4월 30일 논제 : 과학기술의 발달은 인간을 행복하게 한다 외 1

[산새]

논제 (proposition. resolution. motion)

1. 과학 기술의 발달은 인간을 행복하게 한다 .

2. 착한 거짓말은 해도 된다.

영문

1. Scientific and technological progress [advances, developments) makes [make] mankind happy.

The development[progress] of science and technology makes mankind happy.

Advances in science and technology make mankind happy.

2. We may tell white lies.

 

  

주위에 공부잘 하는 대학생이나 공부를 한 부모님께  한번 읽어봐 달라해서 참조하고 그러만한 사람이 없으면 그냥 입론서 쓰기

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Science and Technology

P. A. Payutto

At the outset we must acknowledge the innumerable blessings bestowed on us by science. Nobody will dispute the enormous value science has for us. In order to be able to give this lecture, I have travelled all the way from Bangkok to Chiang Mai in only one hour. Back in the days of King Rama I, you would have had to wait three months for me to get here, and for that matter I probably wouldn't have come at all. For this we must acknowledge science's contribution to travel.

Looking around at communications, we see radios, telephones, fax machines, televisions, videos and satellites, all of which have arisen from scientific and technological developments. Other obvious areas of development are in the medical world, where so many contagious diseases have now been virtually eradicated. Cholera is now quite rare, bubonic plague no longer exists, and smallpox has all but vanished. We no longer have to fear these infectious diseases. In olden times one could die from an infected appendix, but nowadays an appendectomy is a relatively simple operation. Even brain operations are getting easier. Sophisticated tools for accurate examination and diagnosis are more and more accessible. X-Ray machines are being replaced with computer X-Ray machines, and now we have ultra sound and MRI. It's almost no longer necessary for the doctor to examine the patient, the machines do it for him. These are all examples of extremely valuable technological advances.

But on the other hand, when we really look into it, we find that science, and in particular technology, has created a great many problems for humanity as well. In the present time, particularly in the highly developed countries, there is even a fear that the human race, and indeed the whole world, may meet destruction at the hands of this technological progress. It might be a very instantaneous kind of destruction, at the flick of a switch, so to speak, or it could be a slow and gradual kind of destruction, as the gradual deterioration of the environment.

Even within the immediacy of our everyday lives we are threatened by dangers. We can't be sure whether our food has been contaminated with chemicals or not. Sometimes the plants and animals used for our food supply are treated with hormones to boost their growth. Hogs are given special additives to make their meat turn an appealing red color. Poisonous substances are sometimes used in foods as preservatives, flavor enhancers or dyes, not to mention the uncontrolled use of pesticides. Some of the people who sell these foods wouldn't dare eat them themselves!

Two kinds of technology

The application of science which effects the changes in the natural world is called technology. Technology is dependent for its existence on the knowledge obtained through science. It is the tool, or channel, through which humanity has worked to manipulate nature in the pursuit of material comfort. But at the same time, the dangers which threaten us are also contingent on this technology. Technology is thus both an instrument for finding happiness and a catalyst for danger.

Now in answer to all this, scientists may counter that by "science" we mean only pure science. Pure science seeks to discover and explain the truth, its concern is primarily the search for knowledge. Whatever anybody wants to do with this knowledge is their business, not the concern of science. Pure science tends to shake off responsibility in this regard.

Technology has been accused of using scientific knowledge to its own ends, but this is not

entirely true. Initially, technology was aimed at bringing benefit to humanity, but nowadays there are two kinds of technology. One is the technology which is used to create benefit, while the other is used to seek personal gain. What we need is the technology that is used to create benefit, but the problems of the present time exist largely because modern technology is of the kind that seeks personal gain.

If we constrain ourselves to creating benefit, the repercussions arising from technological development will be few and far between, but whenever technology is used to seek personal gain, problems arise. Thus we must clearly distinguish between these two kinds of technology.

The place of ethics

Be it the wrong utilization of scientific knowledge, the utilization of technology for personal gain, or even utilization of technology to destroy the earth, all these problems have arisen entirely as a result of human activity, they are a matter of utilization. Because they are rooted in human activity, their solutions are an ethical or moral concern.

These problems can only be simply and directly solved through moral awareness. Only then will technology and science be used for constructive purposes. With moral awareness, even though there may be some harmful consequences arising from lack of circumspection or ignorance, the prevention and rectification of problems will be on the best possible level.

Mankind has looked to science and technology to bring benefit to human society, but there is no guarantee that science and technology will bring only the benefit that humanity hopes for. These things can be used to create harm or benefit. How they are used is entirely at the disposal of the user.

If we ignore morality or ethics, instead of creating benefit, the most likely result is that science and technology will bring problems, stressing as they do:

1. the unrestrained production and consumption of goods with which to gratify the senses, feeding craving and greed (raga and lobha);

2. escalation of the power to destroy (dosa); and

3. increased availability of objects which lure people into delusion and carelessness (moha).

In so doing, technology tarnishes the quality of life and pollutes the environment. Only true moral awareness can alleviate these destructive influences.

Without morality, technological progress, even the beneficial kind, tends to increase the propensity for destruction. The more science and technology advance, and the more keenly destruction seems to threaten mankind, the more is morality necessitated, and the more will the stability and well-being of humanity be dependent on ethical principles.

In any case, this subject of ethics, although a simple and straightforward one, is largely ignored in modern times. Most people want to live without problems, but they don't want to solve them. As long as ethics are ignored like this, problems will persist.

Science and technology cannot be separated

It is not only science that has fostered technology's growth -- technology has also been a decisive factor in the development of science. It is the scientific method that has enabled scientific learning to progress to where it is now, and an essential part of the scientific method is observation and experiment. The earliest forms of observation and experiment were carried out through the five senses -- eye, ear, nose, tongue and body, particularly the eyes for looking, the ears for listening and the hands for touching. However, our sense organs have their limitations. With the naked eye we can see a limited number of stars and a limited portion of the universe. With technological development, the telescope was invented, enabling science to make a Great Leap Forward. Microscopic organisms, invisible to the naked eye, were made visible through the invention of the microscope, allowing science to once again make great advances. Pure science, then, has relied heavily on technology for its progress.

The tools used for scientific research are products of technology, that is why science and technology have been inseparably connected in their development. In the present day, scientists are looking to the computer to further their quest for truth. Capable of collecting and collating vast amounts of information, much more than the ordinary human mind, the computer will be indispensable in the testing of hypotheses and the formulation of theories.

The benefits of science appear to the mass of people through technology. Humanity must, however, learn to choose between technology for creating benefit and technology for seeking personal gain.

Reaching the limits and finding no answer

Science has advanced so far-reaching that it seems to be approaching the limits of the physical universe and, as it approaches the limits of that world, it is turning to the mysteries of the mind. What is mind? How does it work? What is consciousness? Does it arise from a physical source, or is it entirely separate from the physical world? These days computers have Artificial Intelligence. Will the development of Artificial Intelligence lead to computers with minds? This is a question some scientists are speculating about.

Modern methods of observation and verification seem to have transcended the limitations of the five senses. We have developed instruments to expand their limited capabilities. Whenever the senses are incapable of perceiving any further, we resort to these technological instruments. Now, even with these instruments, we seem to have reached our limit, and scientific investigations are reduced to mathematical symbols.

As observation, experimentation and analysis enter the sphere of the psyche, science retains its basic attitude and experimental method, and so there is a lot of guesswork and preconception in its operation. It remains to be seen whether science can in fact enter into the domain of the mind, and by what means.

Values and motivation

Even though pure science tends to be distinguished from applied science and technology, pure science nevertheless shares some of the responsibility for the harm resulting from these things. In fact, in the last hundred years or so, pure science has not really been so pure. There are values implicit within pure science which the scientific fraternity is unaware of; and because it isn't aware of these values, scientific research comes unwittingly under their influence.

What is the source of science? All sciences, be they natural or social sciences, are based on values. Take economics for example. What is the origin or source of economics? It is want. What is want, can it be observed with any of the five senses? It can't, because it is a quality of mind, a value. The discipline known as science claims it is free of values, but in fact it can never be truly value-free because it involves mental qualities.

Where is the source of the physical sciences? The source of science is the desire to know the truth of nature, or reality. This answer is acceptable to most scientists, and in fact it was given by a scientist. The desire to know nature's truths, together with the belief that nature does have constant laws, which function according to cause and effect, are the two foundations on which science bases its quest for nature's secrets.

The source of science is within this human mind, at desire for knowledge and faith. Without these two mental qualities it would be impossible for science to grow and develop. The motivation which drove the early developments of science, and which still exists to some extent, was the desire to know the truths of nature. This was a relatively pure kind of desire. In later times, during the Dark Ages, this desire to know was actively suppressed by the Christian Church and the Inquisition. Those who doubted the word of the Bible, or who made statements which cast doubt on it, were brought before the court and put on trial. If found guilty they were punished. Galileo was one of those brought on trial. He had said that the earth revolved around the sun, and was almost put to death for his beliefs. At the last moment he pleaded guilty and was absolved; he didn't die, but many others were burnt alive at the stake.

At that time there was overt suppression of the search for truth. But the stronger the suppression, the stronger the reaction, so it came about that the suppression and constraint of the Dark Ages had the effect of intensifying the desire to know the truths of nature. This desire has fired the thinking of Western cultures.

This drive can still be considered a relatively pure desire for knowledge. The science we have nowadays, however, is no longer so pure. It has been influenced by two important attitudes or assumptions:

1. That the prosperity of mankind hinges on the subjugation of nature.

This attitude stems from the Christian belief that God created mankind in his own image, to take control of the world and have dominion over nature. God created nature, and all of the things within it, for man's use. Mankind is the leader, the hub of the universe, the master. Mankind learns the secrets of nature in order to manipulate it according to his desires, and nature exists for man's use.

One Western text[1] states that this idea is responsible for Western scientific progress. The text states that in ancient times, people in the East, particularly China and India, were scientifically more advanced than the West, but owing to the influence of this drive to conquer nature, the West has gradually overtaken the East.

So the first major value system is the belief in Man's right to conquer nature. Now we come to the second major influence:

2. That well-being depends on an abundance of material goods.

This line of thinking has exerted a very powerful influence on Western industrial expansion. It has been argued that industries in the West were created to address the problem of scarcity, which is found throughout Western history. Life in Western countries was beset by hostile elemental forces, such as freezing winters, which made farming impossible. People in such places had to live exceedingly arduous lives. Not only were they subject to freezing temperatures, but also food shortages. Life was a struggle for survival, and this struggle led to the development of industry.

The opposite of scarcity is plenty. People in Western countries saw that happiness hinged on the elimination of scarcity, and this was the impulse behind the Industrial Revolution. The awareness of scarcity and the desire to provide plenty, is in turn based on the assumption that material abundance is the prerequisite for happiness.

This kind of thinking has developed into materialism, and from there, consumerism, a significant contribution to which has been made by industrialists working under the influence of the first line of thinking mentioned above. Coupled with the assumption that happiness is dependent on an abundance of material goods, we have the belief that nature must be conquered in order to cater to man's desires. The two assumptions support each other well.

It seems as if the pure desire for knowledge mentioned earlier has been corrupted, coming under the influence of the desires to conquer nature and to produce an abundance of material goods, or materialism. When these two values enter the picture, the pure desire for knowledge becomes an instrument for satisfying the aims of these secondary values, giving rise to an exploitative relationship with nature.

The assumption is that by conquering nature, mankind will be able to create unlimited material goods with which to cater to his desires, resulting in perfect happiness. The search for methods to implement this assumption naturally follows, leading to the marked material progress we have seen in recent times, especially since the Industrial Revolution. It has been said that the science which has developed in the Industrial Age is a servant of industry. It may be claimed that science has paved the way for industry, but industry says, "Science? That is my servant!"

Together with the development of industry we have observed the gradual appearance, in ever-increasing severity, of the harmful effects contingent on it. Now, with the danger that threatens us from the destruction of the environment, it is all too clear. The cause for this destruction is the powerful influence of these two assumptions: the desire to conquer nature and the drive for material wealth. Together they place mankind firmly on the path to manipulating, and as a result destroying, nature on an ever-increasing scale. These two influences are also the cause for mankind's internal struggles, the contention to amass material comforts. It might even be said that modern man has had to experience the harmful consequences of the past century of industrial development principally because of the influence of these two assumptions.

Behind the prosperity ...

These two assumptions are not the whole picture. There are also two major trends which have served to support them:

1. Specialization: The Industrial Age is the age of specialization. Learning has been subdivided into specialized fields, each of which may be very proficient in its respective right, but on an overall level they lack integration.

The purpose of the specialization of learning is to obtain knowledge on a more detailed level, which can then be brought together into one integrated whole, but the specialists have become blinded by their knowledge, producing an unbalanced kind of specialization. In the field of science there are those who feel that science alone will solve mankind's problems and answer all his questions, which gives them little inclination to integrate their learning with other fields of knowledge.

This kind of outlook has caused the belief that religion and ethics are also specialized fields of learning. Modern education reduces ethics to just another academic subject. When people think of ethics, they think, "Oh, religion," and file it away in its little compartment. They aren't interested in ethics, but when it comes to solving the world's problems, they say, "Oh, my discipline can do that!" They don't think of trying to integrate their learning with other disciplines. If they really were capable of solving all problems as they say, then they would have to be able to solve the ethical ones, too. But then they say that ethics is a concern of religion, or some other specialized field. This brings us to the second trend:

2. The belief that ethical problems can be solved without the need for ethics. Supporters of this idea believe that when material development has reached its peak, all ethical problems will disappear of their own accord.

According to this view, it is not necessary to train people or to develop the mind. This is a line of reasoning which has recently appeared in the field of economics. Economists say that when the economy is healthy and material goods are in plentiful supply, there will no longer be any contention, and society will be harmonious. This is to say in effect that ethical or moral problems can be solved through material means.

This is not entirely wrong. Economic situations do have a bearing on ethical problems, but it is a mistake to oversimplify the situation by believing that ethical problems would somehow disappear of their own accord if the economy were healthy. It might be said, however, that this line of reasoning is true in one sense, because without morality it would be impossible for the economy to be healthy. It could also be said that if ethical practice was good (for example, people were encouraged to be diligent, generous, prudent, and to use their possessions in a way that is beneficial to society), then economic problems would disappear.

The statement, "When the economy is good, ethical problems will not arise," is true in the sense that before the economy can be healthy, ethical problems must be addressed. Similarly, the statement, "When ethical problems are all solved, the economy will be healthy," is true in the sense that before ethical problems can be solved, economic problems must also be addressed.

The phrase "ethical problems" takes in a wide range of situations, including mental health and the pursuit of happiness. Thus, the attempt to solve ethical problems through materialistic means must also entail dealing with moods and feelings, examples of which can be seen in the synthesization of tranquillizers to relieve stress and depression. But it would be a mistake to try to solve ethical problems through such means. This kind of relief is only temporary, it soothes the problem but does not solve it.

Many branches of academic learning strive to be recognized as proper sciences, but the specialist perspective causes funnel-vision and discord, and in itself becomes an impediment to true science. Specialization is inimical to true science. Even physics cannot be called true science, because it lacks integration; its facts are piecemeal, its truth is partial. When truth is partial, it is not the real truth. Without the whole picture, our deductions will not be in accordance with the total reality. The stream of cause and effect is not seen in its entirety, so

the truth remains out of reach.

These two trends, specialization and the belief that ethical problems can be solved through material means, pervade the Age of Industrialization. Coupled with the two assumptions previously mentioned, they intensify problems accordingly.

Many of the points I have mentioned so far come within the domain of religion, and in order to see this more clearly, I would like to enter the subject of religion itself. I have been speaking about science, its origins and development, now let us take a look at the origins and development of religion and try to integrate the two.

Footnote:

1. Encyclopaedia Britannica, 15th Ed., (1988), s.v. "Science, the History of," by L. Pearce Williams (vol. 27, p.37).

출처: http://www.purifymind.com/SciTech.htm

bubonic plague 선(腺) 페스트 appendectomy=appendicectomy 충수절제수술(蟲垂切除手術), 맹장수술

충수(蟲垂, vermiform appendix) 맹장의 아래 끝에 붙어 있는 가느다란 관 모양의 돌기. 충수 (vermiform appendix, 蟲垂) 맹장의 약간 아래 끝에 늘어진 가는 맹관(盲管). 대장(large intestine)에 붙어있는 손가락크기의 주머니. 충양돌기(蟲樣突起).

----------------------

People should not tell white lies.

Do you haven said white lies to other people? I said white lies to my friends and other people. but when I say white lies, that time I felt not so good. You know some people think white lies are good for people, but some people think white lies are bad. When I was young, I thought white lies are good because when we heard that, it is very good. but now I changed my mind. So now I think white lies are bad. So now listen carefully why I changed my mind and also why people should not tell white lies. It can also help you to change your mind too.

Now, when I think about the white lies, I think 'A lie is a lie'. Don't you think white lie is also a lie? Maybe if you don't understand with my reason, maybe you will ask me "why do you think white lie is a lie?" and that time I will answer to you. "think about that: if someone's clothes are new. But it looks not nice. But the fiends who is her friend will tell her, 'oh it looks nice'. So she think her clothes are very nice and feel good. So it's lie. I know when people say something, that time it is good to say good things to them. But if someone know she told me white lie, some people will feel good because they think when she told me that time she thought my feeling. But maybe most girls will think, the girl who told me white lie is bad. Because they think because of her I didn't know my mistake. So now I can also say be careful to tell someone something.

Now I will tell you the best correct reason. You know ‘A white lie sounds good, but if your friend does something bad and you lie and tell them that it's okay so they will not be sad, then both of you are bad' After when you listen my second reason, don't you thought you should not tell white lies? I just want you thought that. Have you did lie? I did lie to some people. That time I knew the speaking's important and when we say lie and after my feeling. So that time I thought I should not tell lies. But when I say white, that time I felt also not good. So that's why I think white lies are bad and that's why 'why did I changed my mind. and my last reason is it can destroy their friendship. So they will be very sad that they say white lies to their friends and they lose their friends. So we should not tell white lies.

-------------

Could white lies be justified?

The general consensus on white lies, I believe, could be summarized into the likes of the following statement: Lies are bad, but there is nothing wrong with the occasional white lie. The ‘white’ affixed to the term is our justification; it suggests something free of blame, something incorruptibly noble. Yet the paradoxical juxtaposition of the two words ‘white’ and ‘lie’ carries an ostentatious awkwardness akin to the phrase ‘immaculate conception’. We all know that any conception cannot be immaculate; then, could any lie be white?

Lies range from the trivial to the earth-shattering, the former of which we hear all the time, and the latter which conspiracy theorists are always so eager to affirm. Are all such lies, the harmful and the relatively harmless alike? In other words, could we gauge the harm of a lie based on the magnitude of its consequences? Or is the harm in the act itself, and are all consequences superficial? We often justify our white lies based on its consequences. For example, if I tell my friend Sam that I like her dress, it is a typically trivial white lie. I may think that her dress is uncomely or ugly, but I cannot say that, since I enjoy her company and it would hurt her feelings if I were to tell her the truth.

However, if one thinks a little deeper one could realize the inherent implications the act of lying has. Even a white lie, eventually, is a lie. The act of lying is to subversively disguise or hide the truth; lies undermine the trust we place in each other as co-dependent human beings, and take us away from the reality, thus harming our ability to act according to our best interests.

Perhaps then, the phrase ‘white lie’ is a sign of our guilt, our attempt at vindication; maybe, that any lie could be “white” at all is the ultimate lie.

However if we take into account the fact that humans are inherently irrational beings, the act of communicating the truth seems impossible. For example, if I tell the truth to Sam and say that her dress is abominable, doubtlessly, she will become very emotional. She will think that I must have wanted to hurt her feelings, and will be repulsed by my behavior. All that I wanted to tell was the truth, but Sam’s emotional reflexes against such a statement affiliate a hateful intent with that truth. The act of communication is virtually incompatible with unbiased, total honesty;often the reason we communicate with other people is to manipulate, and we always embellish or distort the cold facts with our human impulses. To put it in another way, lying is merely a tributary form of human communication, and the notion that any ‘truth’ could be communicated is an illusion.

Thus, white lies could be justified like eating or sleeping could be justified. It is a part of human existence. We might feel guilty after lying, and vow never to lie again;yet, we still lie all the time. We lie to keep things on an even keel, to keep from hurting our loved ones, and ourselves. It may not be very pleasant to think that all humans lie, but it is the truth, or in the very least, the closest we could get to it.

선의의 거짓말은 정당화될 수 있을까?

내가 믿고 있는 악의 없는 거짓말에 대한 일반적인 인식은 다음 진술과 비슷하게 요약될 수 있을 것이다:거짓말은 나쁘지만 가끔씩 하는 선의의 거짓말은 잘못된 게 없다. 그 용어에 붙어 있는 ‘white’는 우리가 정당화한 것이다;white란 말은 비난이 없는 무엇, 때묻지 않는 고상한 것을 암시한다. 그러나 white와 lie라는 두 단어를 역설적으로 함께 쓰면 ‘immaculate conception’(깨끗한 개념)이라는 문구와 비슷한 외관상 어색함을 띤다. 어떠한 개념도 깨끗할 수 없다는 것을 우리 모두는 알고 있다;그러면 어떤 거짓말이 깨끗할 수 있을까?

거짓말은 사소한 것부터 세상을 떠들썩하게 하는 것까지 있는데, 전자에 대해서 우리는 항상 듣고, 후자는 모의 이론가들이 항상 긍정하고자 열망하는 것이다. 그런 거짓말이 모두 해를 주고 상대적으로 해가 없는가? 다시 말하면 그 결과의 강도에 따라 거짓말의 피해를 측정할 수 있을까? 또는 폐해는 거짓말하는 행위 그 자체에 있고 모든 결과는 겉으로 나타나는 것인가? 우리는 종종 그 결과에 따라 선의의 거짓말을 정당화한다. 예를 들면, 내가 친구 샘에게 그녀의 옷이 맘에 든다고 말한다면 이건 전형적인 사소한 선의의 거짓말이다. 그녀의 옷이 추하다고 생각할지도 모르지만 내가 그녀와 함께 있어 좋고 내가 사실을 얘기하면 그녀의 기분이 상할까봐 그렇게 말할 수 없다.

그러나 만약 조금이라도 깊이 생각해 보면, 거짓말을 하는 행위가 갖고 있는 본래의 의미를 깨달을 수 있다. 선의의 거짓말도 거짓말이다. 거짓말하는 행위는 파괴적으로 진실을 가장하거나 숨기는 것이다;거짓은 서로에게 상호 의존하는 인간으로서 설정한 진실을 해치고 우리를 현실로부터 떼어 놓고 우리가 이익에 따라 행동하지 못하게 한다. 그렇다면 아마도 '선의의 거짓말'은 죄의 표시이며 변명하려는 시도이다;적어도 '선의의'거짓말도 궁극적으로는 거짓말일지 모른다.

그러나, 인간이 원래 비이성적인 존재라는 사실을 감안하면, 진실을 전달하는 행위는 불가능할 듯하다. 예를 들면, 내가 샘에게 진실을 말하면서 그녀의 옷이 혐오스럽다고 말한다면, 당연히 그녀는 매우 흥분할 것이다. 그녀는 내가 자신의 감정을 상할 의도였다고 생각할 것이다. 내가 말하고자 했던 것은 진실이었지만 그러한 말에 대해 샘은 혐오의 의사와 진실을 결부시킨다. 의사소통 행위는 실제로는 공평하고 완전한 정직과 양립할 수 없다;종종 우리가 다른 사람들과 의사소통하는 이유는 조작하고자 함이고 우리는 항상 엄연한 사실을 인간적 충동으로 미화하거나 왜곡한다. 달리 표현하면 거짓말은 단순히 의사소통의 보조적 형태에 불과하며 어떤 '진실'이 전달될 수 있을 거라는 생각은 착각이다.

따라서, 선의의 거짓말은 먹는 것과 잠자는 것이 정당화되듯 정당화될 수 있다. 그것은 인간 삶의 일부이다. 거짓말한 후에는 죄책감을 느끼고 다시는 거짓말하지 않을 거라고 맹세한다;그러나 우리는 여전히 거짓말을 한다. 우리는 사물의 균형을 유지하고, 사랑하는 사람들과 우리 스스로를 해치지 않기 위해 거짓말을 한다. 모든 인간은 거짓말을 한다고 생각하는 것은 그리 유쾌하진 않지만 사실이다. 아니면 적어도 우리는 거짓말에 아주 근접해 있다.

------------------------------

White Lies

출처 http://changingminds.org/explanations/behaviors/lying/white_lies.htm

White lies are... | Types of white lie | Reasons for white lies | The impact of white lies | Detecting white lies | So what

We all lie, even those good people who value honesty above most other things. Sometimes we consider our untruths to be 'white lies'. So what exactly are these white lies?

White lies are...

What we call 'white lies' are those untruths which we tell in order to minimize harm, embarrassment or distress. In doing so, we moderate what we and others know, think or feel.

We usually tell white lies to help others, though it may also be for our own benefit. Often, both we and others benefit, for example in the way that white lies help sustain our good relationship.

If you add up the all the harm that telling the truth would create and subtract the harm caused from telling a white lie, then this gives some measure of the net benefit of the white lie.

We could hence define white lies as 'Untruths that reduce net harm'. This is a little coarse as it can be really helpful for us and harmful for others and still come out as a positive.

What might be called altruistic white lies may be defined as 'Untruths that reduce net harm to others'. This is more likely to fit into the common understanding of white lies being 'good' (ie. of benefit to others).

An even purer form of white lie is one that is only ever helpful. This can be simply defined 'Untruths that do no harm'. The important aspect of such lies is nobody is harmed, so the net harm is always guaranteed to be zero or only ever helpful.

Types of white lie

Here are a several types of lie that we typically describe as 'white'.

Outright lies

White lies may be completely opposite to the truth, For example, when a person thinks their partner's clothes are unattractive but still says they 'look good'.

Outright lies may be somewhat exaggerated in order to negate any suspicious of the truth. Hence a person may say 'you look absolutely wonderful' rather than simply 'you look good'.

Softened truths

Sometimes we try to tell the truth but end up avoiding the whole truth, for example saying that some other clothes might be more appropriate when the truth is that we hate the clothes being show us.

Softened truths often include qualifiers that seek to reduce the impact of the truth, for example when a person says that they prefer different clothes or that the clothes are not very flattering.

Careful omissions

There are also white lies of omission, where there is a clear opportunity to say something but comment is avoided, for example where a person makes excuses to leave when comments on clothes might get invited.

Omissions may be made using methods such as changing the subject, feigning confusion, passing the buck to someone else, excusing oneself to leave or simply avoiding being there in the first place.

Gray lies

In an obvious metaphor, 'gray lies' are not as pure and selfless as white lies. The principle also implies there are many shades of gray. In practice, almost all white lies have some shade of gray in them.

There are also black lies that have no white in them (ie. the liar does nothing to help the other person).

Reasons for white lies

Why do we tell white lies? Here are several reasons.

Avoiding distress

A common situation where 'white lies' are told is where you have negative feelings about someone else or think they are wrong in some way. Knowing that telling them about these thoughts would cause distress, you tell white lies.

We also tell white lies to reduce our own empathetic distress. When we value the happiness of others, telling them the truth can be uncomfortable. Women in particular, who tend to put more emphasis on relationships, are more likely to tell white lies.

Avoiding harm

We may also tell white lies to avoid harm to others, for example where we know a friend has told a relatively harmless lie to another person, we back up what they have said. We may also avoid telling harmful truths about them, for example not telling their manager that they left work early one day.

Sometimes such lies are not particularly white, but we frame them as such because our intentions are good, for example when we protect a friend who done something that is clearly wrong.

Telling white lies to avoid harm to oneself is even less white. We may tell ourselves that the lie is harmless but this may itself not be completely true.

Positive help

Sometimes white lies are more about positive help than avoiding harm, for example where a doctor gives a patient a placebo pill that has no effect but tells the patient that this will cure them. We also tell positive white lies to people about how good they are or how wonderful they look with the simple aim that they feel better about themselves.

Positive lies are helpful when a person's beliefs are unhelpful, such as when their self-esteem is low. In this way, the lie helps reduce the self-harm that people may inflict on themselves, although it may do little to address the underlying issues.

Social norms

There are often social rules about what may be discussed and what should be brushed under the carpet or otherwise avoided. Although unwritten, these are often quite clear, for example that a man should not criticize a woman's appearance, and certainly not in front of other people.

Different cultures can have very different rules about lying and rule-following, for example Trompenaars' notion of universalism vs. particularism.

Breaking social norms leads to social punishment, which can range from open criticism to outright ostracization. These are fearsome enough for many to choose white lies over such treatment.

Within groups, effects such as groupthink can make telling of lies to sustain social harmony more important than telling the truth, even if the net result is greater harm.

Ingratiation

We often tell white lies to ingratiate ourselves to others, building our relationship with them. Even when I tell white lies to or about you and you know that I am doing this to protect you, you will probably still be grateful, trust me more and feel obliged to help me in return.

Procrastination

Sometimes we tell what we believe are white lies in order to put off the discomfort or harm that will result in telling the whole truth. The time value of lying adds a whole new dimension to the decision whether to lie or not and many people prioritize short-term benefits of lies over longer-term benefits of truth.

Self-protection

What we call 'white lies' can be purely for the benefit of the liar. If the person views the lie as harmless, causing no distress or problem to others, then they may consider lying to protect themselves to be a reasonable option. Such motivations are often fear-based.

A common form of fear-based self-protection is where we believe that the other person may become angry if we tell them the truth, and that they may then take their anger out on us or on those we care about.

In practice, almost all white lies have some personal benefit, even if it is just avoiding one's own embarrassment.

Self-creation

White lies are often, if we could admit it, a key tool in sustaining our sense of self. In order to maintain a self-concept that is acceptable we tell many little lies (and perhaps some big ones). Most of all, we tell these to ourselves, although of course we also have to live the lies in our external lives.

Balanced benefit

There are benefits to telling the truth and benefits to telling lies. Whenever we are faced such a choice we do a bit of mental algebra, balancing the benefits of truth and lies before we decide which to use and what exactly to say.

The equation we use for this may have different weightings for different people (including ourselves). Altruistic white lies will weight personal benefit lower and benefit to others (especially vulnerable people) higher.

The impact of white lies

Justification

When we believe lying is wrong, then even telling white can cause the inner discomfort of cognitive dissonance. To handle this tension, we tend to justify our actions, telling ourselves a story of how the white lie was the right thing to do.

Propagation

Like Pinocchio, we may also need to tell further lies to support and sustain the original white lie. What was once a simple and well-meaning lie can hence turn into a massive cover-up as small lies lead to bigger ones and so on.

Conversion

A further effect of the dissonance of lying is that we may even change our beliefs as we start to think that our lies may, after all, be true, at least on some level. Good liars do this all the time, believing (at least in the moment) that their obvious lies are actual truths. The rest of us do not fully escape this effect and too many white lies can make us more and more deceptive.

Discovering the truth

When a person who has been told a white lie discovers the truth, they may change their view of the liar to the extent that the relationship is changed.

If they were seeking honesty, they may view the liar negatively, being angry at the eval‎uation of themselves as unable to accept the truth, or seeing the liar as a coward whose purpose is more driven by self-protection.

If they would have found the truth difficult, then they may appreciate the white lie as being based in concern for them.

A possibly difficult conversation may then follow, in which the truth and reasons for the white lie are discussed. Alternatively, the person lied to may perpetuate the lie or tell white lies of their own to avoid further distress or harm.

Relationship changes

Many other changes can occur in the relationship when white lies are told, for example the liar may come to resent the other person, particularly if they feel an obligation to tell white lies on a regular basis.

The lack of truth can easily lead to a lack of trust and without sufficient trust relationships may break down. With sufficient trust, white lies are less necessary and so it can be important to work hard to increase trust at least for this purpose.

On the other hand, if we reduce dissonance by believing the lie, we may become more concerned for the other person and so the relationship can improve. How the relationship changes hence depends on both the people and the situation.

Relationship change must also be considered in terms of if the white lie was not told. Almost by definition it would seem the relationship would deteriorate if the white liar told nothing but the truth of what they think, know and feel.

Detecting white lies

So how do you know when other people are telling white lies? Much the same as other ways of detecting lies. In particular, look for non-verbal as well as verbal signals.

Non-verbal signals

The person telling white lies does not want to be detected and may well display some anxiety. They may also show the wider range of deceptive body language signals, such as holding oneself still and watching for signs of detection by staring at the face of the other person.

Verbal signals

White lies may also be detected in how the person speaks and can indicate the level of the lie. As mentioned above, a clear lie may lead to the person exaggerating and emphasizing the truth, while a softened truth will include qualifiers such as 'partly', 'sometimes', and so on.

So what?

You probably cannot avoid using white lies yourself, but do reflect on their necessity before using them as well as the possible consequences. If you must use them, then keep them simple and avoid elaboration or exaggeration.

Sometimes you can usefully tell white lies in a way that the other person realizes that you are not telling the whole truth in order to help them. In this way you can gain their confidence and trust and perhaps persuade them on other matters.

Watch for white lies from others, especially if you are ready and willing to hear the truth. Sometimes people will try to protect you when knowing what they really think is a far better option. Being able to take harsh truths is a good sign of character and can lead to improved levels of trust.

See also

Acceptable Lies

Argo, J.J. and Shiv, B. (2012). Are White Lies as Innocuous as We Think? Journal of Consumer Research, 38, 6, 1093-1102

Bryant, E. (2008). Real Lies, White Lies and Gray Lies: Towards a Typology of Deception, Kaleidoscope: A Graduate Journal of Qualitative Communication Research, Vol 7, Fall 2008, 23-48

Camden, C, Motley, M., and Wilson, A. (1984). White lies in interpersonal communication: A taxonomy and preliminary investigation of social motivations. Western Journal of Speech Communication, 48, 309-325

Erat, S. and Gneezy, U. (2011). White Lies. Management Science, November 2011 mnsc.1110.1449

Jones, E.E. (1964). Ingratiation: A Social Psychological Analysis, New York: Irvington.

Mazar, N., Amir, O. and Ariely, D. (2008), The Dishonesty of Honest People: A Theory of Self-Concept Maintenance, Journal of Marketing Research, 45 (December), 633–44.

Turner, R., Edgley, C, and Olmstead, G. (1975). Information control in conversations: Honesty is not always the best policy. Kansas Journal of Sociology, 11, 69-89.

--------------------------------------

We're All Lying Liars: Why People Tell Lies, and Why White Lies Can Be OK

출처 http://health.usnews.com/health-news/family-health/brain-and-behavior/articles/2009/05/18/were-all-lying-liars-why-people-tell-lies-and-why-white-lies-can-be-ok

Husbands, wives, friends, even young children tell lies. Sometimes, that might be a good thing.

A business woman crossing her fingers behind her back.

Admit it: You've lied. You told a friend that his shirt looked stylish when you actually thought it was tacky and garish. Or maybe you said to your boss that her presentations were fascinating when in fact they were insipidly mindless. Or perhaps you told your landlord that the rent check was in the mail.

Don't feel bad. You're in good, dishonest company. A growing body of research shows that people lie constantly, that deception is pervasive in everyday life. One study found that people tell two to three lies every 10 minutes, and even conservative estimates indicate that we lie at least once a day. Such incessant prevarication might be a necessary social evil, and researchers have recently discovered that some fibbing might actually be good for you. "We use lies to grease the wheels of social discourse," says University of Massachusetts psychologist Robert Feldman. "It's socially useful to tell lies."

Researchers have been studying deception for decades, trying to figure out why we tell lies. It turns out that we spin facts and make up fictions for all sorts of reasons. We might want to gain a raise or a reward, for example, or to protect friends or a lover. Our capacity for deceit appears nearly endless, from embroidering stories to wearing fake eyelashes to asking "How are you?" when we don't actually care. We even lie to ourselves about how much food we eat and how often we visit the gym.

Small embellishments can have positive psychological effects, experts say. In a study released last year, researchers found that college students who exaggerated their GPA in interviews later showed improvement in their grades. Their fiction, in other words, became self-fulfilling. "Exaggerators tend to be more confident and have higher goals for achievement," explains Richard Gramzow, a psychologist at the University of Southampton in England and one of the study's coauthors. "Positive biases about the self can be beneficial."

People who deceive themselves also tend to be happier than people who do not, some research suggests. There are social payoffs, too: Studies have shown that people who lie frequently are viewed as friendlier and more amiable than their more truthful counterparts. Still, lying is generally regarded as immoral and distasteful. "No one likes being lied to," says former FBI agent and lying expert Joe Navarro. "We feel betrayed. When is it that they are telling the truth?" And people do really want to know the truth. A new Fox drama, Lie to Me, which features a steely British deception expert, has become one of the most popular shows on television.

Lying begins early. By the age of 3, most children know how to fib, and by 6, most lie a few times a day. Experts believe that children learn to lie by observing their parents do it—that they become practiced in the art of deception by imitating Mom and Dad. And parents sometimes explicitly encourage children to tell lies. Grandma Suzy will send some ugly wool socks or an itchy sweater, and parents will ask their son or daughter to say the item is lovely. As one study concluded, children "may learn to lie in the same way as they learn to speak."

Many experts don't see much difference between a little lie (telling Grandma you loved the ugly socks) and a big lie (covering up an extramarital affair). "Anything that is not accurate is a lie. You can argue that a lie done to make someone else feel better is relatively minor. But they have an effect. The bottom line is that a lie is a lie," says Feldman. "That's the great paradox here. I do believe the more lies, the more degradation. But you can't stop lies entirely. Society would grind to a halt."

Still, people act differently when they're gilding a story and when they're telling a massive whopper. When people tell a bold and blatant lie, they typically become tense and fidgety. Their heart rate speeds up. Their body temperature increases. But when telling white, or social, lies, they usually don't feel any anxiety at all. In fact, electrodes attached to the bodies of students in Gramzow's study revealed that the students who exaggerated their GPAs showed less nervous-system activity than students who were honest about their marks. "In certain situations, such as when someone asks you if you like the awful meal they just served you or the hideous outfit they are wearing, it probably takes less thinking to tell the expected polite lie than the more difficult truth," explains University of California-Santa Barbara psychologist Bella DePaulo.

That doesn't make it any easier for people to sort out fact from fiction. Studies have shown that people can identify lies only about 50 percent of the time, or about the same as chance. To be sure, researchers have been able to figure out some clues to uncovering deception. When people tell a significant lie, for instance, they typically gesture less and their arms may appear stiff. People telling lies also might have dilated pupils because they feel nervous about spinning an untruth.

[3 Ways to Tell if Someone Is Lying to You]

Even with the development of such research, there's no surefire way to catch a liar. But someone with a known track record of lying is likely to pay a price. "Lies add up," says Feldman. "The more you know that someone is not telling you the truth, the less trustworthy they are. They're just telling you stuff you want to hear, and you won't listen to them anymore."

[승혀니]

다른 것도 많이 보고 가요!

[초현 맛 쿠키]

선생님!!! 논제를 까먹어서 정말 큰일이었는데ㅜㅜ 정말 다행이에요!!

[승혀니]

토론준비 열심히 해갈께요~내일 뵈요!