# data[].attributes.body
Lying is a form of deception, or at the very least an attempt to mislead someone. Lies are told for a myriad of reasons, be they malicious or virtuous in nature. In order for their to be lies, there must be an acceptance of truth, and a violation of that by the liar. Because we will always try to justify our actions, or at least engage in self-preservation, there are 50 shades of lying (not really, but you get it). There are white lies, that embellish the truth or only speak in half truths. There are "blue" lies that are considered altruistic, and only told at the expense of the liar. These may be told in order to protect a group or individual from harm. The worst lies of all are the "black" lies that are considered antisocial, and intend harm.

# data[].attributes.body
Lying can become habitual for a number of reasons. One, is because we are never formally taught to lie, but come by it rather naturally. Once we get old enough to understand our selves in contrast to others, social situations, or even painful situations for others (i.e., empathy) we naturally understand that lying will either benefit us or others.

Depending on our growing/maturing environment, there can be consequences for lying despite our "best" intentions. This can deter or even augment our propensity to lie. However, when considering antisocial versus prosocial lies, the quintessential "liar" is the one who does it for personal gain and malice towards others. In this situation, each time this individual gets away with lying or even gets the inclination that they have fooled another, lying can become easier. Hence, habitual like a Pavlovian response.

# data[].attributes.body
From the assigned reading we learned that people can distinguish truth from lies about 54% of the time (https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-art-of-lying/). Barely better than guessing. This is significant given that we all lie an innumerable number of times each day. Of course there are clues that people look for - consistency, body language, whether or not they correct themselves, lack or abundance of mundane details. However, these are not terribly sensitive or specific.

Speech patterns that include vague references to others, minimal self references, use of negative languages, and simple explanations are other tell-tell signs that one can look for when attempting to decipher truth from deception (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H0-WkpmTPrM).

# data[].attributes.body
An ethical case I will share comes from my time in Kenya. I worked there for >6 years as a full-time global health worker. During that time I learned a lot about cross-cultural living, my cultural blind-spots, and was challenged on what is "right" in different contexts. Working in a resource limited setting was incredibly challenging for many reasons, not the least of which doing it through a different language(s). Many times, there was not a word in a particular tribal language/dialect for the particular concept we were trying in earnest to communicate. In those instances we did our best. Nonetheless, the question of "is there anything else you CAN do?" would often arise. The answer to this question opens the ethical box and the question of could verses should. Just as Dr. Malcom's character in Jurassic Park said - "you were so pre-occupied with whether or not you COULD, you didn't stop to ask yourselves whether you SHOULD". Often there was something else we COULD do. We could intubate them (if a ventilator was available). We could perform dialysis. We could attempt a surgical intervention. But, SHOULD we? Especially knowing that the outcome would invariably be the same (i.e., death). The additional procedure or intervention would come at a tremendous financial cost to the family, especially knowing that many lived hand to mouth. It would also come at a tremendous logistical cost to the hospital that had limited resources, and has to steward them wisely. So many times we would lie and say, "No. There is nothing else we can do." Was it lying? Yes. Was this behavior paternalistic and lopsided? Also, yes. But this was a consequentialist approach to a suboptimal situation.