Skip to main content
Log in

On the definition of lying: A reply to Jones and revisions

  • Published:
Journal of Business Ethics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Standard definitions of lying imply that intending to deceive others is a necessary condition of one's telling a lie. In an earlier paper, which appeared in this journal, Wokutch, Murrmann and I argued that intending to deceive others is not a necessary condition of one's telling a lie and proposed an alternative definition. In a reply which also appeared in this journal, Gary Jones argues that (1) our arguments fail to establish the claim that it is possible to lie without intending to deceive others, and that (2) the objections which we raise for standard definitions apply equally to our own. The present paper argues that one can lie without intending to deceive others. I concede Jones' second criticism and propose a new alternative definition.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Additional information

Thomas L. Carson is Associate Professor of Philosophy at Loyola University in Chicago. He was awarded the NEH Fellowship for College Teachers. He is the author of The Status of Morality (D. Reidel, Philosophical Studies Series, 1984), and he has written numerous articles concerning both ethical theory and applied ethics.

I am indebted to Harry Gensler for helpful comments on an earlier draft of this paper.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Carson, T.L. On the definition of lying: A reply to Jones and revisions. J Bus Ethics 7, 509–514 (1988). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00382597

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00382597

Keywords

Navigation