She took a broad definition of lying and defined it as the statement made with the intention of deceiving. Bok seems to distance himself from the views of Kant and Aristotle regarding questions of lying. She disagrees with Kant that lying is always wrong and asserts that there are situations where lying is necessary, especially when it can save a life. To the same extent, she completely disagrees with Aristotle that an individual should weigh the pros and cons to decide whether lying is morally justifiable (Bok 54). He disagrees with Aristotle's approach because it ignores the damage done to the liar by trying to conceal, such as the loss of credibility if the truth is realized, the consumption of much energy in attempting to conceal , the overall loss of trust in communication in society and this 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 is likely to underestimate the risks of being discovered and at the same time overestimate the benefits that accrue from lying (Bok 63 ). The liar is equally likely to ignore lies that become institutional and those that are isolated.