We obviously disagree on how to arrive at morals. While the pragmatic approach is, well, practical am not sure I can agree with that view.
What is true may not always be practical and what is practical is not always true. I hold to the more traditional view of absolute and objective truths, principles to be lived held to. While we could proceed to debate these opposing views of truth it would seem to be fruitless to try explain lying being objectively wrong when one us does not believe in objective truths.
Am not sure it does so translate. And maybe bat demo is being over complicated/analyzed.
In the case of telling a lie, my position is that lying is not neutral act. Telling the truth, it’s opposite, is clearly seen as a good thing, a good act. Lying being the opposite of telling the truth, is bad (the opposite of good). These evaluations are made external to a situation or internal motive.
In talking about Morality, in my view we must speak of objective and absolute principles, subjective motives and all working in relative and objective situations. The pragmatic is not so constrained. So am not sure how we attempt to understand why one says lying is not a good thing, and the other says if it works it must be a good thing without acknowledging our opposing views.
Essentially in both views telling a lie can be the right thing to do in a given situation. However, only in the pragmatic view does a lie then become sometimes a good thing. Truth in that view is both subjective and relative. I am an objectivist, so in my view what is true is objective, it does not change.
Not a contradiction if properly understood. Physco killer pedephile asks me where I hid the children. Telling the truth is a good thing, but in this situation very inconvenient. In fact it would be objectively wrong to do it, at least voluntarily. In this case it is objective right to lie. Spock might be able to coldly say he cannot lie even in such a situation, but is only because reason tells him lying is wrong and to do something wrong is illogical .This does not prove that truth is relative and subjective, only that we must deal also with relative situations..But that is part of the difference of our opposing views. In the objectivist view, the truth is what it is. There is no criteria (does it work?) or evaluation (more pluses than negatives for society). Again we could debate the views, but I do not see how one of us can explain morality in terms the other would ever accept.
Again, in the objectivist view it is either true that lying is wrong or it is not. There is no criterion. The truth in this view means how we connect what we know or say to “what is”. One truth (and even Spock agrees) is that lying is wrong. Yet it still can be objectively correct to lie in some situations (as already mentioned). Situations are relative, the truth is not.