Lying vs. Being Ignorant

[SalixIncendium]

I've seen many accused of lying by others, when, in actually, they are more accurately simply ignorant to the truth.

As I see it, there is a well defined distinction between lying and being ignorant.

For someone to lie, they must know the truth and have a premeditated intent to deceive the subject from that truth. On the other hand, someone who is ignorant to the truth can tell a mistruth, but since they believe their mistruth is, in fact, the truth in their mind, there is no intent to deceive, and therefore, no lie.

Agree? Disagree? Why?

 

[BSM1]

And there is a difference between being stupid and being ignorant. You may have been ignorant on a matter, but I doubt if you're stupid. After all, like me you are here contributing on RF. That makes us smart, Right? Right?

 

[exchemist]

I've seen many accused of lying by others, when, in actually, they are more accurately simply ignorant to the truth.

As I see it, there is a well defined distinction between lying and being ignorant.

For someone to lie, they must know the truth and have a premeditated intent to deceive the subject from that truth. On the other hand, someone who is ignorant to the truth can tell a mistruth, but since they believe their mistruth is, in fact, the truth in their mind, there is no intent to deceive, and therefore, no lie.

Agree? Disagree? Why?

Agree. Lying is intentionally seeking to deceive.

 

[SalixIncendium]

And there is a difference between being stupid and being ignorant. You may have been ignorant on a matter, but I doubt if you're stupid.

Good point. Many attribute a lack of intelligence to ignorance. Ignorance simply means lacking knowledge. It has little to nothing to do with one's ability to acquire or apply knowledge.

After all, like me you are here contributing on RF. That makes us smart, Right? Right?

I actually feel dumber after reading some posts on RF.

 

[Cooky]

Good point. Many attribute a lack of intelligence to ignorance. Ignorance simply means lacking knowledge.



I actually feel dumber after reading some posts on RF.

What about people who totally ignore facts because they don't want to know things that go against their thinking?

...I was told that the above is what ignorance really is.

 

[Cooky]

My understanding is:

Unknowledgeable - Lacks knowledge.
Ignorant - ignores knowledge.
Stupid - just a slur.
Dumb - just a slur.
Liar - tries to intentionally trick people from having knowledge.

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

And there is a difference between being stupid and being ignorant. You may have been ignorant on a matter, but I doubt if you're stupid. After all, like me you are here contributing on RF. That makes us smart, Right? Right?

Brilliant!

 

[Vinayaka]

I've seen many accused of lying by others, when, in actually, they are more accurately simply ignorant to the truth.

As I see it, there is a well defined distinction between lying and being ignorant.

For someone to lie, they must know the truth and have a premeditated intent to deceive the subject from that truth. On the other hand, someone who is ignorant to the truth can tell a mistruth, but since they believe their mistruth is, in fact, the truth in their mind, there is no intent to deceive, and therefore, no lie.

Agree? Disagree? Why?

In general I agree, but it gets complicated because 'the truth' for some is just their belief. If we're talking about science or other realms that follow logic, then your premise works fine. But when things like 'the truth will set you free' come up, it's not truth at all, and there's no way anything will undue the ignorance. Unintended deception, sure.

 

[SalixIncendium]

In general I agree, but it gets complicated because 'the truth' for some is just their belief. If we're talking about science or other realms that follow logic, then your premise works fine. But when things like 'the truth will set you free' come up, it's not truth at all, and there's no way anything will undue the ignorance. Unintended deception, sure.

Yes, but one's belief is their personal truth. I think it's important to make the distinction between a personal truth and a universal truth. As I see it, personal truths are subjective, whereas universal truths are objective.

 

[leov]

I've seen many accused of lying by others, when, in actually, they are more accurately simply ignorant to the truth.

As I see it, there is a well defined distinction between lying and being ignorant.

For someone to lie, they must know the truth and have a premeditated intent to deceive the subject from that truth. On the other hand, someone who is ignorant to the truth can tell a mistruth, but since they believe their mistruth is, in fact, the truth in their mind, there is no intent to deceive, and therefore, no lie.

Agree? Disagree? Why?

If one knowingly conveys wrong information - it is lying, but if one conveys wrong information believing information is true - it may be ignorance.

 

[Stevicus]

I've seen many accused of lying by others, when, in actually, they are more accurately simply ignorant to the truth.

As I see it, there is a well defined distinction between lying and being ignorant.

For someone to lie, they must know the truth and have a premeditated intent to deceive the subject from that truth. On the other hand, someone who is ignorant to the truth can tell a mistruth, but since they believe their mistruth is, in fact, the truth in their mind, there is no intent to deceive, and therefore, no lie.

Agree? Disagree? Why?

I guess some of this would depend upon the answer to the age-old question, "What is Truth?"

And then there's the famous quote from Obi-Wan: "Many of the truths we cling to depend greatly upon our own point of view."

So, someone can tell a truth in such a way, yet present it from their own point of view.

 

[BSM1]

Everyone has to find their own truth...

 

[Salvador]

I've seen many accused of lying by others, when, in actually, they are more accurately simply ignorant to the truth.

As I see it, there is a well defined distinction between lying and being ignorant.

For someone to lie, they must know the truth and have a premeditated intent to deceive the subject from that truth. On the other hand, someone who is ignorant to the truth can tell a mistruth, but since they believe their mistruth is, in fact, the truth in their mind, there is no intent to deceive, and therefore, no lie.

Agree? Disagree? Why?

Somebody's white lies or embellishment of the truth to others, who are unlike me, wouldn't concern me; this being so long as the tale-teller person were to end up keeping most of the agreeable promises he has made to me and my family. ....

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I've seen many accused of lying by others, when, in actually, they are more accurately simply ignorant to the truth.

As I see it, there is a well defined distinction between lying and being ignorant.

For someone to lie, they must know the truth and have a premeditated intent to deceive the subject from that truth. On the other hand, someone who is ignorant to the truth can tell a mistruth, but since they believe their mistruth is, in fact, the truth in their mind, there is no intent to deceive, and therefore, no lie.

Agree? Disagree? Why?

I don't see lying based on intent but just the act of telling what one thinks as the truth (or not think) but deliberately or not telling something false.

They may be ignorant of the information they give but it's not an excuse for telling one thing but it is actually something else.

Maybe when someone lies (does not tell the truth) we can determine if it's their "fault" (ignorant) or something they did on purpose. Either the reason, I feel it's still a lie.

The word lie has a negative conontation since it means lack of truthfulness. Ignorance sounds more like someone is stupid. What about those who are not ignorant to their truth and express it in a sound fact even if it is false?

For example, if someone honestly believe two and two is five and said so, would we say they are ignorant? But to whose standards? Theirs or the other?

 

[Father Heathen]

There's also an important distinction to make between ignorance and willful ignorance.

 

[PureX]

I've seen many accused of lying by others, when, in actually, they are more accurately simply ignorant to the truth.

As I see it, there is a well defined distinction between lying and being ignorant.

For someone to lie, they must know the truth and have a premeditated intent to deceive the subject from that truth. On the other hand, someone who is ignorant to the truth can tell a mistruth, but since they believe their mistruth is, in fact, the truth in their mind, there is no intent to deceive, and therefore, no lie.

Agree? Disagree? Why?

I disagree.

When someone has a responsibility to find out the truth, and does not bother because they prefer the presumptions of their ignorance, this is willful ignorance, which when spread, is deliberately dishonest, and therefor is 'lying'. There are a great many lies being told, among us, based on this kid of willful and deliberate ignorance, and the errant presumptions that it fosters.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Salix and BSM1, some remain purposefully ignorant, in other words they lie. Other members have also stated this.

 

[Vinayaka]

Yes, but one's belief is their personal truth. I think it's important to make the distinction between a personal truth and a universal truth. As I see it, personal truths are subjective, whereas universal truths are objective.

Oh I agree. Still some folks will insist (with absolute certainty) that their truth is absolute truth. No matter how much you or I or others see it as subjective. they don't. I don't think they're lying, I just think there is some sort of different mind structure in place that allows some brains to operate that way, else it wouldn't happen.

 

[SalixIncendium]

There's also an important distinction to make between ignorance and willful ignorance.

Salix and BSM1, some remain purposefully ignorant, in other words they lie. Other members have also stated this.

This is true. But I see willful ignorance as a product of self-deceit. Therefore the intention to deceive, as mentioned in the OP, is present.

Willful ignorance (or more commonly known in legal circles and willful blindness) isn't the kind of ignorance I'm discussing in the OP.

 

[SalixIncendium]

I disagree.

When someone has a responsibility to find out the truth, and does not bother because they prefer the presumptions of their ignorance, this is willful ignorance, which when spread, is deliberately dishonest, and therefor is 'lying'. There are a great many lies being told, among us, based on this kid of willful and deliberate ignorance, and the errant presumptions that it fosters.

Who or what determines whether or not one has the responsibility to find out the truth?