Lying

[Nalaar]

There's plenty wrong in consequentialism, and especially with older philosophers, but the root ideology seems sound and I find it's modern proponents make much more sense than their Deontological counterparts.



Lying seems like a slam dunk to me, everyone (Or atleast the vast majority) agrees that lying is wrong, but tell them then they should never (except in circumstances of war etc) lie and they get uncomfortable and want to find justification for lying.

[Borg Refinery]

No it is still violence.

Violence with good intent is better than violence with bad intent.







I am non-religious.

I think the work of Jeremy Bentham and John Stewart Mill have convinced me of moral consequentialism. As for more recent example inspirations I think Sam Harris and Paul Bloom argue consequentialism case well.

Interesting re 1st bit, I can agree with that.



Re 2nd; not familiar with those except Mill, will look em' up.



Not a fan of Mill at all, I've got to say. He was incredibly hypocritical.



"Despotism is a legitimate mode of government in dealing with barbarians, provided the end be their improvement."



After harping on about liberty and freedom. He decides Orientals and the 'Oriental state' is barbarian by its nature.



I guess that can be seperated from his other philosophical work re moral consequentialism; as the above doesn't mean he's wrong wrt other works of his, but it seemed prudent to point out where he's coming from.

[Nalaar]

So who decides what is moral? Just the consequences?

Ultimately humans decide what is moral, which is the way things are.



Harris puts forward a very compelling case that science can offer moral answers (as discussed in another thread), though I think that is a minority opinion.

[T00ts]

No it is still violence.

Violence with good intent is better than violence with bad intent.







I am non-religious.

I think the work of Jeremy Bentham and John Stewart Mill have convinced me of moral consequentialism. As for more recent example inspirations I think Sam Harris and Paul Bloom argue consequentialism case well.

So who decides what is moral? Just the consequences?

[Nalaar]

Fair enough.



If the intent (in the 1st bit) is in your opinion noble then is it not violence?

No it is still violence.

Violence with good intent is better than violence with bad intent.

By the way, what are your philosophical inspirations here beyond OP? I note the quote in your signature and just wondered - are you religious, humanist? You don't have to say if you don't want to, no problems.

I am non-religious.

I think the work of Jeremy Bentham and John Stewart Mill have convinced me of moral consequentialism. As for more recent example inspirations I think Sam Harris and Paul Bloom argue consequentialism case well.

[Borg Refinery]

I think in these instances we have to look at the intent aswell.







People lie all the time, to that extent they think it is fine to do so.

Fair enough.



If the intent (in the 1st bit) is in your opinion noble then is it not violence?



By the way, what are your philosophical inspirations here beyond OP? I note the quote in your signature and just wondered - are you religious, humanist? You don't have to say if you don't want to, no problems.

[Nalaar]

No, there are lies (or misleading) by omission, lawyers use that all the time.



You tell the truth in measured doses, or only certain truthes without giving a 'complete picture', as would likely be the case with someone who's suicidal.



I don't know why you think this is not the case. We see politicians doing that all the time.

I think in these instances we have to look at the intent aswell.

Who's pushing the line that lies are 'fine and without cost'?



I'm not here to excuse failings in society or play devil's advocate or anything similar, certainly not to argue.

People lie all the time, to that extent they think it is fine to do so.

[Borg Refinery]

When you tell someone the truth they may think you are misleading them, there is little you can do about that. What you can do however is not mislead them by lying to them.

No, there are lies (or misleading) by omission, lawyers use that all the time.



You tell the truth in measured doses, or only certain truthes without giving a 'complete picture', as would likely be the case with someone who's suicidal.



I don't know why you think this is not the case. We see politicians doing that all the time.

My position is not black and white, merely that lying is essentially an act of violence, but we have convinced ourselves that many of the lies we tell are fine, and without cost, when they come at huge cost to us and others.

Who's pushing the line that lies are 'fine and without cost'?



I'm not here to excuse failings in society or play devil's advocate or anything similar, certainly not to argue.

[Nalaar]

In a way, is that not being selective with the truth though?



One can argue that's misleading at the very least.

When you tell someone the truth they may think you are misleading them, there is little you can do about that. What you can do however is not mislead them by lying to them.

I'm not suggesting lying is good by the way.



Just that black and white stuff usually falls down when stress tested, is all.

My position is not black and white, merely that lying is essentially an act of violence, but we have convinced ourselves that many of the lies we tell are fine, and without cost, when they come at huge cost to us and others.

[Borg Refinery]

I'm not suggesting lying is good by the way.



Just that black and white stuff usually falls down when stress tested, is all.

[Borg Refinery]

I would tell them truths that I would assume would get them off the ledge, if there were any truths to tell.

In a way, is that not being selective with the truth though?



One can argue that's misleading at the very least.

I might be wrong in my assumptions, but so might a lair.

^ True.

[Nalaar]

::

Assume YOU thought it might tip them over the edge.



Would you still do it?

I would tell them truths that I would assume would get them off the ledge, if there were any truths to tell.



I might be wrong in my assumptions, but so might a lair.

[Borg Refinery]

Yes, situations that I love hostages, and war etc. Not everyday life.

 ::



Ok but you do post some dark suppositions yourself.

The word "knew" is doing an incredible amount of lifting in this supposition. Knowing someone's else's mind (most especially someone who is suicidal) seems beyond our abilities.

Assume YOU thought it might tip them over the edge.



Would you still do it?

[Nalaar]

Fair enough - so you concede if it's the least worse course of action in a given situatiin then it is excused... great

Yes, situations that I love hostages, and war etc. Not everyday life.

Okay but if you knew telling them the truth would make em say..jump? Would you still do it?

The word "knew" is doing an incredible amount of lifting in this supposition. Knowing someone's else's mind (most especially someone who is suicidal) seems beyond our abilities.

[Borg Refinery]

In a hostage situation social interaction has broken down to the point of violence, at which point lying is the least violent weapon in the box available.

Fair enough - so you concede if it's the least worse course of action in a given situatiin then it is excused... great

I don't think lying to suicidal people is a good idea.

Okay but if you knew telling them the truth would make em say..jump? Would you still do it?