by Sam Harris
[2] Some have argued that evolution must have selected for an ability to deceive oneself, thereby making it easier to mislead others [see William von Hippel and Robert Trivers, “The Evolution and Psychology of Self-deception,” The Behavioral and Brain Sciences 34, no. 1 (2011): 1–16; discussion 16–56.] Whether self-deception actually exists is still a matter of controversy, however. There is no question that we can be blind to facts about ourselves or about the world that we really should see—but truly believing one’s own falsehoods is tantamount to honesty. Thus, we need not worry about self-deception for the time being.
[3] S. Bok, Lying: Moral Choice in Public and Private Life (New York: Vintage, 1999).
[4] B.M. DePaulo and D.A. Kashy, “Everyday Lies in Close and Casual Relationships,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 74, no.1 (Jan. 1998): 63–79.
[5] B.M. DePaulo, et al.,“Lying in Everyday Life,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 70, no. 5 (1996): 979–995.
[6] P. J. Kalbfleisch, “Deceptive Message Intent and Relational Quality,” Journal of Language and Social Psychology 20, nos. 1–2 (2001): 214–230; T. Cole, “Lying to the One You Love: The Use of Deception in Romantic Relationships,” Journal of Social and Personal Relationships 18, no. 1 (2001): 107–129.
[7] There is a related distinction in practical ethics between negative and positive injunctions: Negative injunctions are actions we should avoid; positive injunctions are actions we should perform. The asymmetry between these two sets is impressive: We can comply with an infinite number of negative injunctions without expending any energy at all—I can abstain from killing, stealing, or vandalizing others’ property without getting out of my chair. Positive injunctions, however, demand that I do something—raise funds for a specific charity, for instance—and whatever I choose to do will compete with all the other ways I could use my time and attention.
Another important difference between negative and positive injunctions is that it is quite clear when one has fulfilled the former, whereas the latter are often beset by ambiguities. I can be absolutely certain I have not committed murder today. But with respect to any act of generosity, I may always wonder whether I have given enough, to the right people, in the right way, for the right purpose, etc.
To not lie is a negative injunction, and it takes no energy to accomplish. To tell the whole truth, however, is a positive injunction—requiring an endless effort at communication.
[8] K.A. Broomfield, E.J. Robinson, and W.P. Robinson, “Children’s Understanding about White Lies,” British Journal of Developmental Psychology 20, no. 1 (2002): 47–65.
[9] Bok (1999) makes the same point.
[10] B.J. Sagarin, K. Rhoads, and R.B. Cialdini, “Deceiver’s Distrust: Denigration as a Consequence of Undiscovered Deception,” Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 24, no. 11 (1998): 1167–1176.
[11] http://healthland.time.com/2011/01/06/study-linking-vaccines-to-autism-is-fraudulent/