---
product_id: 1530979
title: "Lying"
price: "B$2"
currency: BND
in_stock: false
reviews_count: 13
url: https://brunei.desertcart.com/products/1530979-lying
store_origin: BN
region: Brunei
---

# Lying

**Price:** B$2
**Availability:** ❌ Out of Stock

## Quick Answers

- **What is this?** Lying
- **How much does it cost?** B$2 with free shipping
- **Is it available?** Currently out of stock
- **Where can I buy it?** [brunei.desertcart.com](https://brunei.desertcart.com/products/1530979-lying)

## Best For

- Customers looking for quality international products

## Why This Product

- Free international shipping included
- Worldwide delivery with tracking
- 15-day hassle-free returns

## Description

As it was in Anna Karenina, Madame Bovary, and Othello, so it is in life. Most forms of private vice and public evil are kindled and sustained by lies. Acts of adultery and other personal betrayals, financial fraud, government corruption—even murder and genocide—generally require an additional moral defect: a willingness to lie. In Lying , best-selling author and neuroscientist Sam Harris argues that we can radically simplify our lives and improve society by merely telling the truth in situations where others often lie. He focuses on "white" lies—those lies we tell for the purpose of sparing people discomfort—for these are the lies that most often tempt us. And they tend to be the only lies that good people tell while imagining that they are being good in the process.

Review: Short, but condensed, and it makes you think - This is a short essay on why we should not lie. At first, this appears redundant, like beating a dead horse. We all know that lying is wrong. So why write an essay telling us what we already know and agree on. Maybe because we all lie every day? Why do we lie if we know it is wrong? What do we gain from this? Do we benefit more from lying than from telling the truth? The author starts by defining what he means by lying. Most people would define lying as telling something that is not true. However, by this definition, an actor playing a character on stage is lying because he is telling us that he is someone else, and he is pretending to feel emotions and think things he is not really feeling and thinking. If I say something that is false but I don’t know that it is false, am I lying? What if I am saying things that are technically speaking true, but that will create a false impression in the other person’s mind? What if someone asks me a question and I give an evasive answer? Is changing the subject lying? The author defines lying in the broader senses as engaging in willful deceit. For him lying is any situation when through my words and actions I am deliberately trying to create an impression in the other person’s mind that is different from what I myself understand to be the truth. Also, the other person must at the same time expect me to be honest. The author does talk about deceit in exceptional situations, such as spies operating undercover or lying to protect a life. He has mixed feelings about it. He says that there are better solutions (although he does not say what these solutions are), but he acknowledges that sometimes deceit is the best option. I myself believe that protecting human life trumps honesty. If I can protect a life by being honest, by all means I will do it. But if there is no other option, I will lie through my teeth to protect another. Still, these are exceptional situations. I have never been in one and I hope that neither will you. But this book is not about such situations, but about everyday deceit in which almost all of us engage daily. People deceive for three main reasons. They are afraid that the truth will affect them negatively, they hope that they will gain something by creating a false impression, and they are deceiving for the benefit of another. I will start with the last argument, that deceit is done in the best interest of another person. Quite often this is simply not true. Quite often we tell ourselves that we are deceiving someone for their own good in order to justify our actions. (I will get to self-deceit later.) But even if we really do it for their benefit, do we really have the right to make this kind of decision for them? What gives us the right to deny them the truth? Do we really think that they are too stupid and/or weak to handle the truth? And even if they are, how are they supposed to grow stronger and smarter if we cocoon them with lies? Imagine that someone is deceiving you for your own good. Maybe you don’t have to imagine because it did happen to you. It did happen to me once or twice. Would you not feel insulted that those other people thought that you can’t handle the truth? I was. But deceiving for the benefit of another is not as frequent as deceiving for our own benefit. We deceive to gain advantage and to hide our failures and wrongdoings. The author argues that (and I agree) deceit creates more problems than it solves. Once exposed, deceit makes people angry. Not only are they angry for the initial offense, but the deceit we have used subsequently to hide the offense makes things even worse. Even if we are never caught, we live in fear of being exposed. The protect the initial lie from being revealed, quite often we must create even more deceit. Soon we are creating a complicated web of lies. Some people are compulsive liars or psychopaths and they have no problem doing that. They even enjoy it. But most people are not like that. I myself have to admit that occasionally I have engaged in deceitful behavior. A couple of times I got caught and my lies have only made things worse. But even on the occasions when I got away with it and there was next to no chance of my lies being exposed, I still felt sullied. But whenever I chose to tell the truth, no matter the consequences, I felt relief. A commitment to always telling the truth is of tangible benefit. Not only we don’t get into trouble by lying, but we can no longer deceive ourselves. We humans have an amazing capacity to engage in self-deceit. We keep telling ourselves lies until we eventually come to believe in them. By being honest with others, we are forced to be honest with ourselves. This all sounds nice and fine in theory, but in practice we are often afraid to tell the truth because we are scared of the repercussions. There are situations when telling the truth can end badly for us. What should we do? Obviously, there are situations when telling the truth might result in some terrible tragedy. The author is ambiguous about such situations and so am I. But I am talking about everyday situations. To this I say that for one, a commitment to honesty will make us a better moral person and will decrease the probability that we will do something shameful. Since we know that we won’t have the option to lie about it, we are going to be more likely to do the right thing in the first place. As for the people to whom we tell the truth, they might resent us for the initial wrong that we did, but they will appreciate our honesty and even come to respect us. But what if they don’t? Everyone makes mistakes. Everyone is entitled to recognize his wrongdoings, come forward and seek atonement. As long as the confession is sincere and the sinner’s efforts to atone and improve are genuine, then they deserve forgiveness. If someone is unwilling to forgive no matter what, then maybe this is not a person that we would like to have in our life. But what if the truth results in a broken relationship, loss of job or even going to jail? This is of course a difficult situation and each one has to make his own choices. I will only advise that if we are involved in a situation (a relationship, employment, etc.) that is founded on deceit and the truth would destroy it, then maybe it would be better to end this situation one way or another. The author talks about some other things such as the fact that honest people attract and keep more friends whereas dishonest people turn them away. Even if our deceit is never exposed, lying builds barriers between people that eventually drive them away. There is also talk about the long history of deceit by governments and other institutions. There is this joke. “How can you tell a politician is lying? His lips are moving.” An exaggeration, but not by much. Whenever I learn that the government has been lying about something, I get angry, but I do not get surprised anymore. Years of hearing lies from our so called leaders have made me completely cynical. It is really amazing how much argument the author crams into such a short essay. But make no mistake, it is very thought provoking. And although I was overall committed to telling the truth before, reading this book only strengthened my resolve. The only problem I have with this book is that at times the author sounds too absolutist to me. He does not recognize that telling the truth is sometimes very hard. He says that we should tell the truth at all times and that is it. Or at least that is the impression that I got few times when reading. But it is a minor peeve. The book is a must-read and although it will not turn you into a saint, it will (it is my hope, at least) set you on the path of honesty. Believe me when I say this, being deceitful is indeed a viable solution to your problems, but in the long run it will almost always make things worse. Telling the truth, no matter how bad in the short run, is almost always a better long-term solution to our problems. I am speaking from (hard earned and painful) experience. I give this book five stars.
Review: One of Harris' best books - "Honesty is the best policy" an old saying goes, and many, if not most people would say that they make it the model of their own personal ethic, at least to an extent. But, many people feel that so called "white lies", lies that they think cause no harm or whose truth content would make no difference, are somewhat permissible and even necessary at times. But what if these moments of opportunity are the difference between a great world and a semi-decent world? In short, is it always wrong to lie? Philosopher and neuroscientist Sam Harris' long-form essay Lying approaches this question and answers with a resounding "yes". In fact, Harris' whole thesis could be summed up on pg. 24 of his book: "Do not lie." Harris at the beginning of the book states that he started thinking about lying seriously when he took a class at Stanford University called "The Ethical Analyst", and the entire course revolved around whether or not one should lie. The book is divided into three sections, one in which Harris makes arguments about why telling the truth in all situations is best, the second section is a dialogue between Harris and his professor who taught "The Ethical Analyst", Ronald A. Howard, and the final part is Harris answering questions from readers who read the e-book version of Lying, which was released prior to the hardback version being released. As mentioned previously, Harris book focuses on white lies, and on situations where honesty gives the person the information they need in order to live the best life possible. Perhaps one of his best examples is a situation we have all encountered or at least heard about before, namely whether someone looks fat or not in a certain outfit. Harris writes: "Most people think that the correct answer to this question is always "No"....But this is an edge case for a reason:It crystallizes what is tempting about white lies. Why not simply reassure someone with a tiny lie and send her out into the world more confident? Unless one commits to telling the truth in situations like this, however, one feels that edges creep inward, and exceptions to the principle of honesty begin to multiply. Very soon, you may find yourself behaving as most people do quite effortlessly:shading the truth, or even lying outright, without thinking about it. The price is too high." (Lying pg. 15-16) In short, Harris is saying that when we commit to be honest in every situation, we will be better people and less stressed with how much we have to remember, because we will have nothing to hide. Harris does also comment that tact plays a role in this, one can be truthful without being rude. I admit that I at times struggle with this, but it can be done. Harris also talks about "Faint Praise", which is giving someone a compliment when one has not been earned. For instance, Harris mentions a friend who is a successful writer, but once gave Harris a text that he thought was terrible. Rather than avoid the question, Harris told his friend that the piece was not his best work. The reaction was that Harris' friend trusted him more, and now knows if Harris praises his work, he is being sincere. Since relationships are built upon trust, it follows that we must be honest in order to have rewarding, fulfilling relationships. If there is one failing in Harris' book, it a failure that is common to his other writings, which is not taking the arguments of his opponents seriously. On pages 28-29 of his book, Harris mentions that philosopher Immanuel Kant thought that under no circumstance could lying be justified, and then dismisses him by saying that he has no reason to take Kant seriously. Here is where Harris shows that he is a scientist first and a moral philosopher second. Kant is one of the greatest philosophers in moral theory, one can hardly find a volume dealing with moral philosophy that does not mention Kant extensively. Furthermore, Kant justified his claim in his various Critiques, but Harris fails to mention this at all, he just dismisses Kant and moves on. This is a characteristic that Harris shows in his other work, such as in The Moral Landscape, when he dismisses David Hume's Is-Ought distinction (which fellow utilitarian Peter Singer calls him out on in a recent podcast), or in The End Of Faith, when he dismisses Noam Chomsky's arguments about how interventionism by the United States in the Middle East helped to bring out the September 11 attacks. It is not enough to simply dismiss a reputable philosopher with whom one disagrees; one must show charity to their argument by presenting it at its best and showing why your position is better than theirs. Harris has not yet learned this lesson. Overall, Lying is a book that I recommend to both the general reader and philosopher alike. It is interesting, short, and a joy to read overall. It can even be said that if we take Harris' arguments seriously, we can be better people, have better relationships, and ultimately a better planet.

## Technical Specifications

| Specification | Value |
|---------------|-------|
| Best Sellers Rank | #151,024 in Books ( See Top 100 in Books ) #57 in Philosophy of Ethics & Morality #79 in Business Ethics (Books) #413 in Popular Social Psychology & Interactions |
| Customer Reviews | 4.3 out of 5 stars 3,475 Reviews |

## Images

![Lying - Image 1](https://m.media-amazon.com/images/I/61Jk3tQmk3L.jpg)

## Customer Reviews

### ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐ Short, but condensed, and it makes you think
*by W***Z on January 24, 2014*

This is a short essay on why we should not lie. At first, this appears redundant, like beating a dead horse. We all know that lying is wrong. So why write an essay telling us what we already know and agree on. Maybe because we all lie every day? Why do we lie if we know it is wrong? What do we gain from this? Do we benefit more from lying than from telling the truth? The author starts by defining what he means by lying. Most people would define lying as telling something that is not true. However, by this definition, an actor playing a character on stage is lying because he is telling us that he is someone else, and he is pretending to feel emotions and think things he is not really feeling and thinking. If I say something that is false but I don’t know that it is false, am I lying? What if I am saying things that are technically speaking true, but that will create a false impression in the other person’s mind? What if someone asks me a question and I give an evasive answer? Is changing the subject lying? The author defines lying in the broader senses as engaging in willful deceit. For him lying is any situation when through my words and actions I am deliberately trying to create an impression in the other person’s mind that is different from what I myself understand to be the truth. Also, the other person must at the same time expect me to be honest. The author does talk about deceit in exceptional situations, such as spies operating undercover or lying to protect a life. He has mixed feelings about it. He says that there are better solutions (although he does not say what these solutions are), but he acknowledges that sometimes deceit is the best option. I myself believe that protecting human life trumps honesty. If I can protect a life by being honest, by all means I will do it. But if there is no other option, I will lie through my teeth to protect another. Still, these are exceptional situations. I have never been in one and I hope that neither will you. But this book is not about such situations, but about everyday deceit in which almost all of us engage daily. People deceive for three main reasons. They are afraid that the truth will affect them negatively, they hope that they will gain something by creating a false impression, and they are deceiving for the benefit of another. I will start with the last argument, that deceit is done in the best interest of another person. Quite often this is simply not true. Quite often we tell ourselves that we are deceiving someone for their own good in order to justify our actions. (I will get to self-deceit later.) But even if we really do it for their benefit, do we really have the right to make this kind of decision for them? What gives us the right to deny them the truth? Do we really think that they are too stupid and/or weak to handle the truth? And even if they are, how are they supposed to grow stronger and smarter if we cocoon them with lies? Imagine that someone is deceiving you for your own good. Maybe you don’t have to imagine because it did happen to you. It did happen to me once or twice. Would you not feel insulted that those other people thought that you can’t handle the truth? I was. But deceiving for the benefit of another is not as frequent as deceiving for our own benefit. We deceive to gain advantage and to hide our failures and wrongdoings. The author argues that (and I agree) deceit creates more problems than it solves. Once exposed, deceit makes people angry. Not only are they angry for the initial offense, but the deceit we have used subsequently to hide the offense makes things even worse. Even if we are never caught, we live in fear of being exposed. The protect the initial lie from being revealed, quite often we must create even more deceit. Soon we are creating a complicated web of lies. Some people are compulsive liars or psychopaths and they have no problem doing that. They even enjoy it. But most people are not like that. I myself have to admit that occasionally I have engaged in deceitful behavior. A couple of times I got caught and my lies have only made things worse. But even on the occasions when I got away with it and there was next to no chance of my lies being exposed, I still felt sullied. But whenever I chose to tell the truth, no matter the consequences, I felt relief. A commitment to always telling the truth is of tangible benefit. Not only we don’t get into trouble by lying, but we can no longer deceive ourselves. We humans have an amazing capacity to engage in self-deceit. We keep telling ourselves lies until we eventually come to believe in them. By being honest with others, we are forced to be honest with ourselves. This all sounds nice and fine in theory, but in practice we are often afraid to tell the truth because we are scared of the repercussions. There are situations when telling the truth can end badly for us. What should we do? Obviously, there are situations when telling the truth might result in some terrible tragedy. The author is ambiguous about such situations and so am I. But I am talking about everyday situations. To this I say that for one, a commitment to honesty will make us a better moral person and will decrease the probability that we will do something shameful. Since we know that we won’t have the option to lie about it, we are going to be more likely to do the right thing in the first place. As for the people to whom we tell the truth, they might resent us for the initial wrong that we did, but they will appreciate our honesty and even come to respect us. But what if they don’t? Everyone makes mistakes. Everyone is entitled to recognize his wrongdoings, come forward and seek atonement. As long as the confession is sincere and the sinner’s efforts to atone and improve are genuine, then they deserve forgiveness. If someone is unwilling to forgive no matter what, then maybe this is not a person that we would like to have in our life. But what if the truth results in a broken relationship, loss of job or even going to jail? This is of course a difficult situation and each one has to make his own choices. I will only advise that if we are involved in a situation (a relationship, employment, etc.) that is founded on deceit and the truth would destroy it, then maybe it would be better to end this situation one way or another. The author talks about some other things such as the fact that honest people attract and keep more friends whereas dishonest people turn them away. Even if our deceit is never exposed, lying builds barriers between people that eventually drive them away. There is also talk about the long history of deceit by governments and other institutions. There is this joke. “How can you tell a politician is lying? His lips are moving.” An exaggeration, but not by much. Whenever I learn that the government has been lying about something, I get angry, but I do not get surprised anymore. Years of hearing lies from our so called leaders have made me completely cynical. It is really amazing how much argument the author crams into such a short essay. But make no mistake, it is very thought provoking. And although I was overall committed to telling the truth before, reading this book only strengthened my resolve. The only problem I have with this book is that at times the author sounds too absolutist to me. He does not recognize that telling the truth is sometimes very hard. He says that we should tell the truth at all times and that is it. Or at least that is the impression that I got few times when reading. But it is a minor peeve. The book is a must-read and although it will not turn you into a saint, it will (it is my hope, at least) set you on the path of honesty. Believe me when I say this, being deceitful is indeed a viable solution to your problems, but in the long run it will almost always make things worse. Telling the truth, no matter how bad in the short run, is almost always a better long-term solution to our problems. I am speaking from (hard earned and painful) experience. I give this book five stars.

### ⭐⭐⭐⭐ One of Harris' best books
*by T***R on January 28, 2017*

"Honesty is the best policy" an old saying goes, and many, if not most people would say that they make it the model of their own personal ethic, at least to an extent. But, many people feel that so called "white lies", lies that they think cause no harm or whose truth content would make no difference, are somewhat permissible and even necessary at times. But what if these moments of opportunity are the difference between a great world and a semi-decent world? In short, is it always wrong to lie? Philosopher and neuroscientist Sam Harris' long-form essay Lying approaches this question and answers with a resounding "yes". In fact, Harris' whole thesis could be summed up on pg. 24 of his book: "Do not lie." Harris at the beginning of the book states that he started thinking about lying seriously when he took a class at Stanford University called "The Ethical Analyst", and the entire course revolved around whether or not one should lie. The book is divided into three sections, one in which Harris makes arguments about why telling the truth in all situations is best, the second section is a dialogue between Harris and his professor who taught "The Ethical Analyst", Ronald A. Howard, and the final part is Harris answering questions from readers who read the e-book version of Lying, which was released prior to the hardback version being released. As mentioned previously, Harris book focuses on white lies, and on situations where honesty gives the person the information they need in order to live the best life possible. Perhaps one of his best examples is a situation we have all encountered or at least heard about before, namely whether someone looks fat or not in a certain outfit. Harris writes: "Most people think that the correct answer to this question is always "No"....But this is an edge case for a reason:It crystallizes what is tempting about white lies. Why not simply reassure someone with a tiny lie and send her out into the world more confident? Unless one commits to telling the truth in situations like this, however, one feels that edges creep inward, and exceptions to the principle of honesty begin to multiply. Very soon, you may find yourself behaving as most people do quite effortlessly:shading the truth, or even lying outright, without thinking about it. The price is too high." (Lying pg. 15-16) In short, Harris is saying that when we commit to be honest in every situation, we will be better people and less stressed with how much we have to remember, because we will have nothing to hide. Harris does also comment that tact plays a role in this, one can be truthful without being rude. I admit that I at times struggle with this, but it can be done. Harris also talks about "Faint Praise", which is giving someone a compliment when one has not been earned. For instance, Harris mentions a friend who is a successful writer, but once gave Harris a text that he thought was terrible. Rather than avoid the question, Harris told his friend that the piece was not his best work. The reaction was that Harris' friend trusted him more, and now knows if Harris praises his work, he is being sincere. Since relationships are built upon trust, it follows that we must be honest in order to have rewarding, fulfilling relationships. If there is one failing in Harris' book, it a failure that is common to his other writings, which is not taking the arguments of his opponents seriously. On pages 28-29 of his book, Harris mentions that philosopher Immanuel Kant thought that under no circumstance could lying be justified, and then dismisses him by saying that he has no reason to take Kant seriously. Here is where Harris shows that he is a scientist first and a moral philosopher second. Kant is one of the greatest philosophers in moral theory, one can hardly find a volume dealing with moral philosophy that does not mention Kant extensively. Furthermore, Kant justified his claim in his various Critiques, but Harris fails to mention this at all, he just dismisses Kant and moves on. This is a characteristic that Harris shows in his other work, such as in The Moral Landscape, when he dismisses David Hume's Is-Ought distinction (which fellow utilitarian Peter Singer calls him out on in a recent podcast), or in The End Of Faith, when he dismisses Noam Chomsky's arguments about how interventionism by the United States in the Middle East helped to bring out the September 11 attacks. It is not enough to simply dismiss a reputable philosopher with whom one disagrees; one must show charity to their argument by presenting it at its best and showing why your position is better than theirs. Harris has not yet learned this lesson. Overall, Lying is a book that I recommend to both the general reader and philosopher alike. It is interesting, short, and a joy to read overall. It can even be said that if we take Harris' arguments seriously, we can be better people, have better relationships, and ultimately a better planet.

### ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐ Uphold Honesty and Put Off Deception
*by M***N on October 30, 2013*

By the time Sam Harris released his book "Lying" in HB format last week, it was clear that New Atheism's once-chesty agenda has slowed like a trilobite out of water. The aggressive scheme of becoming the next widespread intellectual movement has become distressingly frail. Did you see it? Where once there had been packed lecture halls filled with eager atheistic catechumens, today only sparse crowds and canceled events. Remember the unveiling of the Four Horsemen's prediction that there would be a hurried abandonment of religion, yet we see massive growth of religion in formerly irreligious regions. Where once--just before the 20th century--there had been almost no Christians in China, S. Korea, and great swaths of Africa, now these countries are teeming with hundreds of millions of Christians. Perhaps it may be time to place all neo-atheistic grandiosity on hold. Yes, there was a lack of philosophical acumen. Indeed, there was a question of how deep the pop-atheists understood the theology they condemned. Besides, today there are just three of the horsemen still in the saddle. Not much galloping going on since two of the riders are visibly aged and ready to go. However, one young rider with the ears to hold a twenty-gallon hat ruthlessly marches on. Anti-theist Sam Harris. He and his fervent admirers appear to be willing to do whatever it takes to expunge religion from the globe--by any means necessary. Sam Harris has a bit of youth, numerous best-sellers, and a sheath laden with the sword of atheistic pugnacity. Previously, he made a noble attempt at contending for godless moral values in "The Moral Landscape." By any means necessary. And now Harris delivers a new volume "Lying." A book that provides interesting arguments concerning the need for honesty. By any means necessary. Herein the youngest of the new atheist bishops reveals that lying is a bad practice and all people should strive to be more authentic and truthful. By any means necessary. Harris' thesis: Lying is wrong and it leads to "chaos" (p. 1). Agreed! Harris asserts, with a consequentialist[1] twang, that lying in all situations, except a few in the midst of war, is immoral.[2] Since Harris acknowledges the strong influence of Ron A. Howard, he rigidly holds to the notion that lying is foul; it's always wrong since it leads to bad consequences. He presses this to the point of arguing for ingenious truth-telling in place of protective lying when an enemy is seeking to kill a specific person. Under interrogation, the one hiding the innocent person should develop honest answers while still protecting the innocent person in hiding. But where does clever deception detach from lying? I have not read an adequate answer from Harris or Howard. With the penalty of death and torture hanging like Damocles' sword over a person, with intense grilling by savage men with weapons, a trembling person should have a creative script to deploy that will protect everyone. I don't buy it. Underneath the weight of pressure, guns, death threats, and vigorous questioning, it would seem to be much safer to lie and protect everyone. Nonetheless, I do commend the author for striving to uphold honesty--his tenacity to maintain morality is laudable. Harris offers consequentialist[3] justifications for honesty: * "One of the greatest problems for the liar is that he must keep track of his lies"(388). [if one doesn't refrain from lying one has the difficult consequence of having to try to keep track of the lies] * "Suspicion often grows on both sides of a lie"(404). [if one doesn't discontinue lying one has to face the unpleasant consequence of suspicion] * "Lying is the royal road to chaos" (p 1). [if one doesn't abstain from lying one has to deal with the disconcerting consequence of chaos] Harris' "Lying" is challenging and intentionally didactic. Unless one is a wild-eyed spiritualist or a consistent non-theist, both theist and atheist will find strong agreement with the author's teleologically centered proscriptions. This small book may not be an adequate resource to sustain objective moral values[4], but it is potent in its pointing toward a fissure in the structure of modern ethical practice. Harris' practical work on honesty in general, as well as his contention for the immorality of lying, has not misfired. "Lying" is a wonderful effort in demonstrating the reason why lying is a "moral defect" and how it leads to "chaos." This is a volume that will transform the way you think about honesty and lying. This little volume will convince you that lying is immoral in most situations because it leads to bad consequences. Nonetheless, all people have lied in the past and the author offers no means to remove a person's guilt and shame; one must turn to Christ to receive forgiveness and pardon for all one's immoral lying. Additionally, God is the essential foundation for objective moral values and His law is a necessary condition for both ethics and meaning in life. This is the case, yet for a non-theistic book on ethics with a philosophical bent, "Lying" is a real marvel of a book, an uncommon pleasure. Herein the most boyish of the neo-atheist prelates has winsomely shown that lying is immoral and everyone should endeavor to be more trustworthy and honest. By any means necessary. review by Mike Robinson author of numerous apologetics books. ----------------------------------------------------- 1. Harris wrote, "People lie so that others will form beliefs that are not true. The more consequential the beliefs--that is, the more a person's well-being depends upon a correct understanding of the world--the more consequential the lie"(Kindle loc. 42). 2. Immanuel Kant believed that lying was always immoral--lying was wrong even if a lie would stop a murder or other high crime. Contra Kant, Harris rightly observes: There are "those circumstances where we deem it obviously necessary to lie, we have generally determined that the person to be deceived is both dangerous and unreachable by any recourse to the truth"(loc. 337). 3. The consequences of a deed do not make it good or bad; moral or immoral. One needs a loftier standard to discern what a good outcome is and what is not. Consequences are important features apropos discerning right from wrong, but they, ontologically, cannot be the standard that one employs to judge the rightness of the result and aftermath. 4. Harris assumes the existence of objective moral values without offering a comprehensive argument for such. He does this all the while presupposing a theistic ontology that underwrites them. Harris, the combative naturalist intuitively or perhaps tacitly borrows objective moral values from a theistic worldview.

## Frequently Bought Together

- Lying
- Merchants of Doubt: How a Handful of Scientists Obscured the Truth on Issues from Tobacco Smoke to Climate Change
- Life 3.0: Being Human in the Age of Artificial Intelligence

---

## Why Shop on Desertcart?

- 🛒 **Trusted by 1.3+ Million Shoppers** — Serving international shoppers since 2016
- 🌍 **Shop Globally** — Access 737+ million products across 21 categories
- 💰 **No Hidden Fees** — All customs, duties, and taxes included in the price
- 🔄 **15-Day Free Returns** — Hassle-free returns (30 days for PRO members)
- 🔒 **Secure Payments** — Trusted payment options with buyer protection
- ⭐ **TrustPilot Rated 4.5/5** — Based on 8,000+ happy customer reviews

**Shop now:** [https://brunei.desertcart.com/products/1530979-lying](https://brunei.desertcart.com/products/1530979-lying)

---

*Product available on Desertcart Brunei*
*Store origin: BN*
*Last updated: 2026-08-21*