As commonly defined, lying implies an intent to lie, that is, to know that what one speaks is not the truth, or at least, misleading.

However, under such a definition, someone literally too stupid to know the truth or how to convey it, becomes morally more acceptable, where in that situation, someone who does have that ability would be morally condemned. Whether stupidity is more of a stigma that deliberate lying may depend on the professional context.

The GPC Governance Project should consider this, and most especially ditching the Code of Conduct for GPC Council, as, it contains foolish ambiguities in this regard:
  • what are the consequences of being unable to call a Council member to account for lying? to another Council member, i.e. being unable to say that a lie is a lie? (one answer: the accusation spreads outside the Council if the Council won't hear it)? is there an objective definition of "lying"?
  • what are the consequenceas of permitting hearsay??, paraphrasing and misquotes and half-truths into the evidence on an important matter? is it reasonable to require response to hearsay? at all? what standard of evidence applies to Council decisions in general?
  • what are the consequences of permitting vague and inexact "bad things people have done" to be used as if they were legal terms, e.g "denigrating", "flaming" "hounding" "threaten?ing"? does this create arbitrary power for the Chair to decide what they mean? Why are operational decisions about things like Governance or Process or Revenue Sharing and Fundraising held hostage to non-objective decisions like whether "denigrating" or "lying" has occurred?
  • what are the consequences of not being able to call a staff member to account or "reprimand staff?" for provable failures to respect their position subordinate to Council, or to report accurately what they have been doing; who calls the staff to account if not the Council?

Show php error messages