A lie needs to be intentional. If they meant to fulfill the promise, it wasn't a lie.
this post was submitted on 15 Dec 2023
48 points (94.4% liked)
Asklemmy
43946 readers
569 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- [email protected]: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_[email protected]~
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
A lie to yourself is still a lie.
Yes. If your history with such promises is you always break them, then making another of those promises is a lie unless you’ve changed something about your ability to deliver
Lies don't need to be intentional. You may not have been lying in the moment, but (especially if it's by your own actions) you have made yourself a liar after the fact if you don't keep to your promise. Your logic sounds like a narcissist's rhetoric. Your intent in the moment is worthless without follow through and does not relieve you of responsibility.
Intent in the moment is a part of the definition of a lie, yes.
You have to knowingly provide false information to lie.
Calling me a narcissist for having a different definition of a lie than you is... interesting. I never said it would relieve them of responsibility. You are still responsible for your mistakes and need to stand up for them. But that wasn't the question. Most definitions of "lie" I can find, such as Merriam Webster's do explicitly include intent to deceive.
I didn't call you anything, but it is interesting that you lept to that conclusion. Dictionaries are descriptive not prescriptive, so not sure how that's relevant in this discussion.
Yes and the thing dictionaries describe is the definitions of words. Since we’re talking about the definition of lying, that’s where the dictionary becomes relevant here.
it is interesting that you lept to that conclusion. That is something a narcissist would do, but I don’t know you so I’ll definitely not calling you that.
I... really don't know what your problem is. It's possible to have a civil discussion without throwing around implications like that. Especially if it's about the frigging definition of a word.
Dictionaries are descriptive not prescriptive, so not sure how that’s relevant in this discussion.
OP asked if something is a lie, so the definition of a lie is what's relevant to answer this question. OP did not ask for a moral judgement.
What if they intended to fulfill the promise but never actually did? Does that not make it a lie all the same?
I don't think so. That would make it a mistake. Just like if I made a claim that I believed true but wasn't.
Am I lying if I try to answer a question to the best of my knowledge and end up being wrong?
I don't think you can make something a lie retroactively if it was supposed to be true at the time.
There is still a bit of a gray area there, though, which is that if you know you are not a subject matter expert, you should try to disclose that.
Hence why "IANAL" is so recurring on any online discussion about legal advice, because you want to offer what insight you can but you definitely don't want to mislead anyone into believing your potentially dangerous legal advice is authoritative.
I disclose that by using words that describe my level of certainty. Like “I think” or “Possibly” or “It may be the case” or “I’m tempted to think”.
If I promise to drive you to the airport but moments before I'm to pick you up my mom has a stroke and winds up in the emergency room, and I call you and tell you get a cab my mom just had a stroke. Did I lie? Answer : no I didn't.
It's only a lie if I had no intention of picking you up to begin with.
It's not a lie the first time. But if you promise to do the dishes and then go to bed without doing them several times, the next time you promise it, it's a lie.
Going to bed without doing the dishes even once makes it a lie, unless you’re literally passing out and just happen to steer yourself to fall on the bed.
Still not a lie if you intended to do them. It turns out to be misleading, false and a failure but thats not lying.
No, that makes the person who promised to do something incapable of doing it. If I promise to jump over a stool and fail that doesn't make me a liar because I actually intended to fulfill that promise.
No, its only a lie if they say they were going to do it without ever intending to do so. If they intended to do it and something happened that prevented them from doing it, it wasn't a lie. If you're looking for a reason to be pissed at someone for not fulfilling a promise you still can be justified depending on the rest of the context.
Depends on their actions after the promise, if they don't attempt then it's a lie
An unfulfilled promise should return an object that is rejected with a given reason. (source)
;)
This is why we can't have nice things.
Does Javascript have anything to say about promises that are never resolved/rejected? Is that something that happens?
No, that’s a broken promise. Possibly considered a failure.
Lies are intentional from the start, so it would only be a lie if the promise, itself, was never genuine from the beginning, but that’s not in the parameters of the question.
If the person making the promise never intended to keep it, yes. Either way, you have no reason to trust their promises again.
Depends on the promise and reason it isn't fulfilled if you ask me. If something outside of a reasonable obstacle happens obviously you should be able to trust them
You can’t think of any reason to trust a person’s promises after they’ve broken one?
No ..... that's just disappointment
Not fulfilling a promise build distrust, but ultimately it depends on multiple factors to determine if an unkept promise is a lie.
A promise can be made using incomete knowledge of all the variables, and further down the road as you get a clearer picture you realize this promise cannot be kept.
The intention behind the promise, and how transparent you are about the possible outcome is important between failing to keep your promise and outright lying about it by keeping everyone in the dark as long as possible (to the benefit of the person who made that promise and to the detriment of everyone else).
An intentionally broken promise is even worse than just any lie. To break a promise means you cannot keep a core part of you consistent.
I think it would, if that was the intention; not, if it wasn't.
Pretty much yes.
If a friend/partner promises to change their behaviour or do something specific and does not? Yep, that is a lie.
You've been down voted a lot here, but I think it's by people who have never been with a partner who does this. If you promise to do the dishes and then go to bed without doing them over and over, the promise starts to be a lie.
If your partner says " I promise" "just trust me" and then continuously breaks that promise (even if in the moment they sincerely believe they'll do better this time) and then fails to follow through, I believe that abuse of trust qualifies at lying. We're adults. You can review your patterns and know better than to promise something you know you have trouble following though on.
Just promise to try or say you'll do your best