Comments on: As Honest As We Like to Think We Are http://www.indisputably.org/?p=203 A Member of the Law Professor Blogs Network Wed, 08 Sep 2010 17:21:28 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: Jessica Farley http://www.indisputably.org/?p=203&cpage=1#comment-2430 Jessica Farley Mon, 22 Dec 2008 21:34:11 +0000 http://www.indisputably.org/?p=203#comment-2430 In response, I would say that I fall into the pragmatist view above. While in an ideal world, lying is wrong, and we should always tell the truth, one of the main motivations for telling the truth is not that it is the inherently "right" thing to do, but that lying generally backfires. It is generally safer not to lie. In addition, people generally respect others for having the courage to admit the truth. While lying is definitely a better course to take when asked for your personal opinion about someone's hair, in general, it is safer to tell the truth in almost all other situations. I think that being seen as a "liar" is still stigmatized in our society, even if it is about relatively insignificant or personal matters. Ironically, many people who tell lies expect others not to, and are very surprised to learn when they are lied to. In response, I would say that I fall into the pragmatist view above. While in an ideal world, lying is wrong, and we should always tell the truth, one of the main motivations for telling the truth is not that it is the inherently “right” thing to do, but that lying generally backfires. It is generally safer not to lie.

In addition, people generally respect others for having the courage to admit the truth. While lying is definitely a better course to take when asked for your personal opinion about someone’s hair, in general, it is safer to tell the truth in almost all other situations. I think that being seen as a “liar” is still stigmatized in our society, even if it is about relatively insignificant or personal matters. Ironically, many people who tell lies expect others not to, and are very surprised to learn when they are lied to.

]]> By: Annika Thompson http://www.indisputably.org/?p=203&cpage=1#comment-2397 Annika Thompson Sat, 13 Dec 2008 16:20:40 +0000 http://www.indisputably.org/?p=203#comment-2397 Typo. In above post I meant gain, not game in the last sentence. Typo. In above post I meant gain, not game in the last sentence.

]]> By: Annika Thompson http://www.indisputably.org/?p=203&cpage=1#comment-2396 Annika Thompson Sat, 13 Dec 2008 16:19:39 +0000 http://www.indisputably.org/?p=203#comment-2396 I agree with Nick - it would be interesting to see what would have happened if he didn't have 7 million in the bank. Would he have lied? Maybe not, as he seems pretty ethical, but I am sure that several people in his position would have kept their mouths shut, whether or not they needed the money. I personally would not have lied. I would have felt terrible, and probably lost a lot of sleep over the lie. What if someone else knew and was just waiting to call me out? I could not bear the stress of such a big lie. Although I think lying is needed for social cohesion, (can you imagine a world in which people were brutally honest, all the time? Comments like "Oh God, what did you do to your hair?" or "Did you get dressed in the dark?" would be plentiful. No one would have any friends!) I don't think it is appropriate in some situations, this one included. Although it is far too common, people should not resort to lying for personal game in their career. I agree with Nick – it would be interesting to see what would have happened if he didn’t have 7 million in the bank. Would he have lied? Maybe not, as he seems pretty ethical, but I am sure that several people in his position would have kept their mouths shut, whether or not they needed the money.

I personally would not have lied. I would have felt terrible, and probably lost a lot of sleep over the lie. What if someone else knew and was just waiting to call me out? I could not bear the stress of such a big lie.

Although I think lying is needed for social cohesion, (can you imagine a world in which people were brutally honest, all the time? Comments like “Oh God, what did you do to your hair?” or “Did you get dressed in the dark?” would be plentiful. No one would have any friends!) I don’t think it is appropriate in some situations, this one included. Although it is far too common, people should not resort to lying for personal game in their career.

]]> By: Andy Mongin http://www.indisputably.org/?p=203&cpage=1#comment-2381 Andy Mongin Fri, 12 Dec 2008 04:31:47 +0000 http://www.indisputably.org/?p=203#comment-2381 I agree that people try to rationalize cheating, which is wrong because cheating takes away someone else’s fair gain. I think that anyone who respects the individual rights of others would agree. When I was in graduate school I met a lot of people from different parts of the world. The graduate program had an honor code, which was not as intuitive to everyone as it is to people who grow up in a society where cheating is not accepted. The willingness in society to excuse cheating seemed to coincide with a lack of importance paid to individual rights. Cheating was a way to make the most effective use of scarce resources. Instead of running up transaction costs in a fair competition, a person who uses short-cuts and avoids getting caught takes the winnings. The fact that some other individual, who we may feel to be more deserving because of her honesty, was cheated was not as relevant if individual rights did not matter. I believe that societal norms dictate a large part of what cheating is and whether cheating is ethical. The emphasis on individual rights creates a norm where lying is not ethical. The rights (and opportunities to use them) afforded to individuals requires that depriving another individual of her right to her fair share with a lie be abhorred. In light of our rights as individuals, we simply have very little excuse to lie. I agree that people try to rationalize cheating, which is wrong because cheating takes away someone else’s fair gain. I think that anyone who respects the individual rights of others would agree.
When I was in graduate school I met a lot of people from different parts of the world. The graduate program had an honor code, which was not as intuitive to everyone as it is to people who grow up in a society where cheating is not accepted. The willingness in society to excuse cheating seemed to coincide with a lack of importance paid to individual rights.
Cheating was a way to make the most effective use of scarce resources. Instead of running up transaction costs in a fair competition, a person who uses short-cuts and avoids getting caught takes the winnings. The fact that some other individual, who we may feel to be more deserving because of her honesty, was cheated was not as relevant if individual rights did not matter.
I believe that societal norms dictate a large part of what cheating is and whether cheating is ethical. The emphasis on individual rights creates a norm where lying is not ethical. The rights (and opportunities to use them) afforded to individuals requires that depriving another individual of her right to her fair share with a lie be abhorred. In light of our rights as individuals, we simply have very little excuse to lie.

]]> By: Joany Shepard http://www.indisputably.org/?p=203&cpage=1#comment-2374 Joany Shepard Thu, 11 Dec 2008 18:42:10 +0000 http://www.indisputably.org/?p=203#comment-2374 Mr. Hayes’ actions reflect his character, and character is not the end result of one major life choice, but is the reflection of a series of daily choices. I would not be surprised to learn that Mr. Hayes has a habit of being an honest man, or that he is honest in his other dealings. I believe that we are all faced with situations that force us to choose between honesty and integrity or dishonesty and deceit on a daily basis. Those choices we make form the person we become. Like Liz’s choice to tell the cashier to charge her for the proper mushrooms, the opportunities greet us more frequently than we may realize, but they help us to form the habit of honesty (or dishonesty). As an example, I was at Wal-Mart back when my two kids were toddlers (no small feat with a one- and three-year old). After shopping for a half-hour with crabby children, I checked out my purchases. When I got to the car, and after strapping both kids into their carseats, I noticed that under my daughter’s jacket was a 4-pack of lightbulbs that I hadn’t paid for. Did I unstrap both kids, load them in the cart, and return to the store to pay for my 79-cent oversight? Are you kidding me? Actually, I went later that day after my husband got home from work and paid for the “stolen” bulbs. And my conscience bothered me for waiting the three hours to do so. I have been faced with other situations that are similar to the one I just conveyed, as have we all. Based on those choices, I hope I can predict that I would make the same choice as Mr. Hayes, if faced with the same scenario (which would only be possible if a fairy golfmother endowed me with some golfing ability). In his post, Andrew poses the question of whether it would have been wrong for Mr. Hayes to keep his mouth shut and then on the back end of winning donate 20% to charity. My answer would be yes, of course it would be wrong. In that situation, willful cheating cannot be negated by a later good deed. The thing that makes Mr. Hayes’ action so compelling is that he made a choice that cost him something. Giving away 20% of something that shouldn’t have been his in the first place hardly seems like a cost to him. Rather, it would have been a rationalization of cheating. It seems so easy to twist the cheating into something noble. As an alternative question to the one above, I wonder what I would have advised Mr. Hayes to do if he had come to me seeking legal advice after the violation but before he disqualified himself? Rule 1.6 of the Model Rules of Professional Conduct seems to point toward advising him to disqualify himself, and I think I would do that anyway, without a Model Rule to direct me. Mr. Hayes’ actions reflect his character, and character is not the end result of one major life choice, but is the reflection of a series of daily choices. I would not be surprised to learn that Mr. Hayes has a habit of being an honest man, or that he is honest in his other dealings. I believe that we are all faced with situations that force us to choose between honesty and integrity or dishonesty and deceit on a daily basis. Those choices we make form the person we become. Like Liz’s choice to tell the cashier to charge her for the proper mushrooms, the opportunities greet us more frequently than we may realize, but they help us to form the habit of honesty (or dishonesty).

As an example, I was at Wal-Mart back when my two kids were toddlers (no small feat with a one- and three-year old). After shopping for a half-hour with crabby children, I checked out my purchases. When I got to the car, and after strapping both kids into their carseats, I noticed that under my daughter’s jacket was a 4-pack of lightbulbs that I hadn’t paid for. Did I unstrap both kids, load them in the cart, and return to the store to pay for my 79-cent oversight? Are you kidding me? Actually, I went later that day after my husband got home from work and paid for the “stolen” bulbs. And my conscience bothered me for waiting the three hours to do so.

I have been faced with other situations that are similar to the one I just conveyed, as have we all. Based on those choices, I hope I can predict that I would make the same choice as Mr. Hayes, if faced with the same scenario (which would only be possible if a fairy golfmother endowed me with some golfing ability).

In his post, Andrew poses the question of whether it would have been wrong for Mr. Hayes to keep his mouth shut and then on the back end of winning donate 20% to charity. My answer would be yes, of course it would be wrong. In that situation, willful cheating cannot be negated by a later good deed. The thing that makes Mr. Hayes’ action so compelling is that he made a choice that cost him something. Giving away 20% of something that shouldn’t have been his in the first place hardly seems like a cost to him. Rather, it would have been a rationalization of cheating. It seems so easy to twist the cheating into something noble.

As an alternative question to the one above, I wonder what I would have advised Mr. Hayes to do if he had come to me seeking legal advice after the violation but before he disqualified himself? Rule 1.6 of the Model Rules of Professional Conduct seems to point toward advising him to disqualify himself, and I think I would do that anyway, without a Model Rule to direct me.

]]>