Is it immoral to lie on your CV?

[DaviesMa]

(I hope this is posted in the right place.)

 

This might seem like a no brainer but hear me out.

 

I previously had a highly specialised and well paying career which I don't want to go back to so I want to take some administration work which would be near minimum wage to keep me ticking over whilst I evaluate my options and wouid most likely do this for the next 6 months plus.

 

I have put in 15 applications for jobs that I could do in my sleep yet I have not had one interview yet. I have spoken to several people with experience who have told me that I stand no chance of getting a job due to my CV being too strong.

 

Is it moral to falsify my CV by making me appear less qualified in order to gain a position?

 

Although it would be a win-win as they would gain an excellent overqualified worker and I would gain employment, I would also be lying and not trusting them to make a rational decision.

 

(To preempt the question, there is nothing that pays well and I am qualified for in my area other than jobs in my old career, which I won't go back to)

[aviet]

This is a tough one. I think its a grey area, as you have painted the situation.

Last time I made something resembling a CV, I omitted information that would generally be found on a CV, and I made a deliberate decision to omit them, but not for the purpose of hiding them. They were omitted because I don't care about them; not because I wanted to manipulate perceptions about myself.

Don't you know anyone that could set you up with a labouring or a similar job. They are usually pretty easy to get hold of.

Also, if you want good money and easy, look into bricklaying. Due to a skills shortage you are looking at £150-200 / day. At least there will be someone around to pay off all the deferred student loans.

[shirgall]

Incredibly stupid because hiring managers do check on things. What we want to see: long swaths of employment, not necessarily the same role, but not jumping ship to another place; title, responsibilities, and accomplishments, with an emphasis of measurable accomplishments; obviously tailoring of a much larger resume to one page that's focused on the role being sought.

 

However, since there's plenty of debate on whether lying is immoral, it falls into the same category. I lean on another concept besides the NAP called "informed consent". Do not make deals that are intentionally misrepresented. It will come back to bite you.

[EclecticIdealist]

I previously had a highly specialised and well paying career which I don't want to go back to so I want to take some administration work which would be near minimum wage to keep me ticking over whilst I evaluate my options and would most likely do this for the next 6 months plus.

Look for temp or consultative work, not full-time advertisements for permanent positions. A good way to do this is through a professional recruiting/placement/staffing agency.

 

I have put in 15 applications for jobs that I could do in my sleep yet I have not had one interview yet. I have spoken to several people with experience who have told me that I stand no chance of getting a job due to my CV being too strong.

Hiring managers do not want to hire people who will only be with the company for a short period of time to fill a long-term/permanent position. Unless the job is inherently seasonal (tax preparation, fishing, construction, snow-removal, etc.), or has a high rate of turn-over (because the job is difficult, not well compensated, demeaning, etc) you will have a difficult time getting a job without misrepresenting your intentions.

 

Is it moral to falsify my CV by making me appear less qualified in order to gain a position?

This is an area of morality where what is claimed and asserted is different from what is practiced. The majority of society will claim that it is wrong, but the majority of society will also lie on their CV to obtain a position or job. If you are fully qualified to do the job, there is nothing irresponsible or malicious in understating your abilities. It would only be irresponsible or malicious to claim an ability you do not have and do not have the ability of acquiring by the time such ability is needed/required.

 

Although it would be a win-win as they would gain an excellent overqualified worker and I would gain employment, I would also be lying and not trusting them to make a rational decision.

Many employers will expend a considerable amount of time and resources to hire and train a person to perform in a particular position. In such cases, the employee may not even become profitable to the company for 3 or more months. If the employee leaves just as they become profitable to the company, they have not realized a benefit in their employee selection, they have simply broken even. Such may even be considered a loss given the time value of their investment. Training an employee who intends to remain in the position for a significant time after they start being a benefit to the company would be a better choice. If you were to beat out such an employee, it would not be a win-win for the company, it would be a lose-win for the company and you (respectively).

 

(To preempt the question, there is nothing that pays well and I am qualified for in my area other than jobs in my old career, which I won't go back to)

This may not be true. There may be a different way of looking at your qualifications than you have considered. A way in which your particular skill set my by utilized in a job outside of your old career if you were to examine such skills from a different, less biased perspective. It may be that you are uniquely qualified for a career that requires your current skill-set, but applied in a completely different Vertical.

[DaviesMa]

Thanks for the replies guys.

 

Eclectic Idealist - I agree that taking on a permanent job when I will only stay for a short while would most likely cost the company money; part of the problem I have is that I want jobs advertised as temporary so there is a limited selection.

 

avie64, I might have to speak to friends to get me a job although a dodgy knee might prevent me from doing too much manual labour.

 

 

Shirgall - I have considered that hiring managers would check into my background but for the roles that I would be very basic, they would not invest a great deal in background checks. Even if I were caught then I don't see too many deliterious consequences for myself other than a slap on the wrist as I am not looking for a permanent role. I would expect them to discover my lies before I were employed if at all so I don't think it would be detrimental to them.

 

 

I was more interested in your idea of informed consent and I agree, I was quite frustrated when I wrote this post but looking at it, there is no escaping that it is the same category as fraud and does break the NAP. Even if I were to say that they would benefit from it, I am not the one who should decide what their motivations should or should not be. 

 

As with all CVs I don't think it unreasonable to have a little room to exaggerate (or in my case, underplay) some details as employers will make allowances for this in their judgement. I think I will downplay my achievements in order to make my CV a bit more realistic for lower paid jobs but I won't lie.

 

-

Thanks again for all your responses guys, I appreciate the time you put in to help me out on this.

[Frosty]

It might come down to the type of lie, lies of omission such as leaving out skills you do have or leaving out other work placements I wouldn't personally consider immoral, it's an assumption by the employer that your CV covers everything, it's their responsibility to ensure you're appropriate for the position and not yours, that means they need to check the facts they care about.

 

Other types of lies such as presenting false information, for example altering the period you've worked for prior employees could be construed as fraud I guess (not fraud by any legal standard I'm aware of), which is broadly against the NAP, you are misleading someone else for your own benefit at their expense. It's plausible an employer might tie terms of contract to information you've provided being accurate which if later discovered would be seen as a breach of contract which and you'd have to suffer whatever agreed penalty that came with.

[KeepOnGoing]

I don't know how much of a help it will be, you can decide. I work as a production manager in factory. I hire people that don't need some advanced skills, they just have to be team players, work fast, be accurate etc. Some people can do this job some don't. That's just the way it is. Once in a while I get applications from people with higher education, impressive resumes, even people who wrote some books etc. Kind of crazy but if they want to work for in the factory I guess they have to have a reason why they choose that type of job. I know that they will not stay forever. I always make sure that they realize what kind of job it is, how much they can get paid and ask why do they want to work here. I ask them directly if they plan to work for a while. If it's days or weeks I wouldn't bother to hire them and train them. But if they say they want to work for few months and they work well, I keep them. When you hire someone you never know how long that person will work for you. Even people with lower qualifications quit their job once in a while. In my opinion it all depends where you plan to work. I like when people are honest with me and I respect that, I like to know what are my options so I can adjust accordingly. I would never hire someone who lied to me in recruiting process (if I would find out) it's definitely a red flag for me. If it immoral to lie on CV? Yes. Is it immoral to not mention some facts? I don't think so, at least if it doesn't hurt anyone. Is it immoral to lower your qualifications? It's a lie so I guess it's immoral. Maybe you can find work where you can be honest and you can tell what is your plan. Maybe you can mention it in cover letter. Getting a job is a both sides deal. You are also making an offer and it is just up to them if it will work for them and if it's worth the hassle since they know you will quit.

[thebeardslastcall]

Misrepresenting yourself is kind of like being a ruler. You're deciding you know better than the other person and trying to make the decision to hire you for them when they need to make it for themselves. Maybe they'll make a mistake, maybe they won't, but if you misrepresent yourself you're giving them a raw deal because you're denying them a fair assessment of the risks of hiring you. You may want to get a job, but free trade is about mutual benefit and that means you need to be actually better than the other people they could hire, which may mean being less likely to stay around because of being "over qualified" is a relevant factor, just as someone who's likely to get pregnant is a risk for an employer over a person who will be more present and a better fit for the needs of the employer. Do you really want to enter in a relationship where you are being dishonest and taking advantage of the other person? If we are to promote a free trade society we would do well to promote honest and responsible trade towards mutual benefit. If you think you are a good fit despite appearances, add in a cover letter and make the case and maybe they'll hire you and appreciate the honesty and feel the risk reduced with a better idea of what they're trading for by hiring you. Good luck.

[WorBlux]

My suggestion is include a cover letter and make a personal contact, before sending a CV.

[Fudo Manu]

Is it immoral to lie? No. Most are taught that it is because it is beneficial to those that do (lie). Always being honest is a dangerous position to put oneself in as it makes one vulnerable to manipulators. As all morality must be derived from sense data and observation of the nature of things, what evidence would support that lieing is immoral?

[EclecticIdealist]

Is it immoral to lie? No. Most are taught that it is because it is beneficial to those that do (lie). Always being honest is a dangerous position to put oneself in as it makes one vulnerable to manipulators. As all morality must be derived from sense data and observation of the nature of things, what evidence would support that lying is immoral?

All morality must be derived from sense data and observation of the nature of things? Perhaps you would be so kind to walk us through the process from sense data and observation of the nature of things to any finding of morality or immorality?

[Fudo Manu]

The basis of knowledge is through sense data and the formation of basic concepts. There is intuitive knowledge and inferred knowledge. Intuitive knowledge is information received through the senses, inferred knowledge is the vast majority of mans knowledge and is gained through inference of existing knowledge. At its base this would be inference of sense data. Logic is a system that deals with inferred truths (knowledge) and guides one in what knowledge is valid and what is not. Since all knowledge must begin with sense data, any knowledge of morality must also be able to trace back to sense data. 

 

When it comes to morality; anyone that expresses a right to a thing, say life, must be able to express where ones right to life comes from. One that does not know, can not hold it as a value.

 

My right to life comes from my nature as a living being, more specifically a heterotroph. That I must first and foremost in my existence seek to sustain my life means that my life must be my highest value. For without my life I can have no other values. To remove life from another human, is to express through action that human life is of no value, a contradiction. Most live in this contradiction because they don't value their lives but are too weak to end it, thus acting to continue a value they don't hold. One that expresses that human life is not a value is a threat to those that do.

 

Remember, a hypocrite is not someone that does differently from what they say, but says differently from what they do. It is the action that holds truth, words often are used to manipulate. 

[Zoey141]

Moral or not, I don't know. But what I do know is, it's stupid to lie because background verification can do you in. 

[ValueOfBrevity]

As long as you are honest about your intended duration at that workplace, I don't see why it is immoral to specify only relevant work information.

If you have a degree in biology, you don't necessarily put that on hotel maid application.

 

[EclecticIdealist]

The basis of knowledge is through sense data and the formation of basic concepts. ... Since all knowledge must begin with sense data, any knowledge of morality must also be able to trace back to sense data.

 

Not all knowledge begins with sense data. Self-knowledge, as well a knowledge from our own reasoning and sentiment originates in the mind. Morals have their origin in the ethical and aesthetic sentiments of individuals. Morality is the set of rules derived from the commonly held or shared ethical and aesthetic sentiments of the individual members of a society which are deemed obligatory upon all the members of society.

 

When it comes to morality; anyone that expresses a right to ... life, must be able to express where one's right to life comes from. ...  My right to life comes from my nature as a living being, ... For without my life I can have no other values. To remove life from another human, is to express through action that human life is of no value, a contradiction.

 

Before one can argue for rights, one needs to correctly identify what rights are. Rights are of two kinds--volitional authority, and contractual claim. They are not inherent in all living things. They are only inherent in all living things capable of or potentially capable of exercising volition and contracting for goods and services. In short, the first kind of rights imply and require the ability to express or demonstrate volition, and the second kind require the ability to utilize the volition to contract with others. The first kind of rights are negative rights in that it does not require any action upon the part of others; rather, it requires adherence to the NAP--to refrain from aggression against oneself (and others). The second kind of right is a positive right, in that it requires others to adhere to the terms of the contractual agreement, i.e. to perform their contractually obligated duties.

 

Remember, a hypocrite is not someone that does differently from what they say, but says differently from what they do. It is the action that holds truth, words often are used to manipulate.

 

This is a distinction without a difference.

[Fudo Manu]

 

Remember, a hypocrite is not someone that does differently from what they say, but says differently from what they do. It is the action that holds truth, words often are used to manipulate.

 

This is a distinction without a difference.

 

It is not. The first puts primacy in the the words, the second puts primacy in the action.

[Fudo Manu]

 

The basis of knowledge is through sense data and the formation of basic concepts. ... Since all knowledge must begin with sense data, any knowledge of morality must also be able to trace back to sense data.

 

Not all knowledge begins with sense data. Self-knowledge, as well a knowledge from our own reasoning and sentiment originates in the mind. Morals have their origin in the ethical and aesthetic sentiments of individuals. Morality is the set of rules derived from the commonly held or shared ethical and aesthetic sentiments of the individual members of a society which are deemed obligatory upon all the members of society.

The brain receives its stimulus through electrical impulses, These impulses can originate from within the body as well as from without. These impulses to the brain is what is meant by sense data. Man is not consciously aware of these impulses, but Mans defining characteristic, abstract reasoning, an automated and subconscious process, takes these impulses and abstracts characteristics and attributes from them and groups them. These grouping we call concepts. In order to store and recall these concepts. a symbol is applied. Words are one such symbol, and the must common. Reasoning is different from the quality of abstract reasoning, in so far as the latter is automated and non volitional, while the former is volitional. 

 

Reasoning means inference, and its utilization beyond the formation of basic concepts require cultivation. When you state that knowledge gained thru Reasoning originates in the mind, you are not incorrect. However I stated that all knowledge is founded in sense data, and to use your rational faculty there must be something to use it upon. Where would this initial knowledge come from? If not from the senses then where? If there is knowledge that is attained innately what is it and how would we know it is innate?

 

The last point I will make is that rights are not innate, and must be discovered. I agree that I have a duty to abide by the NAP with those that hold it as a value. A value being that which one seeks to gain and or maintain. Those that express disregard for the NAP are not protected by it. That I may rightfully act aggressively toward an aggressor is the foundation of self defense. I also have no argument against be obligated to honor a contract made volitionally and free of duress. To break such a contract is theft, which is no different then placing said individual in ex post facto servitude, a violation of the value of self ownership and in discordance with mans nature as a heterotroph. 

[DaVinci]

I'm late to the party but I'll throw in my two cents. 

 

Do what gets you a job. Because that person you didn't tell the entire truth to to get a job probably doesn't care if you can't afford to eat, or pay your electricity bill, etc. 

 

I'm not saying lie all the time, or once you get the job act in whatever manner you want, but we don't live in a world where people get jobs based on working hard. Most people who have good jobs know someone at the place where they now work, and their skills only justify the favoritism after the fact. It's a ridiculous system and you should treat it the way it treats you. 

[EclecticIdealist]

It is not. The first puts primacy in the the words, the second puts primacy in the action.

Hypocrisy has nothing to do with the primacy of actions over words; hypocrisy is the lack of correlation or fidelity between words and actions. It matters not one whit whether one places words before actions or or actions before words, the hypocrisy would be the same. It does not at all suggest the primacy of actions over words to condemn a person for engaging in vice while espousing virtue instead of espousing virtue and engaging in vice. It is simply a matter of linguistic aesthetics whether one chooses to precede virtue with vice or vice with virtue in the description of the hypocrisy.

 

The last point I will make is that rights are not innate, and must be discovered.

 

What exactly does this mean?  Since the "discovery" of immaterial concepts can only be asserted (they are not self-evident), how can the legitimacy of such an assertion be established? Suppose someone claims to have discovered the "Divine Right of Kings", how does one challenge such an assertion?  This assertion that rights are not innate and must be discovered requires more explanation to be regarded at all.

[Fudo Manu]

What exactly does this mean?  Since the "discovery" of immaterial concepts can only be asserted (they are not self-evident), how can the legitimacy of such an assertion be established? Suppose someone claims to have discovered the "Divine Right of Kings", how does one challenge such an assertion?  This assertion that rights are not innate and must be discovered requires more explanation to be regarded at all.

 

Most knowledge exists as "immaterial concepts", yet it is held has valid knowledge. Logic is the tool used to test the validity of inferred knowledge. All rights are asserted. There is no natural law compelling you not to do harm to me. Logically the Divine Rights of Kings falls apart, as it has. Reason is the faculty which one must employ to discover what rights one might posses. It could be said that they are innate in mans nature, but they must be reasoned from that nature to be claimed. To claim that the right to not be harmed is innate is no different then to claim the right of kings is divine. Both claims must be demonstrated to be true. How would one demonstrate that rights are innate if they have not discovered their origins?

 

As for hypocrisy, the point in stating that the action is the primary is to emphasize the importance of looking at the action, not the words. If one's goal is to find and eliminate falsehoods, looking at the action resolves the contradiction inherent in hypocrisy. 

[EclecticIdealist]

All rights are asserted. It could be said that they are innate in man's nature, but they must be reasoned from that nature to be claimed. Reason is the faculty which one must employ to discover what rights one might posses. To claim that the right to not be harmed is innate is no different then to claim the right of kings is divine. Both claims must be demonstrated to be true. 

 

You are absolutely correct that all rights are asserted, as are all other claims about immaterial ideas and concepts. And yet, such assertions are demonstrably either true or false depending upon the workings of society. RIghts are inherent to the individual participants of a free or voluntary society, indeed they are inalienable so long as the free or voluntary society exists. Universal, Individual Sovereignty or volitional authority, liberty, or rights are a necessary condition for such a society to exist, which is why I maintain that they are self-evident for the participants of a free society, every bit as much as the use or threat of force is necessary for an involuntary, tyrannical society. Absent such rights, society becomes one of either coercion and compulsion of the weak by the strong, or society dissolves under violence or the threat of violence altogether. Such truth is or ought to be self-evident to any who considers it just as it was considered to be self evident to Thomas Jefferson the founding fathers of the US. For a society to be free and voluntary, the members of society must have the authority to decide their actions for themselves. It's a tautological definition.

 

As for hypocrisy, the point in stating that the action is the primary is to emphasize the importance of looking at the action, not the words. If one's goal is to find and eliminate falsehoods, looking at the action resolves the contradiction inherent in hypocrisy.

 

If one's goal is to find and eliminate falsehoods, one would just as easily, if not more easily, resolve the contradiction between words and actions by correcting the words so that they are in alignment with the actions. Of course, it is generally not hypocrisy per se that one is concerned with, but rather the undesired behavior being exemplified by the individual who might otherwise suggest that one "do as I say, not as I do". A thief which advocates theft of at least does not condemn it is not a hypocrite. Only a thief who begrudges others stealing from himself or herself is a hypocrite. Yes, it is almost universally preferable that people not steal, but that is not really a question of hypocrisy but morality as pertaining to property.