Am I being unethical by continuing to see a girl I don't plan on dating?

[EclecticIdealist]

@Eclectic: Once again, that which happens after something has no bearing on that something's identity. Whether I alter my behavior or not has no bearing on the fact that telling somebody what they're going to do is manipulative. It's the underhanded behavior of somebody who understands that their "arguments" cannot stand on their own merit. Your epidermis is showing.

I see you have opted for option three. No point conversing any further. Interesting how you consider what I'm doing to be manipulative. All I have been doing is attempting to demonstrate the flaws in your logic and the validity of mine. I tried direct reasoning, and when that failed, I attempted to demonstrate, which you played right into. You cannot possibly rationally claim that what I am doing is manipulative because that contradicts your argument. Consequently, you chose to irrationally make this claim and assert that I know my "'arguments' cannot stand on their own merit." when in fact you are simply projected your own failings onto me.

 

Rather than engage my arguments directly to demonstrate their flaws by direct analogy, you utilized a weaker, inapplicable, indirect analogy borrowed from Stefan in a vain attempt to bolster your position. As I've said before, lame ducks don't fly.

 

As mentioned before, you have three options:

Option 1: Concede I cannot possibly have been manipulating you because that would mean I have more responsibility than you over how you react to what I write; you will maintain your position that your argument is correct and you'll at least be consistent.

 

Option 2: Concede that manipulation is the use of force against another person's mind and their conception of reality, in the same vein as lying, and we can move forward.

 

Option 3: Demonstrate your preference for neither in which case there is no further point in discussing further as you demonstrate that you are not committed to reason or logic at all; you are committed to sophistry bolstering your position in spite of reason and logic.

 

Lying, like other verbal forms of manipulation, as well as psychological and emotional abuse, is the use of force against another person's concept of reality. It is a violation of the Non-Aggression Principle to lie except as a matter of self-defense or the defense of others, or when the lie is expected and desired as in the case of entertainment such as a magic show or fictional story.

 

Non-defensive lying is universalizable in that it can be rationally expected of everyone. Non-defensive lying is unavoidable in that it is a volitional initiation of the use of force which is enforceable upon another in the same way that physical initiations of the use of force are enforceable upon others. Just as physical applications of force can be small or great, causing little or no effect, or causing momentous change, lies can be relatively inconsequential, or they can be life altering. Just as it is not justifiable to shoot someone for merely nudging or poking you, it is not justifiable to shoot someone for telling lies which have little consequence when believed. Similarly, just as a serious assault is justification for limiting a person's ability to assault others, a serious lie with significant consequences when believed is justifiable in limiting a person's ability to lie to cause harm to come to others, as in the case of lying under oath to subvert justice (for example).

 

To suggest that lying is not immoral (but merely aesthetically negative, like habitual tardiness, or other socially undesirable behavior) because one can avoid believing a lie by exercising due diligence to discover the lie and reject it is like saying rape and assault are merely aesthetic negatives because they can be avoided by learning self-defense and going out of one's way to not place oneself in potentially vulnerable situations where one might be likely to be raped or assaulted. While not always the case, such an argument is typically fostered by a person seeking to justify their own use of lies, deception, and manipulation to engage in fraud or otherwise manipulate others for personal gain. To suggest that the person believing the lie has greater moral responsibility than the person telling the lie is the same as suggesting that a person who is a victim or rape or assault has greater moral responsibility than the person committing the rape or assault. This notion is absurd on the face of it and is ethically and morally indefensible. It is an idea foisted by people seeking to take advantage of others' ignorance, gullibility, and sloth. Such predatory behavior is harmful to individuals and society as a whole and indicative of low character, or in other words, a person lacking virtue.

 

If you disagree with any or all of this above, please take the time to actually address the points I've made in a direct and substantive manner. If not, I will simply assume you are not serious about logic and reason and henceforth ignore your comments or replies to this subject.

[ValueOfBrevity]

I'm hoping to get some insight on this situation I'm currently in. I met a girl online over a month ago, and within three days of hanging out we had sex. This is much quicker than usual for myself, and I automatically assumed this was not a girl I'd like to date becuase of it.

I did feel a connection with this girl (likely lust), so I continued seeing her. While getting to know her I discovered a few things about her that really disturbed me. Most notable being the young age she lost her virginity at.

I did share my concerns with her, but I still feel uneasy about them. She seems like she is very open to self knowledge and doing what it takes to have a healthy relationship (although so far that has not been practised). Of course, I have known her for a short period of time, and I don't truly know her.

 

She has become quite attached to me, while my feelings haven't grown much since the first couple of weeks.

I can't help but feel like I'm being unethical or rude by continuing to see her with my current state of mind not being interested in dating.

I have made it clear that I am not interested in dating her right now, but I am struggling with deciding if I should end things, or continue seeing her and possibly developing more feelings for her?

As long as you are clear about your intentions, then it is not unethical. If she voluntarily continues to see you (i.e. casually date) without any explicit commitment, then she assumes risk for that choice.

[dsayers]

No point conversing any further. Interesting how you consider what I'm doing to be manipulative.

"No point in conversing any further... [much more conversing]" Perhaps the idea of manipulation came out of thin air

[Des]

the nature of lying and how arguing in favor of it destroys credibility

To add some precision to this : typically destroys credibility, and not necessarily with all audiences. Arguments in favour of the deception by Miep Gies in the matter of concealing Anne Frank might lose the author (of the arguments), credibility with the Ordnungspolizei , but with other audiences, would improve the author's credibility. Excuse me using an example which we would expect in an ethics 101 course discussion on lying.

I would expect it to make me more credible if I admit honestly that in some instances I may lie (and arguing in favour lying to avoid harm), whilst making clear that I aim to be honest where honesty will not lead to harm. Now that I reflect on this, though, I think my reputation for actual lying and truth-telling in the past, would be a more correct guide in determining my credibility.

[Will Torbald]

To add some precision to this : typically destroys credibility, and not necessarily with all audiences. Arguments in favour of the deception by Miep Gies in the matter of concealing Anne Frank might lose the author (of the arguments), credibility with the Ordnungspolizei , but with other audiences, would improve the author's credibility. Excuse me using an example which we would expect in an ethics 101 course discussion on lying.

I would expect it to make me more credible if I admit honestly that in some instances I may lie (and arguing in favour lying to avoid harm), whilst making clear that I aim to be honest where honesty will not lead to harm. Now that I reflect on this, though, I think my reputation for actual lying and truth-telling in the past, would be a more correct guide in determining my credibility.

 

Yeah, but that is what the previous arguments called lying in self defense. If we can agree that we can shoot people in self defense, we can agree that we can lie too. In the case of this thread the example did not involve self defense, mostly just confusion, and the excuse was that since lying wasn't force or whatever, there wasn't anything unethical if I'm understanding the implications correctly. It's the kind of "lying is never bad because it's not bullets" that raises the doubt because the philosopher has just said that he can be lying to you at any moment for any reason.

[Livemike]

 She seems like she is very open to self knowledge and doing what it takes to have a healthy relationship (although so far that has not been practised).

Then she does not seem to be very open to self-knowledge and doing what it takes to have a healthy relationship.