You must admit that at some point in your life, you have told a little white lie.
Maybe you exaggerated your Spanish language proficiency on a resume, or lied about liking a friend’s shirt so they wouldn’t feel bad. At the end of the day, most of us tell white lies to make life a little easier, or other times we do it because we believe it benefits the common good.
Just don’t tell Claremont McKenna College Professor of Philosophy Paul Hurley — he might respond that those seemingly harmless white lies can actually have seriously detrimental effects. On Wednesday, Feb. 4, in the Marian Miner Cook Athenaeum, Hurley delivered a talk titled “Are you Living in a Funhouse Mirror?” where he discussed the ethics of outcome-based thinking.
Hurley warned the audience that people can be so focused on their desired outcomes that they resort to manipulation, even without realizing it. Instead of working with others, moral reasoning can turn into calculation — figuring out how to get people to act in ways that produce one person’s preferred result. Even when intentions are good, Hurley continued, individuals risk treating others as a means to an end rather than as independent decision-makers.
In a campus culture that prides itself on student leadership, chock-full resumes and a general desire for perfection, Hurley’s warning struck particularly close to home.
This idea resonated with first-year Molly Daley CM ’29, who said she left the talk thinking she should ask herself, “What’s the best thing I can do, not is this the best thing for me?”
“Telling white lies feels harmless at the moment, but really, by telling them, I am trying to control people’s perceptions for my own agenda,” Daley said.
Hurley contrasted outcome-centered thinking with reason-based frameworks, which he explained emphasize why actions matter rather than what they achieve. He told the audience that actions such as voting or obeying the law are morally significant because they show respect for fairness, legitimacy and shared civic responsibility, not because they guarantee a particular result.
From an outcome-based perspective, Hurley argued, these same actions can seem irrational or unnecessary. When results are the only concern, one’s perception of the scenario overrides personal autonomy.
“Agents with whom I’m collaborating are reduced to objects I’m trying to manipulate in order to bring about the best outcome,” Hurley said in an interview with TSL. “This approach is inherently manipulative and discounts people’s ability to make their own choices about their own lives.”
To demonstrate this danger, Hurley pointed to fictional figures like Thanos, who believed that achieving the right outcome justified overriding individual autonomy on a massive scale. Hurley described this mindset as the temptation to play God.
“When you make judgments about and attempt to control others, you’re setting yourself up as a superior guide to their lives, and in doing so, infantilizing and manipulating,” Hurley said.
Amy Mo CM ’29, a public policy and economics major, found Hurley’s urge to release control of others especially relevant in her own life.
“This talk has really given me things to think about, especially the pursuit of learning to be uncomfortable in the uncertainty of different parts of my life,” Mo said.
One distinction Hurley made during the talk was the difference between harming and wronging people. Harming focuses on outcomes, while wronging considers whether a person’s autonomy was ignored.
Actions can still be immoral even if they bear no harm or consequence.
Hurley also discussed how this type of reasoning appears in political leadership, where outcome-driven thinking can excuse dishonesty if it produces desired results. In one instance, Vice President JD Vance conceded: “If I have to create stories so that the American media actually pays attention to the suffering of the American people, then that’s what I’m going to do.”
Hurley argued that this mindset degrades democracy by undermining respect for participants and treating individuals as obstacles rather than collaborative and independent thinkers.
Hurley acknowledges it is often difficult to separate the reason from the outcome. Still, Hurley’s critique of outcome-driven political reasoning led many to question whether the ends can ever justify calculated political distortion.
More broadly, students felt moved to consider the motivation behind actions over what they ultimately produce. When we value one another intrinsically, we reduce the risk of manipulating those close to us.
Many left with a newfound perspective on telling little white lies— no matter how trivial or inconsequential they may seem.