Santa claus and logic

There are usually two parties who disagree about the morality of lies. Some consider them as universally wrong from a moral standpoint; others believe the ramifications of an individual lie should be taken into account and the morality should be determined by case. I align myself with the latter party, the reasons for which I may explain another day. Now, if you follow me that a lie's moral value depends on the effects of said lie, I can demonstrate how the classic lie to children of Santa's existence is a good practice.

Why do I think this? For most children, dismissing the existence of Santa constitutes their first forray into the world of logic. They put together the pieces; maybe they realize that a single person is physically incapable of visiting each home and leaving presents for every child in a single night, or maybe something else. Once they figure that out, they begin to chip away at the rest of the theory until they come to the conclusion: Santa does not, in fact, exist. You might be able to put together a well-constructed argument from the process.

1. A significant proponent of Santa's existence is false due to its impossibility.

2. If a significant proponent of Santa's existence is false, the entire theory deserves investigation.

3. Upon investigation, all falsifiable aspects of the Santa theory are logically impossible.

4. If all falsifiable aspects of a theory are debunked, the theory cannot be accepted and believed.

So, 5. Santa, in the understanding presented to the child, does not exist.

The child won't verbalize the argument as such, but this is the mental process that goes through his or her head. It's probably the first evidence of the development of independent logic. As the Santa lie encourages a child to develop his or her sense of logic, I see such a lie as a positive step.