Dishonesty, as a vice, is universal and timeless; According to the Bible, the very first humans on earth committed the first sin of deception. Adam and Eve lied to God about whether they had eaten the fruit of the forbidden tree in the Garden of Eden, cementing the human race as one who feels the burden of truth is too cumbersome to bear and condemning humanity to a life of Sin. .Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an original essay Modern liars still carry on this legacy of deception, and instead of seeing "modern liars" as their own association, all living humans are modern liars. Whether the practice of dishonesty is daily or hourly, little “white lies” or large-scale intentional misdirection, every mortal creature contributes to the act of lying. Some of these "large-scale liars" were interviewed in the documentary entitled "(Dis)honesty: the truth about lying" - people from all walks of life who share solidarity in the experience of denunciation and the punishment that often follows the act to lie. Respondents also collectively understand the snowball effect of lies, taking on a life of its own and growing exponentially in size as they must be maintained through an ever-expanding mountain of lies. Everyone interviewed started out with good intentions and seemingly justifiable excuses for their dishonesty, yet they all had to face the consequences that come with lying. The act of lying, along with the question of its morality, was considered fundamental in the study of lying. humanity and the success of a society according to author Sissela Bok, who considered this analysis so crucial that it inspired her first book, aptly titled Lying. In this book, Bok defines a lie as “any intentionally deceptive message stated” (page 13). This broad definition of lying can be interpreted to include outright deception along with a cunning misorientation of the facts, incriminating both the individual who lies by omission along with the individual who purely states a lie. A case that features both types of lies is that of Joe Papp of Dis(Honesty). Papp is a former professional cyclist whose experience in competitive cycling dates back to his freshman year of high school. His adoration for the sport, coupled with his undeniable talent, led him not only to countless first-place victories but also to the Olympic trials. However, with the academic year approaching, Papp felt deeply moved to reinvest his time in his education and put his cycling career on hold to focus undividedly on his studies. After receiving his degree, Joe Papp stated in his interview that he "couldn't shake the 'bicycle mania' and [he] went back to cycling". Papp began competing in competitions, just as he had before attending college, but unfortunately found himself slowing down in the competitions he initially thought he would excel at. Confiding this insecurity to a fellow cyclist, he was referred to a doctor who could "help him catch up to the other runners", thus starting the habit of "doping" - slang for taking performance-enhancing drugs. doping, Papp was deceiving those around him by omission, as well as openly avoiding confession of his actions, in order to protect his team and avoid the serious consequences that come with his misdeeds. Despite his efforts, Papphe was caught, tried in court for his crimes and was subsequently banned from competitive cycling for testing positive for steroids and for his common dishonesty in concealing these facts in correspondence with his team. For a full dissection, let's turn to Bok's analysis of “justified lies” in Lying, whether or not such a thing exists, along with the excuses the liar uses. One type of apology that Bok distinguishes is one in which the liar “offers moral reasons for lying…demonstrating that a lie should, under the circumstances, be permissible” (page 75). One of the common lies in this category drives the motivation to establish fairness: “everyone else is doing it, I want to level the playing field.” This is almost verbatim what Papp expressed in “(Dis)honesty” when he stated that so many runners were taking drugs that he didn't feel they could win under such unfair circumstances. However, does this motivation justify his dishonesty? Bok often emphasizes in his writings that the potential liar's primary focus should be on the perspective of the deceived, and that when it comes to lying for the sake of "fairness," lies "involve deeply personal opinions about what one deserves... [therefore] they are extraordinarily prone to misinterpretation and prejudice” (page 83). A liar's partiality toward himself, even in what he believes to be motivated purely by equality, reveals his true motivation of selfishness. Beyond this, Bok recognizes that self-deception to the point of complete justification is much easier when the liar only has to deal with his own conscience (which can be easily manipulated), and when those around the liar participate in the same practice of deception. This example is obviously applicable to Papp, whose entire team was involved in an act of doping. This violates two of Bok's conditions for justified lying: examining one's personal conscience to decide whether to deceive, and asking trusted advisors what to do. Although Papp did both, the counselors guided him in his misdeeds and he became so completely convinced of the justification of the lie to the point that his conscience did not lead him to the morally correct conclusion. Another of Bok's conditions for justified lies includes what she calls a “publicity test,” which is a change in perspective from how the common majority would view the lie. Unlike many cases of deception, we know how the public feels about this lie. Since Papp's case went to court along with the news, all of America has been exposed to his dishonesty and misdeeds. According to an interview with the Naples Herald, after the court ruling, he was sent many furious and threatening emails by people he considered family. she didn't want to talk to him anymore. It is clear, due to his continued use of performance-enhancing drugs, that Papp had not viewed his lie through the lens of test advertising, otherwise he might have foreseen such dire consequences. In this regard, Bok would not consider lying justified, in accordance with the general public's view. Something Bok believes is that all people should consider truthful alternatives when tempted to be dishonest, and she emphasizes that lying should be a last resort. in all situations. Were there any truthful alternatives for Papp? Maybe not from his point of view. Because he viewed his actions as rooted in fairness, along with the need to conform to the actions of his teammates, he may have believed that doping was the only true way to succeed in his cycling career. Rather than deciding to hold on.