Lying and the Path to Living Truth

Sabrina Picou

Professor Politanoff

English 1

28 March 2017

Lying and The Path to Living Truth

        Stephanie Ericsson’s “The Ways We Lie,” and Clancy Martin’s “A Brief Introduction to the Morality of Deception” are both essays that discuss lying and provide examples of how humans practice deceit. Ericsson’s essay discusses more of the types of lying there are and examples of each one. Martin’s essay goes more into depth on the morals behind deception as his title addresses. By providing more detailed examples, introducing philosophers beliefs on lying, and by presenting two sides to lying Martin’s essay “A Brief Introduction to the Morality of Deception” is by far more persuasive between the two.

        “A Brief Introduction to the Morality of Deception” by Clancy Martin has a lot of opinions about lying within the text. Martin includes various philosophers who are opposed to lying and some who argue that lying is okay when it serves your purpose greater than it will harm it. His own bias shows up here and there throughout the text but it is most evident in the end about where Martin himself stands on lying and in fact aligns himself with the beliefs of the philosopher known as Nietzche. “Nietzche is intellectually refreshing in a way so few thinkers are precisely because he is honest – honest enough to admit that he has to lie in order to create a truthfulness that captures the world as he understands it” (Martin 48). When Martin expresses his opinion on this philosopher he is also expressing how he agrees with his way of thinking. He continues to present this argument with examples and more of what Nietzche is trying to argue. By presenting other philosophers opinions on lying to execute his own beliefs Martin successfully ends up pursuing his own argument.

        Martin’s essay does not completely line up or agree with Ericsson’s beliefs in her work. He might not disagree but Martin does not believe the importance of understanding deceit is to understand the types of lies we compose. Martin would rather go into the depth of philosopher’s beliefs and examples of how those can be true instead give the reader a definition of the types of lies and a brief example of how that lie is executed. That is where “A Brief Introduction to the Morality of Deception” and “The Ways We Lie” disagree the most. Although they have those differences they do agree in addressing the type of lie here and there. Martin does not ignore the importance of the types of lie we compose altogether but rather mentions them throughout as a reminder of what the lie he is discussing. “We may not always out and out lie, but we will certainly say something that is not entirely honest and accurate” (Martin 27).  Martin uses the type of lie, “the out and out” as a note to understand what the lie is called that he is explaining in this example. Ericsson and Martin both can understand the type of lie has somewhat of significance when it comes to discussing the act of lying.

        Stephanie Ericsson’s “The Ways We Lie,” has a one-sided conversation taking place throughout her essay in which she is listing definitions for the reader of what the types of lies are and how they are used in everyday situations. Ericsson is arguing that lying is wrong because when she does include her opinion it is evident what side of the fence she is on about lying. “Our acceptance of lies becomes a cultural cancer that eventually shrouds and reorders reality until moral garbage becomes as invisible to us as water is to a fish” (Ericsson 167). Here Ericsson is expressing her argument of what she believes when it comes to lying, and she says that as we continue to accept these lies eventually the trash our morals become will become so invisible to us we will no longer be aware. The author also uses some quotes before and in between when discussing a new type of lie that also helps pursue her argument of these different lies being wrong, useful, or just to express a thought on them. For example when Ericsson dives into discussing delusion she begins with a quote by Eric Hoffer. “We lie loudest when we lie to ourselves” (Ericsson 166). By using quotes from other people Ericsson is giving another thought and opinion about lying apart from her own and yet it still serves the purpose to explain the type of lie she will begin to discuss in each new section. So although Ericsson does give more explaining on the types of lies she still does pursue her argument that ultimately she is not lying’s biggest fan by incorporating some quotes that seem to align with her beliefs and that is how she achieves putting her two cents into the piece.

        Although both authors pursue their arguments successfully, Martin’s essay makes the strongest argument because he presents multiple sides and opinions on lying unlike Ericsson who simply describes the types of lies. Martin shows that his argument is stronger is by using more ethos in his work. Throughout the essay he address different philosophers who are experts in human morality and deception. “I’ll first discuss several philosophers who argue that it is okay to lie at least some of the time. Then I will turn to philosophers who argue that it always wrong, or almost always wrong, ever to lie” (Martin 25).