Slow week, huh?

Never mind; here's a couple of responses to what people have written...

Regarding Graham Quirk's post, 'All lies are not equal': ah, lying by omission. This wasn't addressed in detail during the lecture, but I think it's ultimately subject to the same qualifications regarding integrity as lying by direct misrepresentation. Where it differs is in how you go about gauging the relative significance of the information (the 'truth') you're not telling. You make the point that, at any given time, a whole lot of information which might be crucially important to you is simply boring and/or irrelevant¹ to anyone else; generally, though, I don't see that withholding that kind of stuff equates with actively fabricating a falsehood.

And to run with your example, yes: 99% of the time, when someone asks "how are you?" they're just going through the motions of social protocol. Hardly anyone actually gives a crap, or wants to know how you're feeling, when they say that-- it's just a verbal gesture, usually made (and responded to) without any conscious thought. Volunteering a perfectly candid response is far more likely to discomfort or offend people than just glossing over the grinding misery of your neurotic existence with the customary (and largely untrue) "fine thanks; yourself?"²

That said: lying by omission does need to be considered in terms of integrity when you know the information you're withholding is important (or at least potentially important). Particularly, I would say, in the context of pre-existing misconceptions: if you know someone's already being deceived (whether by you or someone else...), and/or simply has the wrong idea about something, and you could put them right, or set the record straight... but choose not to. That kind of situation, I think, definitely needs to be assessed in the same way as more 'straightforward' lying.

Briefly: A Rebel Yell goes even further in Oh, what a tangled web we weave, when first we practise to deceive!, and suggests that human relationships, social circles and even basic self-perceptions are built upon reciprocal frameworks of benevolent untruths. I'm not sure I can really agree with that: it seems to assume degrees of codependence and mutual validation-seeking with which I'm personally uncomfortable (and oh boy, will you ever hear about that when we get onto the issue of 'infidelity' later in the module). Speaking for myself, I have a very low tolerance threshold for meaningless platitudes and hollow politeness--³ and if I bother to ask someone a question, then yeah: I want an honest response according to their point of view, not whatever bullshit they might think I'd like to hear.

¹ This is obviously a murky area, because in terms of friendships or relationships, one's own evaluation of 'relevance' is likely to be highly subjective...
² And just as an aside, the ability to dissemble in this respect is not only taken for granted in social settings, but absolutely essential in the workplace. When your boss says "morning, how are you?", you need to be able to lie-- because you're unlikely to make much progress on your mortgage if you reply "I'd be a lot better if I could smash your fucking teeth out, you bloviating pillock."
³ Note: being polite is not the same thing as having good manners; all too often it's actually the opposite. I'm hoping to drivel on at length about that in another week, too...