> Speaking factually incorrect things if you believe them to be true is honest but incorrect.
In ordinary conversation, yes, of course. But not in advertising copy. As to the latter, one cannot claim ignorance.
Try your position in a court of law after someone holds you responsible for an "innocent misstatement of fact" in advertising copy that leads to sales based on a false premise, and/or that causes injury.
Interestingly, about the difference between false statements and lying, this played a part in a scandal at West Point a few years ago, in which some students didn't realize the point you make about ordinary conversation -- lying must be intentional falsehood, with knowledge that the statement is false.
Nevertheless, someone who writes advertising copy can't claim this protection.
> Are people who write code with bugs just dirty liars ...
That's not the same at all. A programming bug isn't an intentional statement, whether true or false. A closer comparison would be someone speaking a word in a language he doesn't actually understand, and not realizing he's used the wrong word.
You are moving the goalposts from "lying" to "being accountable". "I did not lie, so I should walk free" is not, in general, a valid argument in court (but it can work in defamation suits. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defamation#Defences)
"You lied, so you should be convicted" isn't true, either. If it were illegal, why do people have to take an oath in court?
Lying may be morally or ethically bad, but in itself, the law is fine with it.
> If it were illegal, why do people have to take an oath in court?
A number of reasons:
* So they can't claim ignorance of the law.
* Because lying in court is such a commonplace that the court system decided a timely reminder would be wise.
* Finally, some statements that are lies can't be prosecuted, for example, anything not material to the issues being discussed. On that basis, the oath stands as a clarification of what is legal and illegal in that specific context.
In spite of the above, lying under oath is very common. It's a rule of thumb that judges will rule against liars rather than try to prosecute them.
> Lying may be morally or ethically bad, but in itself, the law is fine with it.
Yes -- except (two examples) under oath or while filing a police report.
Comments
> Speaking factually incorrect things if you believe them to be true is honest but incorrect.
In ordinary conversation, yes, of course. But not in advertising copy. As to the latter, one cannot claim ignorance.
Try your position in a court of law after someone holds you responsible for an "innocent misstatement of fact" in advertising copy that leads to sales based on a false premise, and/or that causes injury.
Interestingly, about the difference between false statements and lying, this played a part in a scandal at West Point a few years ago, in which some students didn't realize the point you make about ordinary conversation -- lying must be intentional falsehood, with knowledge that the statement is false.
Nevertheless, someone who writes advertising copy can't claim this protection.
> Are people who write code with bugs just dirty liars ...
That's not the same at all. A programming bug isn't an intentional statement, whether true or false. A closer comparison would be someone speaking a word in a language he doesn't actually understand, and not realizing he's used the wrong word.
You are moving the goalposts from "lying" to "being accountable". "I did not lie, so I should walk free" is not, in general, a valid argument in court (but it can work in defamation suits. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defamation#Defences)
"You lied, so you should be convicted" isn't true, either. If it were illegal, why do people have to take an oath in court?
Lying may be morally or ethically bad, but in itself, the law is fine with it.
> If it were illegal, why do people have to take an oath in court?
A number of reasons:
* So they can't claim ignorance of the law.
* Because lying in court is such a commonplace that the court system decided a timely reminder would be wise.
* Finally, some statements that are lies can't be prosecuted, for example, anything not material to the issues being discussed. On that basis, the oath stands as a clarification of what is legal and illegal in that specific context.
In spite of the above, lying under oath is very common. It's a rule of thumb that judges will rule against liars rather than try to prosecute them.
> Lying may be morally or ethically bad, but in itself, the law is fine with it.
Yes -- except (two examples) under oath or while filing a police report.