The ethics of lying

@rookie54 said
oh no oh no oh no
trev, he will latch onto you like a parasite and drain you of yer life essence
oh no oh no oh no

fire is the only way out

Don't be silly rookie you're smarter than that. You've seen our disagreements, sometimes we just happen to agree on things. trev33 has been around longer than I have and could be a fierce debater when he wanted to get serious about something.
You will find I don't latch on to anything. I agree if I think someone is correct and disagree when I don't agree with them as does trev33. I don't think you even won many brownie points with that statement! 😛 😉

-VR

eight edits later
*jeopardy music plays*
eleven edits later

@rookie54 said
eight edits later
*jeopardy music plays*
eleven edits later

What ever you mean by that rookie! 🙂

-VR

@they said
"Truth as such is an instrumental good, not an intrinsic one."

Maybe (probably). But I think that is an idea worth considering.

What if truth was an intrinsic good? Science comes to mind, as well as philosophy and sociology. What if it was intrinsically good for everyone to always tell the truth?

Would the world be a different place? A better one?

An easier way to ...[text shortened]... ow would that change day to day living? Would it possibly be an improvement from what we have today?

Not everyone is ready to hear truth (even assuming there is one and that someone knows it and is in a position to tell it -- which is not always the case).

It is easy to imagine cases, or cite real-life ones, in which telling someone the truth is undesirable. Viktor Frankel wrote a book, "Man's Search for Meaning." In it, he recounts his experiences in a Nazi concentration camp. A trained psychiatrist, he was a keen observer of humans under the most testing conditions imaginable. He noted that the people who survived the death camps were not those of robust physical constitution; given the exhausting forced labor and totally inadequate caloric intake, even the most robust physiques were reduced to walking skeletons within a matter of weeks. The ones who survived were those who believed that someone who loved them was waiting for them outside. In other words, hope of reunion with a loved one was what kept them alive.

Now, suppose you were newly arrived in Auschwitz and you met someone who had been there a while ahead of you. Suppose you came to know that the only thing keeping that man alive was the hope of seeing his daughter again (alive, of course); everyone else he cared about had already been captured and gassed. Suppose you happened to know that her hiding place had been betrayed, that she was already dead. Would you tell him ?

Further cases where telling someone a truth he is not ready to understand or cope with is highly undesirable: telling a four-yr-old her big sister got raped and murdered is such a case. Or telling grandmother, who has a weak heart and might die of the shock if she knew, that her recently deceased husband had squandered the family fortune and that she, granny, was now penniless. Better to muddle through with little white lies and wait until little sister is old enough to cope with the truth; better to keep granny warm and comfortable and feeling safe while the rest of family scrambles to find suitable lodgings for her.

In these cases, the intrinsic good is human flourishing, and truth sometimes hinders this.

@suzianne said
He explained it well.

If you cannot comprehend what was said, that is a matter for you.

If Retlentless Red wants to dwell upon things like how to process the "dishonesty" of after dinner speakers, so be it. But to do so in reply to the point I made about people lying about themselves because of online disinhibition syndrome makes the claim that "he explained it well" moot.

@moonbus

This is why I take the time to post and follow along. Thank you.

@they
Ta. It's called critical thinking, a commodity not always in wide circulation. Consider the situation in America right now: there are millions of people who still do not accept that Trump lost the election. Simply telling them the truth (Trump lost) does not get through to them. They cannot think critically because their minds have been poisoned by a viciously distorted narrative. You show them evidence, they cry "fake news"; you cite all the court cases, they cry "bias"; 50 state election commissions and the Senate confirmed the election result, they cry "partisan politics". These people are not ready to hear truth; they must first be brought to a frame of mind where they can think critically and weigh evidence, before they can hear truth, and this is enormously difficult work.

@fmf said
If Retlentless Red wants to dwell upon things like how to process the "dishonesty" of after dinner speakers, so be it. But to do so in reply to the point I made about people lying about themselves because of online disinhibition syndrome makes the claim that "he explained it well" moot.

The point I was making, that your comprehension of what was said is insufficient, still stands. Whether this is an example of online disinhibition syndrome or not, I don't know, and I don't care.

@suzianne said
The point I was making, that your comprehension of what was said is insufficient, still stands. Whether this is an example of online disinhibition syndrome or not, I don't know, and I don't care.

FMF doesn't need to twist things to create strawmen. His limited comprehension of what is being said will do that for him. He will now do battle against what he declares to be my true meaning ad infinitum. Best left to it imo.

@relentless-red said
FMF doesn't need to twist things to create strawmen. His limited comprehension of what is being said will do that for him. He will now do battle against what he declares to be my true meaning ad infinitum. Best left to it imo.

What does a small group of you use the person's limited comprehension of what is being said as an argument. Instead of giving a proper argument of your own? Makes you sound very limited in your own comprehension because you have to attack others in that manner!

If you want a good example of a good argument, refer to some of moonbus's postings.

-VR

@suzianne said
The point I was making, that your comprehension of what was said is insufficient, still stands.

Hell Suzie Q, you use that silly point with everyone who disagrees with you!

-VR

@very-rusty said
What does a small group of you use the person's limited comprehension of what is being said as an argument. Instead of giving a proper argument of your own? Makes you sound very limited in your own comprehension because you have to attack others in that manner!

If you want a good example of a good argument, refer to some of moonbus's postings.

-VR

So far as I can see Moonbus does not respond to FMF. I would have to concede that is in line with his excellent posting style.

@relentless-red said
So far as I can see Moonbus does not respond to FMF.

Perhaps you might be smart to follow his example?

-VR

@moonbus said
@they
Ta. It's called critical thinking, a commodity not always in wide circulation. Consider the situation in America right now: there are millions of people who still do not accept that Trump lost the election. Simply telling them the truth (Trump lost) does not get through to them. They cannot think critically because their minds have been poisoned by a viciously distorte ...[text shortened]... nk critically and weigh evidence, before they can hear truth, and this is enormously difficult work.

Agree with most of that - however I believe some people are not able to think critically. It is not a matter of training or better schooling - some people simply cannot follow the argument A to B to C.

Part of it is intelligence - nature, and part of it is environment - nurture. If you are drowning, you hold on to the life raft and can't consider why it is buoyant.

If you are emotionally ill equip to handle the world in 2021, you don't make cogent arguments online or at the dinner table.

People have been around what 200,000 years? Civilization 5,000 years maybe? Electricity and running water 120 years? Modern life is pretty new, and we can't expect everyone to keep up yet.

I started the thread because I wanted to look at truth philosophically - together - the inherent good or lack there of. I try to live my ever shortening remaining days with a philosophy. This is who I am. And I wonder where truth fits into that personal philosophy. It's muddled to be sure and for many of the reasons you point out.

I want to be honest. I wonder if that is really much a of worthwhile goal.

Thank you everyone for the input - this is very enjoyable.

@very-rusty said

If you want a good example of a good argument, refer to some of moonbus's postings.

-VR

And for the exact opposite, one of yours.