TheRobin Posted January 15, 2013 Posted January 15, 2013 I'm getting slowly irritated here, you seem to miscunstruct what I say or respons to things I didn't even claim. (and since I can't interrupt you right at the start and am now left with a wall of text based on that, it gets a little annoying to communicate, at least for me). I'm not saying you do that on puropse, but that's what it looks and feels like from my end.Maybe it would be a bit more productive if you found out first, why you have strong emotions in regards to the idea that lying is immoral. My first guess would to look at the following: IF lying actually is NOT immoral, then saying it is, was a lie itself and immoral according to that (false) standard. And what concequences would follow from that.But that's just a vague guess nothing more of course.Anyway, I quite enjoyed the convo up to this point and it got me thinkin about these things and morality and how they logically relate to each other, so thanks for that. But my gut feeling is that communcation is breaking off and I don't see this going a lot further at the moment.Or how do you perceive that?
Kawlinz Posted January 15, 2013 Posted January 15, 2013 Aruis has changed my mind on this. I don't think lying can be UPB, and this is just a thought I had to prove it, I might be wrong, but I'll give it a whirl and see what you think... When I say the statement "Lying can be UPB" I'm either lying or telling the truth. If I'm lying, then the true statement would read "Lying can not be UPB". If I'm telling the truth, then the content contradicts the form. Or has this been brought up already?
TheRobin Posted January 15, 2013 Posted January 15, 2013 Aruis has changed my mind on this. I don't think lying can be UPB, and this is just a thought I had to prove it, I might be wrong, but I'll give it a whirl and see what you think... When I say the statement "Lying can be UPB" I'm either lying or telling the truth. If I'm lying, then the true statement would read "Lying can not be UPB". If I'm telling the truth, then the content contradicts the form. Or has this been brought up already? This has been brought up already, and neither of us disagree here. (Last but not least, because it would mean people had a positive obligation to lie).The question is whether "not lying" is UPB (or whether it is a binding moral obligation towards everyone).
Arius Posted January 16, 2013 Posted January 16, 2013 Anyway, I quite enjoyed the convo up to this point and it got me thinkin about these things and morality and how they logically relate to each other, so thanks for that. But my gut feeling is that communcation is breaking off and I don't see this going a lot further at the moment.Or how do you perceive that? Yea. We've had a good run, but I'm not sure there's any way to go as far into this as might be necessary. If you write that text on lying, let me know. Thanks for the great convo.
Hannibal Posted January 18, 2013 Posted January 18, 2013 It depends on your definition of morality. Basically yes, because it's not in your own rational self-interest.
ProfessionalTeabagger Posted January 18, 2013 Posted January 18, 2013 We could also ask is violence immoral? The answer is no because violence can be used in self-defence. It's simialr to lying. If someone is trying to violate your privacy or seek information that is for malacious purposes then you are under no obligation to supply them with that info. If lying is the only way you can defend yourself or others then you can legitimately do it. Just as you have every right to respond with violence to aggressors you have every right to respond with lies. Lying is often a great alternative to violence. I'd like to put forward the phrase "The intitiation of lying". So if you lie to school children about, say, the nature of government (as most teachers do) then that is the initiation of lying and is wrong. If you lie to the government about how much tax you owe then that is not wrong. The latter is lying for legitimate self-defence. Someone tell me if that sounds silly.
Hannibal Posted January 18, 2013 Posted January 18, 2013 We could also ask is violence immoral? The answer is no because violence can be used in self-defence. It's simialr to lying. If someone is trying to violate your privacy or seek information that is for malacious purposes then you are under no obligation to supply them with that info. If lying is the only way you can defend yourself or others then you can legitimately do it. Just as you have every right to respond with violence to aggressors you have every right to respond with lies. Lying is often a great alternative to violence. I'd like to put forward the phrase "The intitiation of lying". So if you lie to school children about, say, the nature of government (as most teachers do) then that is the initiation of lying and is wrong. If you lie to the government about how much tax you owe then that is not wrong. The latter is lying for legitimate self-defence. Someone tell me if that sounds silly. Sounds reasonable. Perhaps something like "lying to obtain an unearned value" is more specific. Although that doesn't cover lying for no gain other than to hurt someone else.
TheRobin Posted January 18, 2013 Posted January 18, 2013 We could also ask is violence immoral? The answer is no because violence can be used in self-defence. It's simialr to lying. If someone is trying to violate your privacy or seek information that is for malacious purposes then you are under no obligation to supply them with that info. If lying is the only way you can defend yourself or others then you can legitimately do it. Just as you have every right to respond with violence to aggressors you have every right to respond with lies. Lying is often a great alternative to violence. I'd like to put forward the phrase "The intitiation of lying". So if you lie to school children about, say, the nature of government (as most teachers do) then that is the initiation of lying and is wrong. If you lie to the government about how much tax you owe then that is not wrong. The latter is lying for legitimate self-defence. Someone tell me if that sounds silly. Well, I don't want to call it "silly", but it seems you're trying to somewhat equate lying with physical aggression and I don't see how one could legitimately make that case (or even come close to). In regards to children in school, in my opinion, the problem is more that they can't call you out on the lie and get up and leave, but are forced to stay and parrot what the teacher says, so regardless of the content it's horribly immoral even in the absence of lying and I don't see how adding a lie to the whole thing drastically changes that (in an even worse direction).
TheRobin Posted January 18, 2013 Posted January 18, 2013 It depends on your definition of morality. Basically yes, because it's not in your own rational self-interest. What do you mean with "rational self-interest" exactly? and how can lying never be part of that (even in the absence of lifeboatscenarios and self-defense against violence)?
Hannibal Posted January 18, 2013 Posted January 18, 2013 It depends on your definition of morality. Basically yes, because it's not in your own rational self-interest. What do you mean with "rational self-interest" exactly? and how can lying never be part of that (even in the absence of lifeboatscenarios and self-defense against violence)? So, just to be clear, I define morality as a code of values that guide me through life, so that I can live the best life I can. I.e. the objectivist kind of morality (I can't think of any other definition of morality that makes sense). Ok... while I don't like some of the seemingly dogmatic aspects of groups like the Ayn Rand institute / atlas societ, etc, that doesn't stop alot of their content being top-notch. Check oput this recent video, starting at 32:00 just for a few minutes. Its a good video so I'd recommend the whole thing, but start here for this point where he starts talking about bernie madoff. You might want to scan back a little too (I can't remember if he talked about lying before that or not).
TheRobin Posted January 18, 2013 Posted January 18, 2013 well, I'm fine with that defintion of morality if you wat to use it that way here, but I still need an explanation of "rational self-interest". Can you provide me with one please? How would this be different from "non-rational self-interest" for instance? (I'd argue, one can't act in anything else than self-interst anyway, so I won't bother asking about non-self-interest).And (as I said multiple times in this thread) I don't argue for regular lying or fraud or delibaretly trying to destroy another persons mind or sense of reality (aka gaslighting). The video (and the time) seems to deal with regular liars and cheats etc, so I don't see what this has to do with what I asked or what is being debated here.
Hannibal Posted January 21, 2013 Posted January 21, 2013 Lying about why you're late for work, for instance, might be in your self-interest in the short term, but in the long term when you do this kind of thing repeatedly you end up either getting found out as a liar, or even ignoring that you are changing reality in your mind. You're sense of reason, grounded in reality, is your only tool for prosperity. I'm sure you'll have seen yourself habitual liars who just seem to spiral down into a foggy mire of bullshit. It's not healthy in the long run to lie. Even in the short run, we don't get pleasure from unearned values, right? You won't enjoy a car you stole like you would a car that you earned. For these kinds of reasons, lying is not rational self-interest. If the purpose of life is to live and to enjoy living, then sacrificing the long term for not getting ahouted at by your boss now is not rational. If a stranger asks you how your day has been, I dont think you owe him anything, and should you say "yeah, great", even if that's not true, then I wouldn't realy call that a lie. Even if it is a lie, then it's not worth worrying about.
Recommended Posts