Seinfeld, Friends, and the Moral Permissibility of Lying

The following two clips, one from Seinfeld and another from Friends, are comedic examples to prompt a discussion about the ethics of lying. As the two clips below are shown to the class, the class is tasked with an activity. After which, two possible discussions can be pursued.

Clip 1: ‘The Marine Biologist’ from Seinfeld

One of the greatest episodes from Seinfeld is ‘The Marine Biologist’ (Season 5 Episode 14). Jerry lies to a friend, Diane, whom he has not met since College about his other friend’s (George) profession. Later, Jerry tells George about this encounter and asks him to expect a call from Diane. He tells George about George’s ‘new profession’ as a Marine Biologist and George is outraged. Later that day, when Diane calls George, George decides to play along with Jerry’s lie and pretend to be a Marine Biologist.

Clip 2: ‘The One Where Joey Speaks French’ from Friends

In the second clip, Joey lies in his resume about being able to speak French fluently (the teacher explains this before showing the video). In actual fact, he cannot speak French and so asks Phoebe to teach him French to prepare him for the audition. After attempting to teach Joey French, Phoebe gets frustrated and gives up. During the audition, it was clear to the casting director that Joey did not know how to speak French. However, Phoebe came to the audition and made up a story about Joey so that the director would let Joey down easy.

Class Activity: Identify the Liars!

Students watch both clips and are tasked to identify (a) the characters who told lies, (b) the role relation between the character who told a lie and the one(s) being lied to, (c) the content of the lie, and (d) students’ interpretation of the intentions behind the lies (i.e. the first 4 columns of the table below). After which, on their own or in small groups, students are given time to contemplate which, if any, of the lies they think are morally permissible.

Discussion 1: Introduction to Moral Theories

Very crudely, if used as an introduction to moral theories, the class discussion could be on whether the ‘act’ of lying, the ‘intention’ of the liar or the ‘consequences’ that ensued would make the lie morally permissible. Alternatively, one might discuss whether the ‘intention’ of the liar or the ‘consequences’ that ensued count as conditions that make the ‘act’ of lying morally permissible.

This activity helps students distinguish between ‘act’, ‘roles’, ‘content’, ‘intention’ and ‘consequences’ in ethical discussions.

This serves as a helpful introduction to discussions regarding theories such as Deontology, Consequentialism, Role Ethics etc.

Discussion 2: The Conditions in which Lying is Morally Permissible

A long drawn debate in the history of philosophy has been whether there are conditions in which it is morally permissible to lie (see, for instance, James Edwin Mahon, ‘The Definition of Lying and Deception’[1]). At first glance, the characters generally lie for pragmatic reasons, such as impressing a stranger in order to stand up for a friend, or impressing a director in order to get an audition.

Interestingly, two characters lie, not for their own benefit (arguably) but, for the benefit of their friends.

Jerry lies in order to make George look good, and the result is that George gets a phone call. Phoebe lies so that Joey’s feelings wouldn’t be hurt. In one sense, we might think that their ‘noble’ intentions might seem morally praiseworthy. These open up several further questions.

I provide several examples of discussion questions, separating them into more clip-particular discussions, and broader questions. Of course, depending on the aptitude, level, pace, and discussions of one’s class, one might choose to focus on one of these sets of questions; or, use the former set as an entry point to lead to the latter.

More clip-particular type discussions:

1. Are there any morally significant differences between lying for one’s own benefit (e.g. Joey and George) and lying for the benefit of another? Or, would lying always be wrong regardless of one’s intentions?
2. Both Jerry and Phoebe lied for their friends. Jerry lied to stand up for his friend, while Phoebe lied to protect her friend’s feelings. Are there any morally significant differences between Jerry and Phoebe’s intentions?
3. Among the several lies told in the clips, would you consider some of the lies more morally permissible than others? If so, how would you rank them? Explain your reasoning.
4. In trying to help Joey, has Phoebe become morally complicit in the lie?
5. If Joey managed to learn to speak French fluently by the time of his audition, would he have been lying when he put down ‘can speak fluent French’ on his resume?

Broader questions:

1. Is lying always wrong or are there conditions in which lying is morally permissible?
2. Why might some philosophers argue that there are no morally permissible reasons to lie?
3. List the common conditions where the class might think that lying is morally permissible. Do these conditions hold across different circumstances and contexts?
4. Is there such a thing as a ‘noble’ lie and if so, how does it relate to our discussion on the moral permissibility of lying?
5. Are there specific role relations which we have moral obligations towards? E.g. is there a morally significant difference between lying for one’s self, one’s family, one’s friend, a stranger etc?

Point of Consideration

Recently, a colleague asked whether using comedy clips would likely skew the audience’s (moral) intuitions about the issue. It would be interesting to test whether a different genre of video clip would elicit similar moral intuitions. In any case, much of this would depend on the way the teacher sets up the discussion.

Further Reading:

[On the Noble Lie] Plato, The Republic

[On a Supposed Right to Tell Lies from Benevolent Motives] Immanuel Kant, Critique of Practical Reason and Other Writings in Moral Philosophy
(or, https://aeon.co/videos/can-a-lie-ever-be-noble-why-kant-believed-even-a-life-saving-fib-was-immoral)

Citations:

[1] https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/lying-definition/

The Teaching and Learning Video Series is designed to share pedagogical approaches to using humorous video clips for teaching philosophy. Humor, when used appropriately, has empirically been shown to correlate with higher retention rates. If you are interested in contributing to this series, email the Series Editor, William A. B. Parkhurst, at parkhurst1@usf.edu

Daryl Ooi

Daryl Ooi received his Master of Arts (Philosophy) from the National University of Singapore (2020) and is a prospective PhD candidate. He has been teaching Philosophy for 5 years to students between the ages of 15-18.