O celowości kłamstwa (uwagi o definicjach kłamstwa i kłamania)
Abstract
The main aim of the paper is to discuss some recent definitions of lie and
lying, particularly that proposed recently in Edukacja Filozoficzna by Andrzej
Stępnik. First I point out that his proposals share common conviction that
among other things one has to have intention to deceive someone in order to
lie. But this is wrong since it is quite clear that in a case of bold-face lies one
can lie without having this intention. And bold-face lies are lies. It follows that
not only Stępnik’s definitions but all descriptive definitions of lies and lying
sharing this condition are too narrow, so are inadequate. Instead of giving
another descriptive definition of lying and lie, some précising definitions are
proposed. According to first of them:
A person x lies to y iff (i) x claims to y something that x doesn’t
believe, and (ii) x doesn’t inform y that she doesn’t believe what she
clams.
According to another;
A person x lies to y iff (i) by uttering something x expresses some
propositional attitude (belief, desire, knowledge etc.), (ii) x doesn’t have
this attitude, (ii) x doesn’t inform y that (ii)
And the last states:
A person x lies to y iff (i) x performs some speech act, (ii) some
propositional attitude is one of the necessary conditions of sincery
condition of this act, (iii) x doesn’t have this propositional attitude, (iv) x
doesn’t inform y that (iii).
We also propose crucial definition of claiming:
A person x claims at a context C that p iff there is some sentence S of
some language L (which x understands perfectly): (i) x utters S at C, (ii)
according to semantic rules of L: uttering at C sentence S means that p,
(iii) x is disposed at C to confirm the truthfulness of S.
and expressing:
A person x by uttering S expresses some kind of propositional
attitude that p iff for all who are acquainted with proper linguistic or
social convention is reasonable to attribute this kind of propositional
attitude that p to x