The "little white lie" is a very persistent and often satirized component of modern social life. Again and again, society is reminded that although lying is taught as immoral, it is often acceptable when being used to protect someone else from harm. Such lies can be small, such as telling one's spouse that they have not, in fact, gained weight in order to protect their ego. However, such lying also works on a much larger scale, as was shown in the extremely popular movie "Life is Beautiful". In the film, a Jewish-Italian man tells his son that their deportation to a concentration camp during World War II is actually his birthday surprise, in order to protect him from the horrors of war. The lie gave the child comfort, hope and even happiness during one of the darkest periods in human history, where the truth would have destroyed his youth and greatly lessened his chance of survival.
Still, there must be instances when lying is more harmful than the truth, or else the morality of modern society would not put such emphasis on honesty. In fact, there are many situations in which lying is not only more harmful, but also has the potential to lead to truly detrimental results. In such cases, the liar is usually acting out of self-interest. This is exemplified by the Watergate scandal that rocked the political world under President Richard Nixon. The Nixon administration was attempting, through dishonesty and witholding of information, to secure profits and success in the next elections for itself. Such corruption and lies, left undetected, could have lead to serious changes in the American political landscape. It could have become common sense to misuse resources and public trust for political gain, even in the highest strata of the governmental structure. Such practice would completely undermine the founding principles of the nation, and so have a negative effect on all aspects of society. It was only by exposing these lies through the media that such harm was prevented.
Lying is, for better or for worse, an integral part of human nature. It is often used as a last resort in a desperate moment, as a final gamble for preservation of the well-being of an individual. However, it would seem that it is the well-being being staked that determines the harmfulness of a lie. As is apparent from the film "Life is Beautiful", when a person lies in order to protect the best interests of another, it is truly an effective, and in a sense, honest way of preventing harm at the hands of truth. However, when the individual being protected by lies in the liar himself, it is most often out of corruption and selfishness, and only the truth can truly support the greater good. It can then be said that it is not the truth or falsehood of an act that decides its harmfulness, but rather the selfishness or selflessness behind it.

Natalie Maine, one of the singers in the country music group, the Dixie chicks said "...We’re ashamed that the President of the United States is from Texas." Natalie was commenting on the war in Iraq and was directing the comment to President George W. Bush and felt the need to express in a concert. Telling a lie can sometimes be more beneficial than speaking your mind and what you truly think. This should have been the case with Natalie but instead she chose to vocalize herself to the millions watching. Because of this act, there was serious backlash and their music was banned for a short period of time on the radio until a public apology was given. Even after the apology, people regarded the comment not necessary and it reflected harshly on the band and sales of their album dropped. In this case, it is often better to lie or even to say nothing at all.

Though the general rule is that a person should lie instead of telling the truth, there are some circumstances in which telling the truth might be less harmful than lying. Such is the case with Bill Clinton and Monica Lewinsky. Mr. Clinton once said "I did not have sexual relations with that woman". While in office, it was found that Bill Clinton did in fact have sexual encounters with Monica Lewinsky on at least 5 occasions and decided to lie about it when asked if the allegations of him having sexual relations with Monica were true or not. His reputation became tarnished and it reflected poorly on the United States Government. For this scenario, he should have admitted to his actions right away instead of prolonging the lie. Instead of being seen as someone who was involved in only a scandal and did the responsible thing and admit it, he was now also perceived as a liar on top of that. This whole ordeal, is what led to his impeachment in 1998. Therefore, after examining the case of Mr. Clinton,it is evident that telling the truth can prove to be more beneficial.

The debate between when to tell the truth and when to lie in order to avoid harm is often difficult to resolve. However, the guiding principles should be that when it is a rude comment,often it is better to lie than to offend someone by telling the truth. When the truth is less harmful than a lie, is when you are representing your country.As was the case with Mr. Clinton When he was trying to deny an allegation, it is better to admit your mistakes and be honest.




My resolution paragraph is poor, any criticism from anyone would be appreciated

White lies are generally told when the truth is going to be irrelevant and will cause harm to the person being lied to. Often if the truth is going to have a more negative impact then a lie, a lie should be told. During the global economic melt down many large companies were in danger of loseing much of their equity. The stock market was a fear driven, and any uncertanty in a companies future would cause many people to sell that companies stalk quickly. Many banks, which many people relied upon, were hiding and lieing about finacial records to appease their share holders in order to maintain their stalks and not go bankrupt. If it was known that these companies were standing on false finances their stalks would have dropped and neither the investors nor the company would have benifited. In the case of banks many peoples finacial uncertanty and survival may have been at stake. In such a case a lie, was much less harmful then the truth.

There are many times when the truth will be much less harmful then a lie. In April of this year an oil rig, leased by British Petrolium (BP), exploded causing the death of elevin workers as well as punched a hole in a pipeline along the bottom of the gulf of Mexico. Realizing the potential disaserous effects this was going to have on the gulf and surrounding area, BP imediatly asked for help from the American government rather then lieing about what is going on. A slow reaction to this would have delayed the cleanup efforts even more causing larger damage to the area, and a greater risk to the people. A lie in this instance would have caused damages far exeeding the ones that actually occured.

Lies are used to hide the truth. Sometimes the truth will be more harmful then a lie and everyone will be better off beleiving the lie. The trick in deciding weather or not a lie will be more harmful than the truth is looking to the future. If the lie will prevent larger problems, that could endanger the lives of others, when compared to the truth then a lie will be less harmful and should be told. However if the truth is what is needed to prevent future problems then one should tell the truth.

I'm pretty sure my examples suck, but they were the only ones I could think of at the time. I hope that my essay was still written alright though. Thanks for your input!

Lies are often less harmful than the truth.

Write a unified essay in which you perform the following tasks. Explain what you think the above statement means. Describe a specific situation in which the truth might be less harmful than lies. Discuss what you think determines whether or not lies are less harmful than the truth.

It has been said that on average, a person lies at least twenty times a day. Whether they be small lies or big ones, people lie because they believe it to be the easiest thing to do at the time and provide a more positive outcome than the truth. In fact, it happens so often that there is a term that encompasses those lies, called white lies. White lies are used often to tell someone what they want to hear, as often people may ask each other questions without wanting the truth. To use a common example, when a woman asks her husband if she looks ‘too fat’ in a certain outfit, more often than not, she will be expecting a negative answer as opposed to a positive one. Indeed, the husband would be better off responding with a negative answer, as it avoids hurting the feelings of his wife, and the husband will be able to continue with his day blissfully unaware of the damage he narrowly avoided inflicting upon himself had he told his wife otherwise. In the aforementioned case, white lies are often better than the truth because they are less hurtful to the recipient.

However, as most have been taught from a very young age, lying is not always the best option. When applying for a job, it is unwise to lie about past work experiences or positions. Not only can this prove unsuccessful, as future employers can always attempt to access past employers that may not exist, but it puts the liar in an unfavourable position without necessarily accomplishing the task at hand. If the goal was the put oneself at a higher advantage by lying about past job experiences, then discovering the truth about those lies would undoubtedly compromise any further success for the position one is attempting to obtain. In the above case, the truth is often much less harmful, if not better, than lies.

Individuals often have difficulty differentiating when it is appropriate to tell a lie or the truth. A criterion that can be used to assess this is whether both parties are more positively affected by the lie or the truth. If both the liar and the recipient of the lie are positively affected by a lie, as was the case of the husband and the wife, then the lie is indeed less harmful and hurtful than the truth. However, if applying for a job, it would be much more advantageous to speak the truth about qualifications and credentials, as lies about such things could compromise ones chances of obtaining that job altogether.

It feels as if since the moment one is born they are repeatedly told that "honesty is always the best policy". Children are taught at home as well as in their schools that the term lying has a negative meaning. The idea of telling the truth can be frightening as it more often than not results in someone getting hurt, therefore; our minds persuade us to lie. In this scenario it would seem that a lie can most definitely be less harmful than the truth. In 2004, a woman named Sue Rodriguez was diagnosed with a fatal disease and requested that her life be ended by euthanasia. She took her case to the Canadian Supreme Court where her case was lost, hence, she took her own life with the help of an unknown physician. In this case Sue Rodriguez disobeyed the law and lied by going ahead with the process of euthanasia. By lying, Ms. Rodriguez was no longer in pain and felt no harm, her wishes were granted and those around her were not harmed by her decision as her family had given her much support. Lying saved her from the harm she would of endured if she has told the truth.

Although lying can prevent more harm than the truth the opposite can be said as well that the truth can be less harmful than telling a lie. It is often quoted that "the truth always comes out" which can be used as a motivative tool for individuals to speak the truth initially. There was a clinical study conducted known as "The Tuskegee Study" that was performed by public health authorities in the United States. The purpose of this study was to research the natural progression of syphilis. Approximately 400 poor African Americans were used for the study each infected with syphilis. Rather than treating the patients with penicillin, the cure for syphilis, the health authorities lied to the patients by not treating them and casually observing the progression of syphilis. The African Americans suffered from syphilis because the truth was with-held from them by the researchers and in this case telling the truth would have been less harmful than lying.

Making the appropriate distinction between when lying is less harmful than the truth and when the truth is less harmful than telling lies can be a very difficult distinction to make. If we follow this specific criterion it might be more simple; lying is less harmful than telling the truth except when a lie is going to harm other individuals physically or emotionally and in that case telling the truth is less harmful than telling a lie. Sue Rodriguez told a lie in order to prevent herself from additional harm and others were not hurt physically or emotionally. The public health authorities performing the "Tuskegee Study" lied to their research patients causing them to suffer physical harm. In this situation telling the truth would have caused less harm than lying. In conclusion, when deciding between a lie or the truth we must take into account others' physical and emotion well-being.

Feedback: 4/6
- Your first paragraph should (as it does) address task #1, and provide an example of where lying is less harmful. However, you go on to discuss the counterargument. You should start a new paragraph for this. Life is Beautiful is an excellent example; to make it stronger, you could have stated that it was based on a true story (and thus could be extended to real life).
- Nice 2nd example, but if you go with a movie theme for your first example, you should stick with that same theme in your 2nd example. Its hard to compare a real-life situation with a fictional one.
- Your conclusion is good, but your statement that lying is an honest way of protecting someone does not ring true.
- Overall excellent grammar/sentence structures/spelling.

Feedback: 3/6
- Sometimes you omit words during the course of your sentences (which can make them difficult to understand) ex. "Natalie was commenting on the war in Iraq and was directing the comment to President George W. Bush and felt the need to express in a concert. " should read "Natalie was commenting on the war in Iraq and was directing the comment to President George W. Bush and felt the need to express THIS in a concert. ". This is also a run-on sentence.
- Your example of the Dixie Chicks is a negative one i.e. where a lie MIGHT HAVE been better than the truth because something bad happened when someone chose to tell the truth. A stronger example is POSITIVE, where someone lied and it was less harmful. In addition, its better to avoid hypothetical situations.
- Good Clinton example. Again, its better to select an example that is clear-cut i.e. someone had the choice of lying and telling the truth, and then told the truth, and it was less harmful. Here, someone first lied, and then told the truth. It confuses the issue.
- Your resolution is weak because it is not consistent with your examples. Since your examples don't really match (one is where a third party is insulted or attacked, the other is a cover-up of a scandal), its difficult to come up with a resolution. If you select examples that work together, the resolution will come much easier.

Feedback: 2.5/6
- Your opening statements are more resolution statements than introductory statements.
- Numerous spelling errors throughout.
- Should use 'Stocks' instead of 'Stalks'
- Your example of how the bank's lies were less harmful than the truth is not strong. In fact, one could make a stronger argument to the contrary. Due to the sub-prime lending deceit on the part of the banks, many people who could not afford a mortgage decided to take a mortgage. Thus by lying, the banks caused much more harm than they would have if they had disclosed the true future rates to their clients.
- Excellent example of BP telling the truth. Since its a slightly different example theme than your banking example, I would have established the link as 'industries, including banking and energy companies, etc'.
- Decent resolution, but poorly worded. Had you chosen a more solid 1st example, you would have had a more cohesive essay. You should try and emphasize the parallels between your examples in the conclusion.

Feedback: 3.5/6
- Nice opening statement, but rephrase it to sound more confident & believable. 'It is estimated that the average person will lie at least twenty times per day'.
- You refer to 'negative' or 'positive' answers to the question 'Do I look fat in this'...this is subjective and confusing (is a positive answer 'Yes' or 'No' i.e. agreeing with the statement OR sparing his wife's feeling's?).
- You say that the husband is blissfully unaware of the damage he narrowly avoided. However, based on what you said earlier in the paragraph, it seems like he has a choice i.e. he debates as to whether he will tell the white lie or not. Be consistent.
- Your example of jobs is decent, but it lacks complexity. Perhaps elaborating as to the importance of telling the truth when you are in a position of competition, and using the job interview as an example of that would make it stronger.
- Excellent resolution.

Feedback: 2.5/6
- Opening statement is not convincing. If you want to use that quotation, work it into a sentence like: It is a widely accepted belief that honesty is the best policy'.
- Sue Rodriguez example is NOT a clear example of someone lying (so much as breaking the law) and as such does not address the prompt given.
- Your opening remarks in the 2nd paragraph lack foundation (and are not backed up).
- EXCELLENT 2nd example, but it doesn't fit with your first example.
- Careful with run-on sentences.
- Resolution statement is confused, mainly because your first example is weak. Also, there are some run-on sentences.