When you lie, the ultimate consequence is that the person who is lied to DOES NOT KNOW what is really going on.
By your seeming definition of a “lie”, it wouldn’t be a lie if I told someone a falsehood with the deliberate intent to deceive them, but they happened to see through my deceit. Since in that case they would know what is going on.
And by your seeming definition it would also be a “lie” if I told someone that I’m not qualified to teach them advanced quantum mechanics, though that statement accurately corresponds to reality, since they would still “NOT KNOW” what is going on with quantum mechanics (through no fault of my own).
And if you thought it through a bit more, even with your focus on CONSEQUENCES, you could easily find different CONSEQUENCES between silence and active falsehoods.
“Hey, mr psychologist, is it true that Mr. Falsely Suspected has confessed to all those murders “ EXPLICIT FALSEHOOD> Yes, Mr Falsely indeed fully admitted to all those murders. SILENCE> I wouldn’t be at liberty to discuss Mr Falsely’s sessions one way or another.
Do you really think the consequences of the above answers are identical, or their moral value?
All in all, again: Nobody uses the word “lie” as you do—and they have good reason not to. As such please stop saying that any word X means something when most people understand it differently. It may mean this to you, but it doesn’t mean it by itself, and not to everyone else.
Be honest and tell the person you do masturbate. When you refuse to answer, the person you are answering to DOES NOT KNOW WHAT IS GOING ON with your personal life.
If I answer falsely and successfully deceive them, the person does not know what is going on with my personal life, but they think they do. If I am silent, the person does not know what is going on with my personal life, but they know that they don’t know.
So even with your own example and your own standards, there’s a different consequence which makes silence more honest than deception. My refusal to answer actually increases their amounts of true knowledge, since they know that I didn’t want to answer them.
By your seeming definition of a “lie”, it wouldn’t be a lie if I told someone a falsehood with the deliberate intent to deceive them, but they happened to see through my deceit. Since in that case they would know what is going on.
And by your seeming definition it would also be a “lie” if I told someone that I’m not qualified to teach them advanced quantum mechanics, though that statement accurately corresponds to reality, since they would still “NOT KNOW” what is going on with quantum mechanics (through no fault of my own).
And if you thought it through a bit more, even with your focus on CONSEQUENCES, you could easily find different CONSEQUENCES between silence and active falsehoods.
“Hey, mr psychologist, is it true that Mr. Falsely Suspected has confessed to all those murders “
EXPLICIT FALSEHOOD> Yes, Mr Falsely indeed fully admitted to all those murders.
SILENCE> I wouldn’t be at liberty to discuss Mr Falsely’s sessions one way or another.
Do you really think the consequences of the above answers are identical, or their moral value?
All in all, again: Nobody uses the word “lie” as you do—and they have good reason not to. As such please stop saying that any word X means something when most people understand it differently. It may mean this to you, but it doesn’t mean it by itself, and not to everyone else.
If I answer falsely and successfully deceive them, the person does not know what is going on with my personal life, but they think they do.
If I am silent, the person does not know what is going on with my personal life, but they know that they don’t know.
So even with your own example and your own standards, there’s a different consequence which makes silence more honest than deception. My refusal to answer actually increases their amounts of true knowledge, since they know that I didn’t want to answer them.