Deathbed Confessions

[ToddNotTodd]

A "little white lie" of that type doesn't hurt anybody, does it? Of course it does. It encourages people to live dishonest lives in general.

In my example, lying to my great grandmother on her deathbed didn’t encourage either my mother or myself to live dishonest lives. It taught me that I should reduce pain in some situations where a simple minded “categorical imperative” would be violated.

 

[FireDragon76]

In my example, lying to my great grandmother on her deathbed didn’t encourage either my mother or myself to live dishonest lives. It taught me that I should reduce pain in some situations where a simple minded “categorical imperative” would be violated.

I don't see how lessening pain is more important than respect for truth.

And at any rate, that is a somewhat different situation than what is being discussed.

 

[FireDragon76]

So turn Anne Frank over to the Nazis. Got it.

If people have no right to the truth (as a Gestapo agent would not), that is a different situation than merely lying to get out of having to stand by ones religious convictions.

 

[Tinker Grey]

If people have no right to the truth (as a Gestapo agent would not), that is a different situation than merely lying to get out of having to stand by ones religious convictions.

But we aren't talking about lying to avoid standing by one's convictions. We are talking about lying so the last we ever did for someone is comfort them.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

I don't see how lessening pain is more important than respect for truth.

I find holding sacred categorical imperatives like “you should never lie” to be a simplistic, black and white position that doesn’t correspond to what causes harm in actual situations.

So in this instance, for me, “respect for truth” isn’t a virtue.

And at any rate, that is a somewhat different situation than what is being discussed.

if I were in the exact same situation as the OP, I wouldn’t be inclined to be dishonest in all situations either. So in that respect the situations are the same.

 

[FireDragon76]

But we aren't talking about lying to avoid standing by one's convictions. We are talking about lying so the last we ever did for someone is comfort them.

Of course, but that sort of false compassion doesn't actually help them to live a life being more conscientious.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Usually we hear about a person confessing belief on their deathbed. But, imagine a non-believer at the bed of their mother who is a believer. She emotionally suffers because her son is not saved. He could make a false confession of faith before she dies and limit her emotional suffering by thinking he is now saved.

Is it moral or immoral for him to lie to her about his confession of faith in order to give her comfort before she dies?

Christianly speaking: yes.

Un-Christianly speaking: not really. Just do whatever the hell you feel like since there are no Absolute moral realities.

 

[Caliban]

Un-Christianly speaking: not really. Just do whatever the hell you feel like since there are no Absolute moral realities

That's a slander and untrue.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

That's a slander and untrue.

A slander? Against whom?

 

[Caliban]

A slander? Against whom?

Against the other 5.6 billion people in the world who don't get their morality from Christianity. These people do not do whatever the "hell" they feel like, as you say.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Against the other 5.6 billion people in the world who don't get their morality from Christianity. These people do not do whatever the "hell" they feel like, as you say.

You've misread my post, Caliban. I was attempting to be prescriptive in my utterance rather than merely descriptive. When I said, "Just do...", it's not exactly a simple statement about some observation.

 

[Caliban]

You've misread my post, Caliban. I was attempting to be prescriptive in my utterance rather than merely descriptive. When I said, "Just do...", it's not exactly a simple statement about some observation.

If so, it surely didn't come across that way. The charged language seems to undermine the point you wanted to make? What was that point anyway?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

If so, it surely didn't come across that way. The charged language seems to undermine the point you wanted to make? What was that point anyway?

No, all I've simply pointed out in my above posts thus far is that from a Christian point of view (whether that point of view is true and real or false and fake) is that to lie to one's mother about belief is wrong. But for the un-Christian (and the non-Christian, I suppose), it isn't absolutely wrong to do so; it could even be seen as a response of beneficence.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

If so, it surely didn't come across that way. The charged language seems to undermine the point you wanted to make? What was that point anyway?

Besides, if a person has had a chance to lie at their mother's deathbed, that person got more opportunity than I ever did. So...................goodie for them, I guess! Lie, lie until your heart's content in such a situation!

 

[Pavel Mosko]

Against the other 5.6 billion people in the world who don't get their morality from Christianity. These people do not do whatever the "hell" they feel like, as you say.

I was with you up to that point. Yes their is a lot of non-christian, humanist morality out there etc. But I don't think you can completely divorce yourself from the Judeo-Christian heritage. I'm talking about the kind of stuff you get by osmosis. Their is a lot of stuff like protecting the weak, including the handicapped that we do as a society, and even atheists agree with. This stuff does not make sense from a purely evolutionary stand point. e.g. -the behavior of social animals etc.


Even Penn Gillete admitted this sort of thing years ago in one of his articles. He admitted to being for various things that went against Evolution, but rationalized that he did that because he had an "evolved" brain that let him appreciate other more abstract values than what is good for the gene pool etc.

 

[Caliban]

Their is a lot of stuff like protecting the weak, including the handicapped that we do as a society, and even atheists agree with. This stuff does not make sense from a purely evolutionary stand point. Like behavior of social animals etc.

I agree that many in the U.S., like myself, have Christian vestigial moral instincts. This is simply explained by cultural transmission. I disagree that things like protecting for the weak are exclusively Christian. There is be no way to support that claim.

I am not sure what you mean by, "This stuff does not make sense from a purely evolutionary stand point." Maybe you think evolution leads to Social Darwinism--it does not logically follow that this is expected or necessary. Clearly if contemporary evolutionary scientist reject the idea of Social Darwinism, it does not lead to it.

Maybe you don't mean Social Darwinism--in that case I'd ask what do you mean?

 

[Pavel Mosko]

"This stuff does not make sense from a purely evolutionary stand point."

Well I sort of was meaning that. I actually was going to quote Penn Gillete it hard to find that old column or blog that he use to write and explain it in his own words. Now the notion that atheists would not be in favor of that anymore isn't news, when "selfish gene" Richard Dawkins, has the sense to completely back away from that when confronted with those kinds of implications in a few interviews, debates etc. basically nobody will.

 

[Caliban]

Well I sort of was meaning that. I actually was going to quote Penn Gillete it hard to find that old column or blog that he use to write and explain it in his own words. Now the notion that atheists would not be in favor of that anymore isn't news, when "selfish gene" Richard Dawkins, has the sense to completely back away from that when confronted with those kinds of implications in a few interviews, debates etc. basically nobody will.

I am unaware of any reputable person advocating for Social Darwinism or anything resembling it. To me it is a non-issue. If you find a public figure advocating such a bad idea--we should discuss it.

I don't know the Gillete reference, but non believers often discuss growing up in the West where Christian norms affect their thinking. This is not an admission of any superiority of Christian morality, it is simply a feature of growing up here. If I had not grown up in a Christian household, I might not have had to overcome intolerance for homosexuals in my youth. I was taught that sexual purity was an important moral issue and it caused me a lot of unnecessary guild as an adolescent and young adult. I was told I was a sinner from birth--these are Christian moral claims. If you want to claim that Christianity is responsible for good moral instruction; you also have to own the negative.

 

[Pavel Mosko]

I am unaware of any reputable person advocating for Social Darwinism or anything resembling it. To me it is a non-issue. If you find a public figure advocating such a bad idea--we should discuss it.

I don't know the Gillete reference, but non believers often discuss growing up in the West where Christian norms affect their thinking. This is not an admission of any superiority of Christian morality, it is simply a feature of growing up here. If I had not grown up in a Christian household, I might not have had to overcome intolerance for homosexuals in my youth. I was taught that sexual purity was an important moral issue and it caused me a lot of unnecessary guild as an adolescent and young adult. I was told I was a sinner from birth--these are Christian moral claims. If you want to claim that Christianity is responsible for good moral instruction; you also have to own the negative.

Sure I agree with that. Some of the past items are more based on discussions from places like "The Thinking Atheist" forums etc. where there are lots of various discussions on a kind of Nietzsche "Wouldn't we all be better off if Christianity never existed?" type themes (Various topics but essentially boiling it down that basic idea). And well I love deconstructing those kind of ideas probably as much as you like doing so with Christian ones.


PS - your Christian sexual ethics may have saved you from getting a venereal disease or maybe even a teenage pregnancy.

 

[Caliban]

your Christian sexual ethics may have saved you from getting a venereal disease or maybe even a teenage pregnancy.

Yes maybe, but that does not make it true. And besides, proper sex education would have done the same thing without the needed shame and guilt of thinking my girlfriend and I were storing up wrath every time we touched each other.