The purpose of this paper is to compare to varying points of view. The first view is of the negative impacts that a noble lie can have upon society and the second is that lies are not always harmful to society. Along the way I will look at past and present events that show the impact of lies. Finally I will make my claim that lying, even a noble lie, will corrupt society and that truth is something a society can be built with and should not be used to undermine the peoples trust. Therefore I find Bills argument against the noble lie to be the most founded of arguments.
To compare and contrast Bill and Ted's arguments based on lying, truth, and Socrates ideal polis, we must first obtain a general understanding of the terms in use. We must not only look at the textual convictions implied into the meanings of these forms of ideals but at society's views in general upon the questions herein. So before the attempt is made to compare these two notions of thought, truth, lying, and the ideal polis will all be overviewed on a historical and I feel factual level.
Society has always had many different views upon what lying is, and whether such lies are good, bad, or both. To lie is to knowingly deceive an individual or group of individuals (such as society) into believing falsehoods. When asked the question: what sort of affect or lasting impressions have lies had not only in our present era but also in mythology, and ancient past, the results are often negative. Lies can be spread either to save face, or can be the result of a more pathological attempt to deceive. For example in modern times children are often lied to about the origins of our own society in school. We learn that Columbus discovered America (which in itself is only a half-truth), but we also are given the impression that the inhabitants of the land were treated with respect and dignity as "humans" should be treated.
