Honesty not always the best policy position

The biggest liars are those who claim never to lie and hence we should be embracing the honesty of Opposition Leader Tony Abbott for admitting the occasional fib. The people to be most suspicious about are the ones who push the sanctimonious nonsense that lying is always immoral.

We all lie. Yet none of us accepts that we are dishonest. That's the biggest lie of all.

We should be less embarrassed about lying and ditch the delusion that dishonesty is always bad.

That way we could focus on the circumstances in which lying is permissible and indeed desirable as opposed to engaging in the mother of all deceits by pretending honesty is an absolute virtue.

From the pragmatic perspective, lying is endemic and only getting worse as a result of new communication devices. It is particularly rampant in non-social settings.

A study by Friends Provident showed more than 80 per cent of people admitted to telling at least one lie a day, with two-thirds admitting to having lied at work. The most common workplace lie was faking a sickie. A quarter of employees stated they lied about having completed work and about 20 per cent lied to cover up a big mistake.

The study also showed facilities such as text messaging and email made it easier for people to lie because it made them feel less guilty than lying face to face.

This survey relies solely on self reports and, not surprisingly, is only the tip of the iceberg when it comes to the frequency of lying. The truth about lying is that we all do it much more than most of us care to admit.

We nearly always deny lying because we are scared of being viewed as pathological liars and hence never being believed.

An earlier survey by psychologist Jeff Hancock of Cornell University showed respondents lied during a quarter of their social interactions.

A University of Massachusetts study showed most people lie in normal conversation when they are trying to appear competent and likable. According to the study, 60 per cent of people lied at least once during the course of a 10-minute conversation.

There is no doubt that lying is normally morally undesirable. For us to plan, co-ordinate and structure our activities it is necessary to have an accurate understanding of the state of affairs in the world. Absent this, our plans and projects would be frustrated. Lies undermine our capacity to achieve our goals and projects.

This is so whether they relate to the traits of people or the operation of systems and processes in the world.

Plans to catch the morning train, attend important appointments and meet work and other goals and deadlines can be derailed by misrepresentations regarding these matters.

If things are not the way they have been portrayed, our goals are far less likely to be secured.

Despite this, the news on lying is not all bad. Lying is morally permissible in three circumstances. The key to lying is for people to understand when it is OK to stretch (and indeed break) the truth.

First, it is OK to lie to protect unjust attacks on higher order interests, such as the right to life, liberty and physical integrity. To this end, parallels can be drawn with the right to self-defence. This entails that lies are justifiable only where the threat is relatively imminent and there is no other lawful means to readily neutralise the risk. Thus, you needn't think twice about pointing an aggressor in search of his intended victim in the wrong direction.

The second exception to the general prohibition against lying is where it is necessary to achieve important social goods that cannot be secured (at all or at least not very effectively) through transparent means. Thus, covert law enforcement practices and investigative journalism are sound practices.

And it is probably permissible to tell your children there is a Santa Claus and your wife that you are at work instead of at the pub having an extra drink.

Finally, you get to tell the occasional white lie. They're OK where the topic of the lie cannot readily be avoided and it is done to spare a person's feelings. Thus, when your partner asks you "Does my bum look big in this new dress?" or "Is my new haircut nice?" you get to say no and yes, respectively.

This is irrespective of how many kilograms they have piled on recently or how ill-suiting the hairstyle actually is. But it is not desirable to make the same remark if it has not been prompted; instead, compliment your partner on their great personality.

White lies are also permissible where they act as social lubricants, obviating the need to engage in drawn-out character evaluations. Better to say you can't make it to dinner because you're busy rather than because you find the person revolting.

Character appraisals rarely work; they lead only to hostility and defensiveness.

Abbott's lies arguably fall into the second category.

He is occasionally expedient with the truth on non-core issues to attract his audience. Is this justifiable? Yes, if it is a means to improving the greater community good by removing an incompetent government.

It is a judgment call whether federal Labor has reached this level yet, but the scourge of pink batts, school halls and non-action on refugees, human rights and the environment makes it a line-ball decision.

Kevin Rudd is the boss; the most powerful man in the country. At that level, the only criterion on which he is to be judged is outcomes. There are no points for trying hard (even staying up late at night) or good intentions. Under Labor, there are no measurable improvements in the prosperity of normal Australians or the services that are essential to human flourishing, in the form of health and education.

Three more years of good intentions and excuses for doing nothing may be more than the country can tolerate.

What isn't line ball is that it is good finally to have a bit of honesty and maturity on the lying front. Those who still maintain they never lie need to do one of two things: stop lying or do us all a favour and drop the occasional fib.