What are the distinctions between lying, sarcasm and joking

Philosophy Forums Philosophy
1

All three seem to have similarities in that they deliberately mislead the interlocuter, yet, each one has a different intention and outcome.

Lying, to the party who is lied to, is seen as almost universally bad if the liar is ‘caught’.

Sarcasm, whereas it can sometimes cross into joking sometimes, is generally seen as irritating and thus disreputable, due to its resentful undertones which seek to make the person delivering the sarcastic comment somehow evade a logical answer and thus allow them to feel like they have ‘one up’ on the person they say the comment to.

Joking, on the other hand, while deliberately offering a ‘line’ to mislead its interlocuter, is seen as respectable and in ‘good cheer’ by the other party who has had the joke played on them (if its just a friendly joke) and so is not deemed in a negative light as with the other two. It is also true, however, that soemone who jokes all the time would eventually be seen in a bad light as they can ‘never be serious’.

What makes a joke a joke and not either a lie or a sarcastic comment? The same line delivered in three different ways could fit into each of these three categories, depending on its delivery, it is the particulars of this that I want to figure out.

For example:

Person One:
What did you do today?

Person Two:
Lying: I robbed a bank (deadpan)
Sarcastic: I robbed a bank (with an irritated tone, perhaps rolling eyes a little)
Lying: I robbed a bank (either deadpan or with a smirk)

Here you can see that the criteria for ‘lying’ and ‘joking’ are the same. So what is up with this yo!?

I see these three ‘tactics’ as subtle power plays, but each with slightly different manfestations. It is the distinctions between the three I want to get straight.

2

Lying is the desire to avoid the truth, one lies to cover up what one has done.
Sarcasm is when one says something the other would know the first would not do and so knows.
Joking is where one suggests an option because he or she finds it a funny answer to the question given.

I think that is the difference, dont quote me on it though.

3

I think that joking, too, can avoid the truth, but cover it up in a humourous way so as to evade having to answer seriously in a diplomatic manner. This doesnt have to be to done to avoid telling someone something to get one over on them necessarily. For instance, you may delibrately make a joke out of something just because to answer seriously would be less fun than to answer with a joke. Its not that you are hiding from answering the logical way, its just it wouldnt have been as fun in that situation.

For example:
So, you work with your hands alot?

You:
Yeah, my right hand especially! (make a masturbation movement)

4

There’s a book by Harry Frankfurt called “On Bullshit” which tackles this subject nicely.

5

i care

6

Nice one smears got it downloading now.

7

That was a EXCELLENT article, much respect for recomending it to me :slight_smile:. It really hit the nail on the head for me.

Here are some choice excepts if anyone would care to incite some discussion on them.

It is just this lack of connection to a concern with truth.
this indifference to how things really are.that I regard as of the essence of
bullshit.

The purpose of the
conversation is not to communicate beliefs. Accordingly, the usual assumptions
about the connection between what people say and what they believe are
suspended.

never tell a lie when you can bullshit your way through

In fact, people do tend to be more tolerant of bullshit than of lies, perhaps
because we are less inclined to take the former as a personal affront.

The fact about himself that the bullshitter hides, on the
other hand, is that the truth-values of his statements are of no central interest to
him; what we are not to understand is that his intention is neither to report the
truth nor co conceal it.

He does not care whether the things he says describe reality
correctly. He just picks them out, or makes them up, to suit his purpose.

Bullshit = to speak with conviction on something the speaker really is unsure of and unconcerned with the truth or falsity of.

8

I’m sure I’m stating the obvious here and in fact I think I’m being a little redundant because ChrisNutton nailed it pretty damned good, but the difference all seems to lie within the intent of the comment. But even more importantly is how the listener perceives what that intent. It can be very easy to make a joke that people don’t pick up on that intent and take it to be a lie, etc.