavioral reaction
(a-f) and emotional reaction of an exclusively negative character as negative consequences of
lying. The sub-theme "crisis" cannot be viewed exclusively as a negative consequence
because it has the potential to contribute to growth and development, so we considered it a
separate category of consequences. The potential for improving the relationship and an
opportunity to learn from experience were acknowledged as positive consequences of lying.
The decision to generalize themes into such broad categories of consequences (negative,
crisis, potentially positive) was driven by the usability of those categories in the subsequent
theoretical proposition. [34]
The next group of themes dealt with factors that may change the consequences of lying.
Participants drew attention to the fact that the reaction of the lied-to upon discovery of the lie
depends on the type of the lie and its significance. As one of the participants stated "what
kind of lie it is, and whether it affects an important area of life." When a lie does not impact
an important sphere of life it can be treated with a certain indulgence, and it evokes a greater
suspicion towards the person telling the lie (e.g. "if someone lies about the little things, they

can also lie to me about the big things;" "if someone lies in one situation, we can't be sure that
they haven't lied in other situations involving other things"). [35]
Based on the emerging themes we decided to develop a theoretical proposal clarifying the
process of the response of the lied-to when a lie is discovered. The estimation of 1. the
significance of a lie in a particular situation, 2. the type of a lie and 3. the potential of
understanding of a situation might be seen as important moderators of the reaction to a lie in
everyday communication. Similarly to McCORNACK and LEVINE (1990), we focused on
the role that the significance of a lie has on the reaction to lying. They showed that the
perceived importance of lying was related to the increase in emotional intensity of the
reaction of a discovered lie. Turning to the type of lie, an egoistic lie has the potential to
provoke a negative reaction in both the emotional and cognitive-behavioral spheres, while the
forms of protective lies (self-defensive and sheltering) are rather connected to the plausibility
of a positive reaction or a crisis (with both the potential to heal and to destroy a relationship).
Moreover, a factor that may contribute to the possible positive effect of lie on a relationship is
the capacity to understand what happened and why a lie was told. This seems to suggest that
open communication about lies can take part in changing the long-term consequences
generated by them. These moderators and their possible impact on the consequences of lying
are presented in Figure 2. Although this model needs to be tested empirically (both
qualitatively quantitatively), a member of the research team who was not engaged in theme
identification tested the credibility of the findings by examining whether the model fits to the
verbal data.

Figure 2: A theoretical proposal clarifying the process of a response of the lied-to with themes
and sub-themes that may serve as moderators of the reaction to lying [36]
http://www.qualitative-research.net/index.php/fqs/article/view/2311/3892

One little white lie here. Another there. Liar, liarno, your pants aren't going to
catch on fire. So what could it hurt? Plenty, say researchers, and a new study
suggests that honesty may indeed be the best policy, for both your health and
well-being. Listen up, because most of us tell 11 lies a week, or one or two each
day. And all that fibbing could lead to headaches, sore throats, and feeling sad
and stressed.
Anita Kelly, a psychology professor at the University of Notre Dame in Indiana,
spent 10 weeks tracking the health of 110 adults. She asked half of them to stop
lying throughout the study periodwhich meant no false statements, though
participants could still omit the truth, keep secrets, and dodge questions they
didn't want to answer. The other folks weren't given any specific instructions

about lying, though they knew they'd be reporting the number of fibs they told
each week. In addition to taking a weekly lie-detector test, participants filled out
questionnaires about their physical and mental health, as well as the quality of
their relationships.
[See How Your Personality Affects Your Health]
The results? Both groups lied less, but those instructed to tell the truth reaped
more health improvements. "We established very clearly that purposefully trying
not to lie caused people to tell fewer lies," Kelly says. "When they told more lies,
their health went down. And when they told the truth, it improved." In fact,
telling three fewer minor lies a week translated to four fewer mental health
complaints, and three fewer physical complaints. (Those in the control group who
independently told fewer lies logged around two fewer health complaints each
week.) Kelly speculates that's because telling the truth improves relationships, as
the study participants reported. And research has long indicated that people with
good relationships have better physical and mental health.
Still, there could be more to it than the relationship factor, experts contend.
Research on how lying affects health is scant, but lying is thought to trigger the
release of stress hormones, increasing heart rate and blood pressure. Stress
reduces your body's number of infection-fighting white blood cells, and over the
years, could contribute to lower-back pain, tension headaches, a rapid heartbeat,
menstrual problems, and even infertility. You've probably experienced the
visceral effects of lying at least once. Imagine, for example, that you're planning
on lying to your boss or girlfriend tomorrow morning. "I would bet that you can
feel the tension in your shoulders, in your stomach, and in other parts of your
body," says Linda Stroh, a professor emeritus of organizational behavior at
Loyola University in Chicago and author of Trust Rules: How to Tell the Good
Guys From the Bad Guys. "You would spend a lot of time planning the lie,
executing it, and maintaining it."
[See 3 Ways to Help Good Kids Make Tough Choices]
And that can be awfully draining. "It takes a lot of negative physical and mental
energy to maintain a lie," Stroh says. "We have to think before we answer and
we have to plan what we say and do, rather than saying and doing what comes
more naturally. We waste a lot of precious time covering our tracks rather than
spending that time in positive ways, doing good things."
http://health.usnews.com/health-news/articles/2012/08/20/how-lying-affectsyour-health

The Truth Is, Lying Makes You Sick

A new study proves lying leads to illness and the truth will set you
free
August 28, 2012

By Gina Roberts-GreyMoney & Security Writer

We are a nation of liars. Americans tell an average of 11 lies, both big and small,
each week. Most of us fib because were trying to sidestep something
uncomfortable, says Fran Walfish, a family psychotherapist and author in Beverly
Hills, Calif. "Very often, people lie so no one will be mad at them," she says. At
other times, we fudge the truth to feel better about ourselves, impress someone,
or escape punishment or other negative consequences.
The trouble, new research says, is that all this avoidance of the truth can be
hazardous to our health.
(MORE: Hey Man, Its True: All You Need Is Love)
When people lie, they are more prone to feeling anxious or blue, and to
experiencing frequent headaches, runny noses, bouts of diarrhea and back pain.
When people change their ways and start telling the truth more often, however,
they can improve both their mental and physical health, says University of Notre
Dame psychology professor Anita Kelly, lead author of a new study on the effects
of lying.
The Notre Dame study looked at 110 people, ranging in age from 18 to 71, over a
period of 10 weeks. Half the participants agreed to try to stop telling lies (both
major and minor) for the duration of the test. The other half received no special
instructions. Subjects took weekly polygraph tests to assess the number and
type of lies they had told in the previous week. "Those who were instructed to
dramatically reduce lies experienced significantly better health than those in the
group that continued to lie," Kelly says.
Her team found that participants who began telling the truth more often
experienced 54 percent fewer mental health complaints (such as anxiety or
feeling blue) over the course of the study, and 56 percent fewer physical health
complaints (such as nausea or headaches). Subjects who began telling the truth
more often also reported happier relationships and improved social interactions.
Surprisingly, the "size" of a lie doesnt appear to have much impact on its health
effects, Kelly says. Both minor lies, like telling a friend you cant meet for coffee
because you "have to work," and big lies, such as claiming false credentials in a
job interview, can negatively affect your health. "Both white and major lies can
be problematic," she says, "because they can both cause the person to be seen
as a liar. Both can violate expectations of honesty in a relationship." And all of
that leads to feelings of anxiety and guilt.
Why Lying Makes You Sick
Because you know its wrong to lie, doing so "goes against what you deem as
'right,' and builds anxiety," Walfish says. The anxiety just increases as you try to
keep from being caught. "A person who lies doesnt want to be found out. They
want the whole thing to go away," she says.
"As a result of all that guilt, or related anxiety and stress, you begin to physically
feel the effects of the lies," says Reef Karim, an assistant clinical professor of
psychiatry at the UCLA Semel Institute for Neuroscience. "There's definitely a
connection." Your immune system could become compromised because your
body is stressed, making it harder to fight off colds and flus. "For some, its an

immediate effect," Karim notes. "For others its a slow build of physical problems,
like headaches."
(MORE: Stress and Its Adverse Effect on the Human Heart)
The level of guilt you feel about your lies is a crucial factor in how much they'll
affect your body. "The more guilt or anxiety you feel," Karim says, "the more
physical and mental symptoms youre going to experience."
http://www.nextavenue.org/truth-lying-makes-you-sick/

How Lying Hurts You

Tags: Lying
My blogs about of lying have generated a tremendous response. It seems
everyone has been affected one way or the other by lies. Everyone agrees lying
is a destructive habit that hurts you and everyone around you. This week, I want
to talk about the powerful and damaging effects of lying. So how does lying hurt
all of us?
Everyone agrees that lying hurts you and everyone around you.
Lying Destroys Relationships
If youve ever been lied to, you know how difficult it can be to ever trust that
person again. You cant help but wonder why a friend or family member would
treat you so poorly. I received a comment from Brooke, who said:My dad lies to
us (my brothers and I) about going out to bars and drinking. He doesnt
think we will find out but he is always wrong! I tell him how much it
hurts us each time he does lie but he just keeps on lying. The worst lie
he has told me was that he was with my brother and not at the barbut
I was with my brother.

When you lie, even if you think others will never find out,
you will almost certainly create a barrier of hurt in your relationship. Rebecca
said: I am a single mom of a teenage daughter. Her continuous lies have
created a huge barrier in our relationship. I always catch her in lies and
it hurts. The lying escalated to sneaking around doing things with
friends I dont approve of and that hurts.
Unfortunately, when the other person finds out about your lying, and they
usually do, its nearly impossible to regain trust. This has been Allys experience.
She said:Once someone has lied to you, it somehow always happens
again.
Unfortunately, when the other person finds out about your lying, and they
usually do, its nearly impossible to regain trust.

Jessie said: When I was little, I told lies all the time, and never felt guilty
about them. But then something happened that I needed to tell
someone about, and nobody believed me. My early lying paved the way
for years of heartache. Now, I never lie. Ever. Its just not worth it.
When you need the trust of others that youve lost, its the worst
feeling in the world.
So what do you want your relationships to be based on? Lies that you tell, in
order to protect yourself, or to avoid conflict? Or do you want relationships to be
based on a commitment to honesty and integrity, regardless of the hard times?
Its up to you to decide.
When you lie, its like putting a giant rock on your back and having to carry it
around everywhere you go.
Lying Destroys You with its Vicious Cycle
When you continue to lie, its like putting a giant rock on your back and having to
carry it around everywhere you go. It is a relationship destroyer that ends up
destroying you.
A fellow blogger wrote to me about his problem with lying: I have a lying
problem and it has been causing issues ever since I was a little kid. The
worst part is how I have to constantly break ties with people so I wont
get caught in the lies Ive told. So time and time again I find myself all
alone, with no friends and a lot of places I have to avoid. And I cant
even blame anybody else because its my fault for telling those lies in
the first place and then not being able to face up to them.
Lying destroys us because it takes us into a vicious cycle that is extremely
difficult to get free from. Once you tell a lie, you usually have to lie again to
cover up the first lie, and you feel even worse. Steven H. said: Lies grow, they
never stand alone, they need more lies to support the first lie. So, if
you dont fess up immediatelyit grows like a cancer. It cannot be
stopped.
Whitney said: For me lying is like a drug, an addiction. I have become
used to lying it comes out without me even thinking or realizing I am
doing it. To me, lying is so bad I sometimes think Im lying to myself.
Its time for you to make a bold decision to never let lies have any part of your
life.
People who are trapped in a cycle of lying become controlled by fear a fear of
not only being found out as a liar, but also having the truth uncovered about
themselves. Jordan said: Ive lied to my parents a lot. The know almost
nothing about me, except for who I pretend to be. I wish I could clear
the air with them but I know they wouldnt accept the true me, so
instead I lie to please them. I wish I had told the truth. Jordan fails to
understand that he can clear the air with his parents and have the freedom of
walking in the truth.
It all comes down to this: Lying comes with a huge cost it destroys lives.
Relationships will crumble and people will refuse to trust you. But the person

most hurt by your lying is you. Its time for all of us to make a bold decision to
never let lies have any part of our lives. Are you up for it?
https://www.thehopeline.com/how-lying-hurts-you/

Do you know someone who can't seem to utter the truth? Some people lie to
make themselves look good or to get what they want, and others because they
actually believe what they're saying. Either way, confronting the liar is a good
place to start dealing with his or her bad behavior. It's important to remember
that you don't have the power to change someone else - in the end, all you can
do is tell the truth yourself. Read on to learn more about how to deal with a liar.
Part 1
Assessing the Problem
1.

Recognize when the person is lying. If you know what to look for, it's not
hard to tell when someone is lying to you. Knowing how to recognize when the
person is trying to deceive you can clue you in to how serious the issue is. Get to
know how the person looks and acts in a normal, non-stressful situation, and
contrast this with how they act when you think they may be lying. After awhile
you should be able to read the person's body language well enough to have a
grasp on when they're not telling the truth.
o

Check out the way the person acts when you ask his or her birth
date or hometown. Now compare that behavior to how the person
acts when you ask a more difficult question, like whether he or she
slept with your boyfriend or fudged numbers on a work document. If
the person is telling the truth, he or she shouldn't show signs of
stress when answering the more difficult questions.

Forget what you've heard about lack of eye contact being an

indication that someone is lying; in fact, many liars deliberately
make eye contact because of this myth.[1]

When people lie they unconsciously exhibit other physical signs of

stress. Look for these signs:

A fake smile that engages only the mouth, not the eyes.

A higher-pitched voice than normal.

Dilated pupils.[2]

Very slow blink rate (and rapid blink rate when the lie is
over).

Antsy foot movements, like toe-tapping or shuffling.

Face touching, like repeatedly covering the mouth, eyes or

nose.

2.

2
Look for patterns in the person's lies. Many people lie about a few subjects
that make them extremely uncomfortable - usually their past bad behavior or
something that makes them embarrassed. If the person in question tends to

consistently lie when asked about a certain topic, you may just want to back off
and stop pressing that particular issue. However, if the person's lies seem to
have no rhyme or reason, with no pattern you can make out, you've got a bigger
problem on your hands.

3.

If someone lies every time you ask him about why his father is
always absent, or why he never finished high school, or why he
refuses to speak to a certain person, the answers to those questions
might well be classified as none of your business, anyway. Unless
you're in a committed relationship with someone, you aren't entitled
to knowing every detail about someone's life.

If, on the other, hand the person seems to tell lies just for the heck
of it, even when asked questions about seemingly unimportant
topics, he or she might be a compulsive liar. Since his or her lying
doesn't follow a pattern, it will be a lot harder to sympathize with
the person's intentions for hiding the truth.

3
Determine whether the person's lies are harmful. It never feels good to be
told a lie, but some lies are more harmful than others. Before you stage an
intervention, figure out how the lies are affecting the liar, you, and other people
who may be involved.
o

Is the person merely protecting him or herself from saying too

much? Maybe it's not that big a deal.

Is the person lying to manipulate other people? Do people make

decisions based on what the person says, not realizing they've been
lied to? This is a problem that needs to be addressed.

Is the person lying to get away with bad behavior, like stealing,
cheating or hurting someone? This behavior has a severely negative
effect.

4.

4
See if the person gets pleasure from lying. Some people actually enjoy the
act of lying more than they enjoy telling the truth. It can be like an addiction,
evoking a small high each time a lie is told. Brazen liars who have gotten away
with lying for a long time might start to lie as a way of life, rather than out of
perceived necessity. Compulsive liars are tough to crack, since they need to treat
lying like any other addiction.

5.

5
Look for signs the person is a pathological liar. Pathological liars tell
exaggerated lies that are so far from the truth they're often glaringly obvious.
They often believe the lies they tell, and they'll tell you a completely absurd
story with a poker face so earnest you can't help but take it as truth. Pathological
liars have a psychological disorder. Unfortunately, because they think they're
telling the truth, you won't be able to talk them out of lying. Still, it's worth
having a confrontation to determine whether a wake-up call will set them on the
path to getting help.
Part 2
Confronting the Liar

1.

1
Document instances of lying. Write down each instance of lying that you
notice, with details that explain why you believe it's a lie. Do some research so
you have evidence that the person was lying, rather than just going on a hunch
you have. You want to be able to show the liar that you know without a doubt
that he or she was being deceitful.
o

If you can collect hard evidence, such as emails or paperwork that

contradicts what the person said, it'll make the confrontation that
much easier.

If you're relying on other people to call out the lie, try to get more
than one person's word.

2.

2
Talk to the person privately. Confronting someone on their bad behavior in
public is pretty cold, and isn't likely to help that person change. It's better to
discuss the matter in private, so feelings of shame and embarrassment don't
escalate the matter to a breaking point. Calmly tell the person that you believe
he or she lied. Spell out the specific lie or lies you want to discuss.
o

Don't call the person a liar. Again, it's better to take a gentle course
at first. In most cases the person will be so embarrassed at being
found out that he or she will stop lying.

3.

3
Give the liar a chance to explain the lie. Watch the person's body language
carefully for more signs that he or she is lying. Listen to the person's excuse. If
he or she admits to the lie and apologizes, you may not need to take the
confrontation much further. Discuss the matter fully and end the conversation by
telling the person that you hope it doesn't happen again.

4.

4
Show your evidence that a lie was told. If the person gets defensive, makes
excuses, or continues lying during the confrontation, it's time to bring out the
evidence. Show the person the emails, papers, or other evidence you collected
that definitely proves he or she lied to you. At this point you've cornered the liar,
and he or she will probably either remain silent or begin to apologize.

5.

5
Explain that your trust has been lost. This is a difficult thing to hear, and the
person in question will probably feel upset when you tell him or her that you no
longer believe a word he or she says. Explain that you can't help but be
hyperaware that the person might lie, and that until he or she demonstrates a
commitment to the truth over a prolonged period of time, your trust will still be
broken.
o

Most people will be deeply embarrassed by this, and hopefully will

make a commitment to you to tell the truth from now on.

Compulsive liars may admit that they have an addiction, and ask
you for help in stopping their bad habit. You may have to confront
them over and over again before they stop lying for good; for some,
it will be a never-ending battle.

Pathological liars and sociopaths are not going to be swayed by a

confrontation. For them, lying is an essential part of their
personality.

6.

6
Recommend psychological treatment if necessary. Tell the person that
excessive or compulsive lying is something that can be treated in therapy.
Encourage the person to seek outside help before he or she loses everyone's
trust. Eventually, liars are usually exposed - and as a consequence, they can lose
their jobs, ruin relationships, and hurt their chances for living a more honest
lifestyle.
Part 3
Dealing with the Aftermath

1.

1
Understand it might take awhile for the liar to stop. People who have
made a habit of lying can't usually break it right away. Don't be surprised if you
catch the person in a lie again at some point in the future. Depending on your
relationship to the liar, you may or may not want to continue helping him or her
stop by repeating the cycle of gathering evidence, confronting the liar, and
informing him or her that trust has been broken.

2.

2
Know you don't have the power to change another's behavior. Ultimately,
you can't know what's going on in someone else's head. If a person wants to stop
lying, he or she will have to make that commitment and stick to it. If a person
doesn't want to stop, there's absolutely nothing you can do about that.

3.

3
Protect yourself from being harmed by the liar. Dealing with a liar can be
emotionally exhausting. Just when you think trust has been restored, you might
catch the person in the act again, and be forced to start all over. It's important to
take time away from the person and spend time with people you know you can
trust. You might also consider seeking counseling for help dealing with the mixed
emotions that come with being close to a liar.
o

Don't get wrapped up in the person's lies. Make sure you always
have a firm grasp on the truth. Good liars are believable, and it's
important to be able to tell the truth from fantasy.

Cut the person off if it gets out of hand. Don't let yourself get too
sucked in. At a certain point, you might need to cut ties and let go
of a toxic relationship. After you've done everything you can, break
it off and start healing.

http://www.wikihow.com/Deal-With-a-Liar
Types of lies
You look...interesting
Asking a friend an opinion when you require honest feedback is not always the
best bet. Generally with friendships you will be able to read each other well
enough to know a) what sort of response is required (honest or white lie) b) your
friend well enough to recognise a lie.
Dont shout at me!
We learn to lie to and manipulate figures of authority from a very early age
because as humans we want to avoid conflict with power. This is a defence
mechanism; maybe the truth would genuinely hurt those involved, or get the liar
into trouble.
Not just a river in Egypt
At times the possibility of hurt is so great and probable that we engage in acts of
emotional denial to protect ourselves from experiencing a pain we are not yet

ready to bear. This form of psychological self-protection is rough and ready but
its a common human reaction.
Dont believe the hype
Pathological liars are so brazen and comfortable that it seems silly not to believe
them. This type of liar believes their own lies too and for this very reason can be
difficult to spot.
How to spot a liar
Body Language
An excellent liar is hard to spot. This sort of person is aware of their body
language, and will do everything possible to suppress it. But pay close attention:

Stilling. In an attempt to suppress body language a liar will become

incredibly still when talking.

Micro-expressions. The shoulders may rise briefly; a tiny shrug meaning

the same as a big shrug I dont know, completely at odds with the words
spoken. If a person is a getting pleasure out of fooling people the corners
of their mouth may rise into a very brief smile.

Verbal tells. A liar may describe in too much detail everything that
happened around the event, but not the event itself.

Deal with it
Is it worth it: Assess how important it is to your relationship. Understand that
you dont have the power to change a persons behaviour and that an
intervention is an emotionally exhausting process.
Prove it: Document the lies, so youre not going off a hunch.
Private: Dont out a liar in public, the embarrassment and possibly aggression.
It is important to remain calm and sensitive during a confrontation.
Explanations: Give them the opportunity to explain. In turn explain to them
that the trust has been damaged.
Understanding: At this point you may get a clearer picture of why the person
lies, is it a one off or is it compulsive? If the relationship is important it may be
possible to build trust again.
Help: Once understanding has been established it may be necessary to seek
support.
However: To pathological liars and sociopathic personalities lying is a part of
their personality makeup, understanding and support may be all you can offer.
http://www.readersdigest.co.uk/inspire/life-skills/how-spot-and-deal-liar