He adopted a broad definition of lying and defined it as a statement made to deceive. Bok seems to distance himself from the views of both Kant and Aristotle in relation to the question of lying. He disagrees with Kant that lying is always wrong and states that there are situations in which lying is necessary, especially where it can save a life. Likewise, he totally disagrees with Aristotle that an individual should balance between benefits and harms to decide whether lying is morally justifiable (Book 54). It does not agree with the Aristotelian approach because it ignores the damage done to the liar by trying to cover up, such as the loss of credibility if the truth is realized, the use of a lot of energy in trying to cover up, the damage of general trust in the communication in society and increases the propensity to lie in the future. Furthermore, Bok also points out that the liar is also likely to be biased, in the sense that he will likely underestimate the risks of being caught and at the same time overestimate the consequential benefit of lying (Bok 63). The liar is also likely to ignore lies that become institutional and isolated ones