A World Without Lies

I would like to begin this debate first by thanking my opponent RiskTaker for accepting my challenge, and assume from here forward that by his acceptance of the debate he has agreed upon the stated definitions. Argument One: The Employment Situation I invite the audience to envision the following scene: In the world without lies, one man (A) and another man (B) are both applying for a job. (A) happens to have a disorder that weakens his ability to carry out the job in question. (B) suffers no such illness, and is able to do the job better than (A). As a result, (B) is chosen for the job while (A) remains unemployed. In world with lies, the employer may give the job to (A) rather than (B) in a show of pity for (A), choosing (A) as "the best man for the job" even though most agree (B) is the true better choice. The action of hiring (A) is then effectively a lie, as hiring an employee is an unspoken affirmation that the particular employee was seen best fit for the work. With his increased capacity for work, (B) has a better chance of finding another job instead and therefore is affected less negatively by being turned down for the job. In summary: Option 1: (B) is hired (A)Is jobless, and with his decreased capacity for work is less likely to be hired to a different position. (B)Has a job. The job contested is carried out as it should be; the other job is left unfilled by (A). Option 2: (A) is hired (A)Has a job. (B)Is jobless, but his uninhibited capacity for work allows him a higher chance than (A) of finding a different position. The job contested is carried out a slightly substandard level; the other job is done by (B). Therefore it may be stated that Option 2 leaves the system in a more advantageous state. As a result, the two people [(A) and (B)] as a whole have achieved a higher benefit from Option 2 than Option 1, thus satisfying the predetermined definition of good (beneficial to the human race as a general whole), assuming that the human race in this instance is represented by the two subjects (A) and (B), the employer of the contested job, and the employer of the "other" job. Argument Two: The Human Selection Issue As was visited before, in the world without lies one with a limited capacity for work has an approximately nil chance of gaining a job over a person with a standard working capacity. This category of limited capacity workers includes "Elderly "Mentally or physically handicapped "Sick Along with a few other groups of people, these would all be considered as having limited work capacities. (http://www.tameside.gov.uk...) Due to this fact, the aforementioned parties are less likely to get a job or occupation, leading them into unemployment, and consequently, financial hardship. As a result, those with limited working capacities are likely to waste away and die due to the fact that they contribute to society at a substandard level, and so are not cared for by the anti-lie society. While from a utilitarian standpoint this appears beneficial for the general population, these disabled people still have a capacity to work, regardless of that capacity"s limits. Therefore, reduction of this population constitutes a reduction in the net labor force of a society, therefore acting as a detriment to the whole (evil). Argument Three: Social Impacts Lies are in many cases the "glue" that holds the fabric of society together, allowing people with differing viewpoints to work together. Tolerance is defined as "a fair, objective, and permissive attitude toward those whose opinions, practices, race, religion, nationality, etc., differ from one's own; freedom from bigotry" (http://dictionary.reference.com...). Tolerating a viewpoint different from one"s own involves initiating a fa"ade, or "a way of behaving or appearing that gives other people a false idea of your true feelings or situation" (http://www.merriam-webster.com...) , a mask that hides one"s true feeling and values, allowing another person to assume their values are in agreement, accepting the person and enabling the pair to function as a unit towards a common goal with little friction even though they may disagree religiously or otherwise. This pairing of people grows as the masks grow, allowing increasingly larger groups of people to work together, drastically increasing the productivity of society while reducing clashes caused by conflicting ideals. As a result, society created by lies in a place where truth would create bloodshed. Conclusion I have shown three ways in which lies improve society as a whole and how using only the truth in the same instances would cause detriment to society. In other words, I have affirmed the evil of a world without lies and affirmed the potential goodness and utility of lies as applied to society. Having established my main points, in invite my opponent to rebut my statements as he sees fit and remind him that he must not only rebut my statements, but also provide reasoning as to why a world without lies is morally correct.