I recently watched a scholar who broadened my perspective on the sin of lying. In the video, he say, “let me take a sip of water, my lips are dry,” and brought the water to his mouth. After taking two sips he continued with these words:  

“I said let me take one sip, but I took two, I wonder if that becomes a lie too. It is a sensitive issue because everything that comes out of the mouth is being recorded. We say ‘a sip’ as a figure of speech to imply that we will not drink much; but why speak in figures of speech when you can speak truth with clarity? Perhaps the correct form should have been to say ‘let me take one or two sips.’ That indicates a few sips.”¹  

This sensitivity over a sip of water should in fact be a subject of deep thought for all of us. If such sensitivity is needed for such a small action, how more careful should we be for more major things in our lives?

Starting from this matter of a sip of water, I reviewed our daily life and unfortunately realized how common these seemingly insignificant lies are in the virtual world. This virtual world is very colorful, attractive, and just as entertaining. It brings many things to our feet, lets us shop with one click, gives us access to far more than what people once learned through months of travel with a single touch in the blink of an eye, allows us to see and speak with our loved ones far away as if they were right beside us, and lets us complete our work from our homes. A long list of benefits stands before us. But together with this potential for good, who knows how many times each day we also use it for harm. Sadly, the virtual world has become a world of lies. It seems to have melted away our moral values and all the beauty we possess. If you want examples, the examples are so many that even mentioning a few here may make us all hold up the mirror to ourselves, do some reflection, and act more carefully from now on.

It is very clear that this is not only an individual problem but also a reflection of a global collapse of mindset. The following words of Noam Chomsky shed light on this very situation: “I don’t know what word in the English language – I can’t find one – that applies to people who are willing to sacrifice the literal existence of organized human life, not in the distant future, so they can put a few more dollars into highly overstuffed pockets. The word ‘evil’ doesn’t begin to approach it.”²

This statement expresses in a deep way the selfishness and indifference behind the recklessness of the digital world.

After all this, let us look together at some mistakes that many people make knowingly or unknowingly and search for solutions.

Deceptions in the virtual world

User agreements

When buying anything or installing an application or program, the user agreements that appear before us include many risks and lies for both those who provide them to us and those who say I have read and approve. These texts, consciously written in pages of tiny font, contain so many misleading pieces of information that we would not like, harming our privacy, full of verbiage and slippery expressions and word tricks, that it is impossible for many people to read them, understand them, or willingly accept them. Unfortunately, the number of users who actually read these texts is almost non-existent, but the number of those who approve them is very high, and perhaps none of us refrains from approving. In this situation, we may try to justify ourselves by saying “but I need to use this, I do not want to pay money, I have no choice but to accept”; this does not change the fact that we slip into lying by accepting texts with an “I have read” statement without reading them, nor does it change the fact that we are too lazy to learn our rights as users and too unwilling to demand that companies stop wrongful practices when necessary.

Likewise, the behavior of producers who, out of greed, violate the rights of users, manipulate default settings to their own advantage and to the detriment of consumers, and exploit people’s weaknesses and legal loopholes is also among the unacceptable actions.

Fake identities and digital courage

In the virtual realm, hiding behind fake identities to present oneself differently in order to seek a job or spouse, to pick fights and provoke people, to spit hatred toward individuals or groups of different beliefs, cultures, or statuses, and to shout from behind a screen like a warrior, things one cannot do or say face to face are among the most common painful scenes. There may be some objections on this matter. For example, those living under oppressive regimes or those who fear discrimination may be excused to some extent and may be exceptions, but even there, caution is needed and one must not depart from truth and justice.

Digital lies in work and livelihood

Another problematic area is the lies used due to livelihood needs, job searches, or sometimes out of greed. Using fake experience or information is the most striking example of this. Entering jobs that we do not deserve through different names, photos, experience claims, and the like is unfortunately an open wound and the first step toward unethical earnings, which is a very dangerous path. Using artificial intelligence in interviews or exams to cheat, having someone else take an exam in one’s place, or obtaining answers illegally are behaviors that are both morally and legally wrong and unfortunately increasingly widespread.

We also sadly witness situations where remote work possibilities are exploited. People working in developed countries for higher salaries hire individuals from countries with fewer opportunities and much lower wages to work in their place and pocket the difference without doing any work themselves, gaining unjust profit. In addition, in hourly paid work, failing to do one’s tasks and instead engaging in personal chores, or using provided resources for personal matters, are also mistakes seen at a significant rate.

As a general principle, both the employee and the employer must adhere to the initial agreement and respect each other’s rights. The employer must not prevent the employee from fulfilling obligatory religious duties, and if he does, one should not work in that job. However, the employee must also be very careful and must not forget that even optional worship cannot be performed at work without the employer’s permission. On the other hand, employers taking overly restrictive measures, such as constantly monitoring and recording the employee and violating privacy, or making them work longer hours than agreed, are also wrong.

Comment manipulations, bots, and fake crowds

Fake reviews written for products, thousands of automated likes, and praise or criticism campaigns carried out with fake accounts mislead social media users. Some companies employ people to write good reviews, delete negative ones, or give the product for free in exchange for fabricated praise. The presence of tens of thousands of comments on some products often reflects not genuine user interest but systematic manipulation.

Rage bait and the exploitation of human emotions

Rage bait, chosen as Oxford’s word of the year for 2025, shows how widespread the trend of gathering engagement through anger has become. These contents provoke people through extreme expressions, and as the argument grows, the content becomes more visible. Thus, the most sensitive points of society are turned into tools of conflict, hatred, and hostility, becoming mere engagement material.

Clickbait, deliberate mistakes, and price tricks

Clickbait titles mislead users with irrelevant content. Some accounts deliberately make spelling and punctuation mistakes to cause people to comment corrections. Hiding the price of a product and saying message for price is another common tactic used to increase engagement. Showing a large carpet in a photo but listing the price for the smallest doormat model, then showing the real numbers after someone clicks, is among the new forms of deception in digital spaces.

Troll networks and state supported digital manipulations

Troll networks working with thousands of fake accounts to spread certain ideas, silence opponents, and shape public perception are among the most dangerous elements of social media today. The fact that some of them are supported by powerful companies or authoritarian states exposes the global dimension of the issue. Societies are manipulated in this way, and grounds are laid for wars, conflicts, and isolation.

The vicious cycle fed by algorithms

It is also clearly seen that technology companies directly feed this unethical situation. Because these companies use algorithms that promote content by click value and push forward high engagement posts automatically. These algorithms rank content only by superficial metrics such as clicks, comments, and shares, without looking at what is true, false, harmful, or beneficial. As a result, content based on truth, calmness, and constructive dialogue becomes invisible, while provocative, conflict raising, anger inducing, or deceptive material is constantly pushed forward.

This system rewards wrongdoers, increases their visibility, and gives them material profit. Those who behave correctly remain in the background and become less visible. Consequently, people receive a subconscious message saying, “I earn more by doing wrong” and increase their unethical behaviors. Companies also feel no need to change the system because they profit from this increase through advertising revenue. In the end, the user, the producer, and the technology company become parts of a cycle that feeds one another.

As long as this cycle is not broken, social media will continue to be a mechanism that suppresses truth, magnifies lies, and accelerates moral collapse.

What can be done?

It is not enough to mention problems only. Both individual and social steps are needed to keep the digital world on a moral foundation. In summary:

Reporting harmful content: Provocative, hateful, manipulative, or deceptive content must be reported when encountered. As report numbers rise, the algorithm will push such content back.

Not giving engagement through comments or shares: Liking, commenting, or sharing makes a post more visible. Not engaging with wrong content is the most effective response.

Establishing a culture of blocking: Blocking accounts that cross moral boundaries protects personal peace and prevents their behavior from being rewarded.

Creating public pressure on technology companies: Societies must demand more transparent algorithms, clearer user policies, and privacy protecting settings. Feedback is effective. Symbols similar to those used in films may be used to warn users about the reliability of content or its elements, and problematic users may be banned from systems.

Encouraging legal regulations: Demands must be delivered to lawmakers and decision makers. Clearer laws and regulations should be introduced in digital ethics, data security, and combating manipulation.

Digital awareness and ethics education: Children, youth, and adults must be taught digital literacy, source checking, truth distinction, information verification, and digital ethics. This strengthens the social fabric.

The role of opinion leaders: Religious scholars, academics, artists, scientists, and public figures must raise awareness on this issue. Social change continues only with the contribution of broad groups.

Conclusion

The world is changing very rapidly. As a result, new problems emerge in societies, and there is an urgent need for appropriate solutions. For these solutions, it is essential for experts from fields such as law, theology, sociology, psychology, technology, etc. to come together quickly and produce practical and applicable solutions suited to the conditions of this era and the issues deeply affecting society. Otherwise, problems will become gangrenous and major wrongs will be normalized. Instead of artificial rating boosting fruitless debates that distract society, it is unavoidable for our valuable scholarly community to focus on these issues.

What falls upon us is not to depart from truth. Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him, said “Always seek truth. Even if you see your destruction in truth, your salvation lies in it.” This is why the message he brought always upholds the truth, be it in the context of the employee and the employer relations, or whether it is a real or virtual world context.

Honesty, defined as honor gained by action or conduct, is an inevitable part of our private and public life. But its implications for public life in a democracy are far more important. We can do a better job of passing on a sense of the value of honesty, integrity, and personal responsibility to the next generation in a democratic society. Teddy Roosevelt, while governor of New York, said: Honesty is not so much a credit as an absolute prerequisite to efficient service to the public. Unless a man is honest we have no right to keep him in public life. No man who is corrupt, no man who condones corruption in others, can possibly do his duty by the community.(1)

It is not an easy task to resolve the problem of honesty in democratic governance. To the extent that knowledge gives power, to that extent do lies affect the distribution of power; they add to that of the liar, and diminish that of the deceived, altering his choices at different levels.(2) Bok, a writer and philosopher currently serving as a distinguished fellow at the Harvard Center for Population and Development Studies, explains the importance of honesty in public life by emphasizing how lying harms social trust:

The importance of honesty in public life is as follows. Lying and deception clearly do not affect only isolated individuals. As lies spread “ by imitation, or in retaliation, or forestall suspected deception “ social trust is damaged. Yet trust is a social good to be protected just as much as the air we breathe or the water we drink. Social goods are non-excludable, individuals cannot be prevented from sharing them, and they are available for the public to enjoy. Examples include the lighthouse, peace and security, and law and order. When social trust is damaged, the community as a whole suffers; and when it is destroyed, societies falter and collapse.(3)

In the public sphere, lying or the suspicion of lying has an added consequence: the proliferation of bureaucracy and regulation.

Gutmann and Thompson see deception, the action of deceiving or cheating, as closely related to secrecy and confidentiality. They consider the following factors in which citizens can permit public officials to engage in deception: the importance of the deception’s goal; the availability of alternative goal-achieving means; who will be deceived (other officials, other governments, all citizens); accountability (the possibility of approving deception in advance or discovering it later); and containing the deception (its effects on other actions by officials).(4)

Requirements of honesty

The principle of honesty, when applied to public policy and administration, has several requirements. The first one is the obligation to avoid lying. The Iran-Contra affair and other cases raised the perennial question of whether official lies should be permitted for the public good. When John M. Poindexter, President Reagan’s national security advisor, was accused by Congress of an unapologetic embrace of truth, he replied that he had acted in what he thought were the country’s long-term interests. Even those who disagree with Poindexter’s judgment acknowledge that certain situations warrant deception. But was this particular situation exceptional enough to warrant it?

The second requirement is being truthful when presenting information to superiors and the public. For example, a public official cannot make exaggerated claims (or vice versa) about what a proposed program will do in order to generate enthusiasm for it.

The third requirement is respecting other people’s ability to gather and present accurate information relevant to public policy. In other words, honesty requires that an official does not try to prevent or suppress studies that challenge his or her view. Deception involves intentionally (or negligently) causing someone to believe something that the deceiver knows (or should know) to be false. Political deception is not always easy to recognize, because it seldom comes in the form of an outright lie.(5)

The fourth requirement is to keep the public well-informed. This cannot be overemphasized, for an informed public is an essential ingredient of democracy. Yet in practice, some officials (e.g., the president, mayor, policy makers, or military people) have found an easy justification for both secrecy and deception. They believe that ordinary citizens, even sometimes other government officials, cannot understand such complex problems as military operations, international security and national defense issues, and other such matters. The people’s apparent inability to do so gives public officials a kind of right to deception. Since average citizens cannot possibly know the whole truth about specialized subjects, lying to them is permissible “ provided that there are some good reasons. Sometimes, government officials use the same ethic when they decide not to inform citizens of government involvement in various complex issues.

Conclusion

In a democratic society, these reasons cannot be used to justify giving anybody permission to deceive whenever they consider it necessary. The social good and public interest should not be used as excuses for deception; rather, they must be a reason for honesty. The ethical education of public officials, public awareness, open and transparent public administration, clear rules, policies, and regulations might ease the job of public officials in terms of ethical dilemmas. Such practices also might help them by providing consistency in decision-making, understanding the values reflected by that decision, and reaching more reflective judgments. Findings reported in several analytical studies indicate that ethics education is making a difference. We cannot afford, intentionally or unintentionally, to be a partner in producing a new generation of leaders who are ethically illiterate and morally misguided.

Footnotes

1. Theodore Roosevelt, The Eighth and Ninth Commandments in Politics, Outlook (12 May 1900). Online at: www.bartleby.com/58/7.html
2. Sissela Bok, Lying: Moral Choice in Public and Private Life (New York: Pantheon, 1978), 20.
3. Ibid.
4. A. Gutmann and D. F. Thompson, Ethics and Politics: Cases and Comments (Chicago: Nelson-Hall Publishers, 1998), 48.
5. Ibid.