Lies #2 - What is a lie?

In the discussion with Nathan that followed my first post in this series, he suggested that offering a working definition of a "lie" may be  a helpful next post in this series.  And as Nathan is a genuine authority on blogging, here we are.

Defining something like 'lying' is difficult.  Well, that's a lie.  But it is difficult to define well.

This is in large part due to the complexity of human interactions and the variety of contexts and cultures within which they occur.  So let me start with a negative description.

Is not telling the truth lying?

I don't think that withholding the truth is inherently a lie. This is because not all truth is appropriate for all people to know at all times. The intimacy that is shared by lovers is not something that one shares with all and sundry. In fact to do that would destroy that intimacy that is made so special by its exclusive nature.

Similarly, I don't think there's any moral imperative to be a pedant.  It is perfectly legitimate (particularly in a counselling setting) to simply nod your head and say "right" when someone shares with you their perception of events, even when you 'know' that they're wrong or deluded. Doing this acknowledges that this is their perception of events. It doesn't validate it as true. It communicates acceptance of the person and their experience of an event. Choosing not to contradict a person is not lying.

So what is a lie?

I reckon a decent description of a lie is intentionally representing a false statement as true.

Does that work for persuasive communication?

This is some fairly grey territory.  What if, by making statements that are individually true, I represent a situation or product in such a way that isn't a full or fair reflection in all aspects?

What has happened here is that we're shifting the scope of evaluation from single propositions to entire pieces of communication.  Here, I don't think the label of 'lie' is the most helpful descriptive category.  It's not a label the generally makes sense when applied to, say, a newspaper article as a whole.

I think here we need to ask: "Is the piece of communication faithful to the truth as believed by the author at the time?"  Some points with respect to this:

• As discussed above it doesn't need to disclose all facts, but in these cases a more general grading of faithfulness to truth is more appropriate than the binary term "lie". 
• To be "faithful", the premises in a piece of communication ought to truly support the message (which may be explicit or implicit) of that piece of communication.

Ok, so that's some definitional/descriptional stuff.  It's not meant to be arguing for anything, just laying things down as I'm using them so what I write makes more sense.

Do you like these descriptions?  No?  Help me out a bit and let me know what you'd add/change in your crumbs.