Plato's Noble Lie

So is Plato’s “Noble Lie” a bad idea? For example: the end of book 10, the Myth of Er.

First example: If a person is given a math book for instance, and they are learning math, one could teach them about apples and bannas, how to add and subtract them but would they get the abstract meaning out of the equations? These are simple enough examples, but what if the equations were a bit more complex and dealing with government? Many people don’t bother learning anything past highschool (many bypass this stage.) What if someone was given a problem over and over again and they just coouldn’t grasp the meaning of it, like trying to grasp a 4th dimension. So instead, to cope with this reality, the mathematicians created a mythos that indirectly builds scaffolding to understand it but it isn’tthe true reflection of the 4th deminsion, is this evil?

Another example: The Little Red Riding Hood story was made to prevent little girls from going out and getting raped from strangers, was it bad to give them a noble lie? One where wolves dress up as someone who is approachable and take advantage of you?

The ends(telos) that Plato’s myth was made for i think is terrible, i must admit, but I think the idea of a “noble lie” is defensible. But maybe I have this idea wrong, what do you philosophers think?

Thanks in advance for everyone’s intelligent responses! :slight_smile:
-Frankenstein

The issue of a Noble Lie is the same as the issue of giving the car keys to a teenager.

One cannot, despite the ridiculous historical propensity, declare what all people should do regarding anything that might be situation dependent and expect to survive. Such amounts to an “idol worship” proposing that a fixed, concrete declaration of good and evil pertains to all reality for all time.

Thank you for bringing up Plato! I think Plato turns up more often here in the Social Sciences section than in the Philosophy section.

First, I’ve never thought of the Myth of Er at the end of book 10 as an example of Plato’s “Noble Lie”. The Myth of Er is a story about the reincarnation of souls. He’s more trying to make a point about how being unjust is damaging to a soul. It’s an interesting point, and it’s possible that Socrates tells it with irony in mind, but it seems like one attribute of a “Noble Lie” is that it is understood at least amongst the ultimate planners (Socrates, Glaucon, and Adeimantus) that it is a lie. (The Guardians don’t have to be in on it.) When it comes to the Myth of Er, Socrates never actually says to his friends Glaucon and Adeimantus that it is a false story.

What we usually mean when we refer to the Noble Lie in Plato’s Republic is found at the end of Book III. Socrates refers to “a Phoenician story”. Socrates suggests his Noble Lie in the context of a discussion about how he is going to get the people in the three classes (producers, auxiliaries, guardians) to perform their roles without corruption (mixing the jobs of each role, i.e. rulers using their status to make business deals). So the point is both about keeping each class within the boundaries of what it does, and also maintaining boundaries in the sense of discouraging voluntary upward mobility.

The Lie about Natural Talent
In the Phoenician story Socrates says we tell everyone that all the training they have been given in youth was “like a dream”. We’ll tell them that all the skills they have learned and resources they have been provided with in life were actually with them in the womb of the earth before they were born, and came with them into the world. These skills and resources are explained as different grades of metals mixed in with you at birth. So, “Gold people” are born to have all the skills and resources of Guardians, Silver likewise for soldiers, and Bronze for producers.

The Lie about Meritocracy
Then we get a kind of ironic joke about meritocracy (how bootstraps are a load of crap). As a part of our Lie we guarantee that if a Gold child is born to Bronze parents (craftsmen and farmers) we will take him away to be trained for Guardian-hood among other Gold souls. Socrates understands after all, noone really has a Gold soul, but this Lie will convince people that the class system is fair, because some people are just born Bronze. If you have a Gold soul, then the state will recognize this when you are still young, and move you up to Guardian training.

The Lie about Preventing Political Corruption
Finally we get a Socrates joke about how this Lie will prevent political corruption (using power for personal gain). Socrates argues that the Guardian class (the rulers) should NEVER own private property or have any more material wealth than is absolutely necessary. It’s sort of like the Janissaries in the Ottoman Empire. The way we convince Guardians not to pursue wealth is we tell them that they “always have gold and silver of a divine sort in their souls as a gift from the gods and so have no further need of human gold. Indeed, we’ll tell them that it’s impious for them to defile this divine Gold by any admixture of such profane gold.”


So that’s my reading of Plato’s Noble Lie. I don’t have anything interesting to say about my personal opinion on telling Noble Lies. When it comes to something like the Little Red Riding Hood story, I can say that if I had daughters I would protect my daughters and help my daughters protect themselves from rape in a more straightforward honest way.

Instead I’d like to point out that Plato via Socrates has instead explained the Noble Lie that we already tell every day. The Noble Lie as Socrates tells it is at the core of the actual narrative about justice. Whether or not Plato thinks the Noble Lie is in fact noble, it’s a fact that we tell it constantly.

The problem with Nobel lies is that often one thinks a lie is noble when it is not or can lead to problems in the future unforeseen. For example imagine if Jesus never really did any magical-miracles. he just did amazing things, he was a savant of sorts…But then one persons nobly wanted to convince a pagan tribe that they should believe in God and to do so said that Jesus the prophet could perform magic…true magic…Then about 2000 years later or so, if Jesus did return no one would believe he was Jesus unless he performed some magic, which he couldn’t actually do…

I have a tendency to think that it is best not to use Nobel lies…they tend to be the lazy way to get people to believe…or the wrong way to get people to believe…later lending to discrepancies and mistrust…

They tend to be a temporary fix…it is much better in the long run(and thus more ease per unit time) to explain the truth as best as possible and just keep explaining it and eventually it will be grasped…if it doesn’t then we’re all fucked anyways…but ultimately the longer you pervade an idea or a function through generations not just a single life time, there is a tendency for societies to evolve into acceptance of the idea…ultimately the idea that a people won’t understand is false, though it may be that a single person may not given a set life-time.

I think it comes down to whether ends justify the means, and whether truth is always beneficial and falsehood always detrimental. If truth is sometimes damaging, and falsehood sometimes beneficial, then it stands to reason that in a moral setting in which the ends do justify the means, it is obligatory to lie.

In a moral setting where the means are important, irrespective of the ends, such that it is imperative to follow the straight path, and always tell the truth, even though it might lead to a bad outcome, then noble lies (i.e., falsehood told for good intentions/good outcomes) are not permissible.

Personally I don’t see anything wrong with noble lies. There’s nothing that tells me there’s something inherently detrimental about believing falsehood, and I don’t hold truth as it’s own good. I think truth is instrumentally good, that is, it’s good because it tends to do us good. Valuing truth as it’s own end, and as higher than other values, namely life, can be a very bad idea.

We humans can only see so far to what we might call the “end” that justifies the “means”.

Hello James,
But would this idol worship defeat subjective and relative values if they were aimed at goods such as the golden rule, that the mythos of Christ expands on? Perhaps on a utilitarian scale, it’s better to help the less intellectually inclined with stories so that they have an understanding but set in a story of why something is good.

Comments?

Hello Sean,
You seem to have a very good grasp of Plato, thank you for responding to my thread!

This Phoenician lie or The Myth of Metals I tend to see very much like each other but both lies have a different end. It is a bit Janissaries, which is interesting, Pythagoras was influenced by them i know. I actually though about Sparta when property came up because they helped save Greece during the Persian wars and also they defeated Athens in the Pelopennesian wars. So I though of Socrates as taking ques from another group who overcame them. This is just historical fun stuff though. :slight_smile:

In the Myth of Metals there is wiggle room for silver/bronze to take steps up out of the cave just as Adeimantus and Glaucon eventually elevate themselves. And in the Myth of Er, ultimate choice is left up to the individual to what one’s moral choice is going to be, so I think these two stories can be part of a longer noble lie much like A Bible or Quran if they are not actual revelation. Yobu are correct that the first mention of the Noble Lie is mentioned in book III 414 But I think I might go as far to say that as he develops his arguments he pushes more Noble Lies so that the least intellectually active men and women will still have a cohesive picture of how their republic works.

It’s interesting to compare this to Kant now. Do not lie is one of his categorical imperatives because its nature is decieving another out of their moral autonomy to rationally deliberate. Hmmm well, I think after all is said and done, that, at this junction perhaps it is not okay to tell a lie even if it is noble, unless that lie is not even a lie but just a myth/ a story to give people perspective and to continue their speculation on the nature of reality and themselves.

Thank you for your thorough post Sean, please, if you still have more comments on the Noble Lie or my comments after reflecting on yours, then please share. :slight_smile:

-Frankenstein

I agree with much of what you say, Abstract. Can one be noble and take away anothers rational autonomy by telling them lies is a good question to begin with. The unforeseen consequences would have to be the liars fault for telling that person a lie. There are people who aren’t as intellectually active as others but im going to have to agree with Kant the badwill when lying to another.

But I also, even though I know christianity in my own heart is a noble lie, respect religion. Is it hypocritical to respect such a noble lie but also not speak one? I’m conflicted with this.

Any comments on this, is it hypocritical?

-Frankenstein

Maybe it doesn’t always come down to the ends justifying the means, or rather to put it another way-- consequences. Maybe some actions and means are just intrinsically bad, like lying, because logically if you lie then you take away someones moral autonomy and logically if you do that then anything is ok because who is to say that yours can;t be taken away? Does that make sense? :blush:

  • Frankenstein

personally I think that most religions especially those how have or have had organized structures have “nobel lies”
But as far as the existence of God goes, it actually seems logical to me…And indeterminate otherwise…So it isn’t actually possible to tell it is a Nobel lie if it is…
Of course I think of God as simply being that which is the Everything…and how can someone deny the existence of that…Although I suspect deeply that it has sentience within its infinite complexity, if not simply in that it contains minds…
And with the right mind set i think it is possible to solve the riddles of some of the “Nobel lies”…and many of the stuff wasn’t lies anyways rather succinct beliefs…And how can we really know anything to be true unless we knew everything anyways…that’s another topic though…

Ultimately though i find it possible to get across any idea without lieing so long as you understand the mentality of you audience. it is more a matter of speaking in the language…

yes how can a lie be known to be just unless the thing lied about for belief is known to be true…it should be the right of any listener to choose to believe by their logic so as to allow that a false ideas be side tracked, excessive lying lends to simple mindedness anyways, if they fail to understand then Shit happens, and lying only makes the shit smell worse in the long run.

Makes sense. You’re saying lies could be intrinsically bad iff they take away someone’s moral autonomy. In other words, you’re saying lying is bad because it’s a way of manipulating another into doing what you want them to do. It’s a way of controlling what another does, of influencing their decisions, tempering with their free will.

Can’t you manipulate and control another with the truth? I’m genuinely trying to think of a thought experiment in which telling the truth is done for the purpose of manipulating and controlling another.

…or does truth telling never get in the way of someone’s moral autonomy? Is truth telling always non-manipulative?

Blackmailing with truth (exposing one’s lies).

Would using truth for self-serving purposes be more morally acceptable than using lies for the same self-serving purposes?

I would think telling a truth full thing can be used to lead someone to do something by means of recognizing the assumptions a person might make…But then perhaps it is important to redefine lying, not as telling a statement that is false, but misleading a person from recognition of what is best…at least what one recognizes as best…

“Things” aren’t “good”.
Situations allow for good to exist.
The good is not in the things, but in their use.

True morality (the “always good”) can only be assessed considering the most fundamental needs any life.
There are such moral truths that pertain to literally all life, but Noble Lies either pro or con, isn’t one of them.

It’s starting to sound to me like there is no difference between a Noble Lie and a metaphor.

I mean, if you take this far enough it seems as if we can’t communicate anything without telling a Noble Lie. Ultimately whenever I use language to articulate a state of affairs I am not telling you “the whole truth.” I mean, say you’re hanging out with a 4-year old. She picks up a jalapeno. You say, “Watch out that’s hot!” So she blows on the jalapeno first (to cool it off), then pops it into her mouth and starts screaming and vomiting.

Is that all we want out of the concept of a Noble Lie? When you give someone a metaphor which is supposed to help them make good decisions without giving them total understanding? I just think that it’s a narrower concept.

I think that we indeed can’t tell the whole truth and that is important to realize, as well that often the order in which you tell the truth can lead to jumping to assumptions that prevents further listening. but with regards to Nobel lying it would seem typically a more direct attempt at false information provided for a particular manipulation of understanding…And though it might be possible to be good, I tend to think it is most often bad, and thus best to just avoid…

The only thing that comes to mind is something from the movie Horrible Bosses, which I saw yesterday. One of the characters is blackmailed into sleeping with his boss. She, the boss, tells him she will tell the guy’s wife he is cheating (a lie) if he doesn’t actually cheat. You get the sense he is a victim.

Would have been less horrible if she was blackmailing him with the truth, i.e., if he had actually had cheated?

In this second scenario, he’s still a victim, but there’s this sense that he’d be getting what coming to him.

Maybe you can come up with a thought experiment where telling the truth and telling a lie are both equally bad.

…but that’s not what lying is. Lying is simply saying what you think is not true. It’s got nothing to do with intention to do harm. You can lie with good intentions, and tell the truth with bad ones. However I think it is interesting to note that a lie is different from a liar. A liar is someone with the intention to deceive, whereas a lie requires that intention as well as the fact that what is being said is false.

If someone tells another what he believes is false under the guise of it being true, then he is a liar. But if by some weird turn of events what he thinks is false is actually true, then he’s still a liar, although his lie is no longer false, and so it’s not a lie. Someone who says something false whilest being convinced of its truth is not a liar, nor is what he says a lie. Intentions make the liar. Intentions and matters of fact make the lie.