h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

I remember from Hebrew language in the Old Testament that "speaking the truth" = speaking loyal to the one you speak.

So, it's a part of really being loyal and not necessary 100% thruth of the facts.

Hiding a Jew in 2nd W.W. and saying "No" at the door to the soldiers.
Partially sharing the news about the illnes of someone.
Being "careful" in what you say and to whom one is saying it.

The aim is the relation and "the facts" are number two.

At least; that's my opinion, related to the inspiring Hebrew content of the word speaking the truth.

Is Amsterdam without sin?
Ofcourse

Right on!

In a more nordic sense, it's about honour, isn't it? You give your word to someone - ie. you promise to shelter them from nazis and therefore, you keep your troth to them even if you don't tell the truth to everyone. Objective 'I will never lie' statements are codswallop - you lie to the unjust, you lie when the objective truth will upset someone, you lie when a small factal discrepancy will prevent terrible end results so long as you keep truth, honour yourself and the people you respect. Anyone who doesn't do that is being more untrue than if they'd told dozens of lies.

Sorry, I've been reading a lot of romances recently, but I tink keeping one's word is the most important thing ever.

That said, blatent honesty is sometimes helpful. Try sending an authority figure an email saying "Sorry, I can't be there today I'm stupidly hungover. It's my own fault, I've fouled up and accept the conseqences, but I respect you too much to lie to you and will have a detrimental effect on the workplace if present. My apologies," and then sign off. I've been told that this is 'disarming honesty'.

I look at it this way: most definitions of the verb 'lie' agree that it involves making an untrue statement with intent to deceive. The question of honour re your word doesn't really come into it in the most basic sense, but by the same token, intent to deceive is a difficult question in itself.

If you were hiding Jew in WW2 and told soldiers at the door you weren't, your intention wouldn't be to deceive the soldiers, but to protect the Jews. I think that's where 'lying' becomes less black and white.

When hiding or exaggerating certain details, it might decieve someone, but the intention would be to spare their feelings.

My point is, is deception always deception, even with honourable intention? Or am I just talking nonsense?!

Nah, you make sense - I was using honour in a very medieval sense - a modern equivalent would be respect, except honour is more serious. To tell an untruth - literally to break troth - is not to lie, exactly, its more to break your word or to dishonour yourself and those who you honour - so in hiding a Jew during WWII, you have given your word - in lying to keep your word you are not tellling an untruth, if you see what I mean. Breaking your word - thus dishonoring yourself - is more serious.

I've just realised how garbled that was. Baisically:

A lie isn't equivalent to deception if you owe nothing and have promised nothing to the person to whom you are lying. You can decieve someone more (ie the person you are hiding) by stating the facts at the wrong time (ie, to the nazi)