omission | David M Masters

The act of withholding the truth is a controversial topic, with debates over whether it should be considered a form of lying or not. Some assert that it is merely a strategic data omission and not an outright lie, while others say that withholding information is a lie of omission.

The Psychology of Withholding the Truth

For the average liar, withholding the truth may serve as a tactical maneuver to avoid the guilt associated with direct lies. By omitting crucial details, individuals may convince themselves that they are not actively engaging in bold-faced deceit. Psychologists often refer to this behavior as a rationalization, a self-protective mechanism that enables individuals to reconcile their actions with their own moral compass.

Pathological liars, in particular, may frequently resort to this tactic, justifying their actions by emphasizing what they did not say rather than what they did say. However, the question remains: Can withholding the truth truly be separated from the concept of lying?

The Moral Implications

The Catholic Church, along with various moral and ethical frameworks, takes a firm stance on the issue of withholding the truth. From a moral perspective, the act of intentionally omitting crucial information is considered deceptive and contrary to principles of honesty and transparency, a venial sin according to Catholicism. Many argue that by withholding information, individuals are manipulating the truth, leading to potential harm or misunderstanding.

In the eyes of morality, the intent behind withholding the truth matters significantly. If the intention is to mislead or deceive, regardless of the means employed, it can be viewed as a breach of trust and a departure from ethical conduct.

Legal Perspectives

The legal system also weighs in on the question of whether withholding the truth is tantamount to lying. In various jurisdictions, the act of withholding information can have legal consequences, particularly when it comes to contracts, agreements, and legal obligations. Courts often recognize the importance of full disclosure to ensure fairness and justice.

One notable legal concept is the duty to disclose, which is a legal obligation requiring parties to reveal all material facts relevant to a transaction. Failure to fulfill this duty can result in legal repercussions, emphasizing the significance of transparency in legal matters.

Examples

To illustrate the blurred lines between withholding the truth and lying, consider the scenario of a job interview. An applicant might withhold information about a past employment termination, arguing that they were not explicitly asked about it. While they might not have told a direct lie, the omission of such a crucial detail could be deemed deceptive by the employer.

In a legal context, a seller withholding information about defects in a property during a real estate transaction could lead to legal consequences. The buyer may argue that the seller’s failure to disclose materially affected their decision, thus constituting a form of deception.

Withholding in the Name of Love

There are situations where withholding information can be motivated by compassion or an act of love. In certain contexts, the decision to withhold details may be guided by the desire to protect someone emotionally or physically, maintain their well-being, or uphold a greater good. Here are a few scenarios where compassionate withholding of the truth might be considered justifiable:

Protecting from Harm:

Example: A doctor may choose not to disclose the full severity of a patient’s condition if revealing it could cause extreme distress without offering any actionable steps for improvement. This is often seen in cases of terminal illnesses, where the focus is on preserving the patient’s emotional state.
Preserving Emotional Well-being:

Example: Parents might decide not to share certain family struggles or financial difficulties with their children to shield them from unnecessary stress. This compassionate act is driven by the intention to maintain a positive and stable environment for the well-being of the family.
Surprise or Gift Planning:

Example: Planning a surprise party or gift involves withholding information temporarily. This is done to enhance the joy and excitement of the recipient, demonstrating that withholding can be an act of love aimed at creating positive and memorable experiences.
Personal Relationships:

Example: In certain situations, individuals may choose not to disclose past mistakes or regrets to their partners if doing so would cause undue pain and not contribute constructively to the relationship. The intention is to protect the emotional connection rather than deceive maliciously.
Children and Sensitive Information:

Example: Parents may withhold certain details about difficult family situations or personal hardships from their young children until they are old enough to understand and cope with the information. This is often done to shield them from unnecessary emotional burdens.
It’s important to note that the justification for withholding information in these cases lies in the intention to prioritize the well-being and emotional health of the individuals involved. Compassionate withholding is not synonymous with deceit, as the underlying motivation is rooted in care and consideration for the feelings and mental state of others.

However, it’s crucial to strike a balance and recognize that openness and honesty are generally valued in relationships. In some cases, the decision to withhold information may need to be reassessed over time, and communication should be encouraged when the timing is right.

So, is Withholding the Truth Lying?

In conclusion, the question of whether withholding the truth is a lie involves a complex interplay of moral, psychological, and legal considerations. While some may attempt to rationalize this behavior as a strategy to avoid outright lies, both moral and legal frameworks emphasize the importance of transparency and full disclosure. The implications of withholding information, intentional or not, should not be underestimated, as they can have far-reaching consequences in personal relationships, professional settings, and legal proceedings.

“I didn’t lie to you.”

That’s what the deceiver says when being confronted by the truth coming out about something they knew would rather have kept secret. That’s why they did not disclose it in the first place. But the crafty deceiver holds fast to the idea that because they didn’t actually say anything that was untrue, so their superior intellect and “morals” are supported by the idea that they did not lie.

The question that comes up in counseling is, “Is withholding really lying, since they haven’t actually verbalized a lie?” Good question. While there are hundreds of possibilities, it largely depends on the participants and their belief systems. But regardless of what your belief is (even if you think it’s okay for you to do) when it happens to you, all of a sudden it doesn’t seem so right.

From a trained Catholic point of view there are two types of sins; the sin of commission and the sin of omission. In terms of lying, actually telling a lie would be a sin of commission, while withholding would be a sin of omission, both sharing equal consequence. Regarding the sin of omission, Jesus’ brother says, “Whoever knows the right thing to do and fails to do it, for him it is sin.” (James 4:17) which incorporates so much more than the unspoken words, actually including the right thing(s) one should have done but didn’t do.

But in a relationship, is it really all that bad to purposefully not disclose certain information that really wouldn’t accomplish anything but hurt someone’s feelings? Someone who thinks this way might say,

“I’m not lying, and I don’t see the need to hurt someone’s feelings when I didn’t really do anything wrong.”

This is due to the gray area representing activities or indiscretions that could have been worse.

An example might go something, like this…

Let’s say your boyfriend says,

“My friend’s mom is sick and he has to go to meet with his attorney and go to night court and he wants me to be there with her, while he’s gone.”

This doesn’t seem unreasonable so your boyfriend heads out to his friends house. He has his cell phone with him, so you can stay in touch.

His last text at 8:40 pm says,

“I forgot my charger, battery’s dying. I will text you when I get home.”

In this day and age, that could happen. You might even remember a time when your phone died, like that.

A couple of weeks later, you run into a girlfriend who saw him at a concert that night, and you assume she must be confused, because you know where he was that night.

As it turns out, the truth was that he did go over to his friend’s house to sit with his mother while he took care of his legal issues, but what he neglected to tell you was that he went to the concert with friends.

Regardless of what else may have happened, you were not made aware of his other friend’s extra concert ticket, and he neglected to tell you that, because he thought you might get mad, if you’d have known. Since nothing bad happened (like copulation), there was really no harm in sparing your feelings needlessly.

He may justify or think, he was only looking out for your best interest in the deception by omission.

Whether his concern was innocent, or not, the fact remains there was purposeful deception. In this scenario, the boyfriend indirectly lied as he omitted critical and important details, to deceive. With the intention of allowing you to believe all is well, and there was no opportunity for transgression.

Another example might be the urge to use a vague response to a question like, “What did you do last night?” A vague answer might be, “Oh, nothing, really.”

The key here is to remember that it’s just not sociopaths who use these slick methods of deception. People just like you and me do it also because we know that it’s wrong to lie, so we don’t want to do that. Because we have a conscious, it somehow feels better to tell some of the truth and to leave out the pertinent details that might otherwise cause needless confusion or conflict.

No one can really say if it’s right or wrong, but the truth is, if you feel sighted, hurt, betrayed, or indirectly lied to, then it’s definitely not a good thing. This is not a healthy state of mind to be in for very long.

We all deceive using different motives, such as making ourselves appear to have it more together than we actually do, to hide sensitive details or information (which may have negative consequences), and to hurt someone (maliciously, or in self-defense).

So what can you do when someone has hurt your feelings by withholding information?

Try to avoid labeling him or her as a liar. Allow him or her the opportunity to disclose the non-disclosed portion of the story on their own. Try to keep your emotions in check and instead try to think about why he or she would feel the need to withhold. Maybe some counseling might be in order, if they have unresolved issues, addictions, or trauma from the past.

Communicate where your boundary is on undisclosed information, make sure he or she understands, and hope this doesn’t happen in the future, while keeping in mind that you cannot change someone or expect them to change on command. The best you can do is to communicate your expectations and hope for the best. And if you find you cannot live with this type of behavior, then you must do what is right for you.

No one expects anyone to be 100% honestly disclosing everything 24/7, that would be unreasonable and abusive.