Abstract
Background of Research
The study on white lies will apprehend the policy of moral obligation in investigating the influence of white lies. The study’s literature will focus on identifying the factors that affect people associating with white lies in decision-making. The thesis will seek to certify the eligibility of the taxonomy of lies in Erat and Gneezy (2012) or the framework of ethical predispositions highlighted in Feess et al. (2022) articles to justify white lies. On the one hand, Feess et al. (2022) anticipate developing a behavioral game in the experiment to recognize the significance of white lies and how payoff decisions impact the ethics of lies. On the other hand, Erat and Gneezy (2012) comprehend the adoption of a deception game to isolate the gender that mainly incorporates white lies to benefit majority groups.
Literature Review
The research on the ethical choices and justification of particular life actions will depend on an experiment between two individuals enclosed in a room. In this experiment, two hypotheses would lead participants to make white lies or not. According to Feess et al. (2022), utilitarianism advocates actions that bring joy, pleasure, and feelings of happiness and opposes behaviors that harm in by making white lies. The two gamers in the room might apply the concepts of Jeremy Bentham to justify their choices of white lies. Research on white lies will weigh the benefits versus harms and consequences of actions of happiness versus unhappiness to justify their positions of engaging in white lies (Erat and Gneezy,2012). The lack of monitorial value associated with the red card will impact both individuals from speaking the truth even when they picked it. Lies are only justifiable through ethical considerations. If an action leads to the overall happiness of the majority group without causing harm, lies should be apprehended (Feess et al., 2022). The policy of moral obligation also permits people to lie because the outcomes of such choices lead individuals to be flexible and considerate in decision-making.
Relevance of the Problem
The research’s findings will demonstrate that everyone lies; however, it will stress the differences and motives behind such choices. The falsehood of the white nature hides truthful information from the public for the benefit of a few needy individuals. Poor liars are vague, while expert liars weave their lives with strands of truth (Erat and Gneezy, 2012). Prolific liars will rely on their oratory skills to examine the reactions of individuals supporting or criticizing white lies. Although both individuals will know that only one winner would access the green card, they will lie to convince the needy people about their concerns through donations.
Hypothesis 1
If the outcomes of the card selection would result in criticism, then both individuals in the room would lie on the card they picked.
Hypothesis 2
If the outcomes of card picking do not determine the prize tag issued to the winner of the green card, then both parties would tell the truth.
Conclusion
The justification of white lies depends on the consequences of the induvial actions taken or committed by participants. The experiment exhibits a few cases of lies happening in the society through the roles delegated to the two gamers. The red card acted as the control experiment to determine the justification of lies, and the green card was the source of conviction for why the men lied.
Keywords: White lies, utilitarianism, justification, red card, and green card.
Bibliography
Erat, S., & Gneezy, U. (2012). White lies. Management Science, 58(4), 723–733. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.1110.1449
Feess, E., Kerzenmacher, F., & Timofeyev, Y. (2022). Utilitarian or deontological models of moral behavior—What predicts morally questionable decisions? European Economic Review, 149(12), 104–264. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euroecorev.2022.104264
Shiv, B. (2012, April 1). Are White Lies as Innocuous as We Think? Journal of Consumer Research, 38(6), 1093–1102. https://doi.org/10.1086/661640
Thesis Format
The definition of a white lie.
Section 1 will identify the theoretical foundation for the discussion through the following:
• What differentiates a white lie from an ordinary lie?
• What parameters or considerations should be established to define a lie as a white lie?
The morals behind a white lie.
Section 2 will define the relevance of the question that will be analyzed through the following:
• What are ethical or moral justifications used by individuals or considered to justify a white lie?
What justifies a white lie?
Section 3 will clarify the focus, problems, and/or hypotheses through the following:
• Is a white lie justifiable or considered a lie if it will benefit the greater good?
• Is a white lie justifiable or considered a lie if no harm will come out of it?
The significance of a white lie.
Section 4 will justify the relevance or importance of the problem chosen to focus on through the following:
• To better understand whether a white lie is even considered a lie if the aim is only to have a positive impact.
• Determine some of the moral boundaries individuals must deal with when presented with a white lie.
• Examine how individuals will react if there are no negative results or negative impacts on their actions through white lies.
The hypothesis.
Section 5 will share the predictions through the following:
• Based on the literature review, a hypothesis will be formed.
• Predictions will be defined through the hypothesis to describe the expected outcome of the experiment.
Design of the experiment.
Section 6 will describe the experiment’s methodology through the following:
• Give a brief on the idea behind the experiment.
• Detail the experiment’s different components.
• Explain how the experiment is expected to be carried out.
Pre-analysis plan.
Section 7 will demonstrate how to analyze the data.
• Data analysis proposal.
The conclusion.
Section 8 will present the research conclusion.
• Draw conclusions based on the literature and experiment’s findings.