You shall not lie nor mislead (unless it is a need)

Abstract

In this paper, I defend the thesis that we have no grounds to say that misleading is morally preferable to lying. For this purpose, I first examine all the relevant philosophical positions on the discussion of the moral standing of lying in contrast with misleading, reviewing not only the main arguments for each one but also specific objections against most of them. Then, I carefully analyze Herzog’s very recent argument which seems to be in favor of the traditional idea that misleading is better than lying and give reasons as to why her proposal is not convincing. Since Herzog's attempt to defend the traditional view is unsuccessful, as previous ones made by other philosophers, I argue that, in general, we have no good reason to think of misleading as a respectable alternative to lying.