Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
I don't think I've got anything to add to what Iv'e already said.If you maintain such lies up to a point where they gain the maturity to see that you are lying then yes, perhaps you'd have a point. But I am talking about a single lie here that may perhaps be performed a small number of times and that motivates this young child who's current proficiency with crayons is negligibly small, to blissfully and for a short time ignorantly carry on to perhaps become masterful or sufficiently skilled in their later years.
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.grega said:I still fail to see how lying fits the criteria for being 'wrong'! Similarly, until you invoke the constraints set by human society or provide a rigorous justification demonstrating that in all cases killing is always disadvantageous to humans, ie: the sum of disadvantages is always greater than the sum of advantages that result from the act of killing another human (note here I'm being generous by restricting your attention to only one species: humans), I fail to see why killing must always be 'wrong'.
In short, what do you mean by 'wrong'?
Something decreed by God??? this would render our discussions tautological from your perspective and pointless from mine!
I now have to be careful that this analogy translates correctly when applied to lying.
Am not sure it does so translate. And maybe bat demo is being over complicated/analyzed.We could say that communication is morally neutral and that how you use it (ie: lying, conveying useful information, telling jokes etc...) would be things that are as you would suggest either neutral, good, or bad.
I suspect however you want to suggest that lying is morally bad, and that what you do with lies based on the the circumstances dictate whether that the outcome is neutral, bad, or good. Not only does this lose something in the translation, but it again begs the question: why is lying morally bad?
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.I need more convincing before I accept this statement, furthermore I could use it to show that you contradict yourself by your earlier statement: "Few would argue that telling the truth is a bad thing. There may be times when telling the truth is inconvenient, but that is a matter of the situation and does not make the act itself bad. "If we look at the question of the morality of an action we must look at three things; the situation (which is relative and objective); the absolute and objective principle(s) at work; and the subjective motive. If any of these three are wrong, then the action is immoral. In that view there could be situations were telling the truth would be immoral, wrong thing to do.
.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.Before I accept there are objective rights and wrongs I have to first see the criteria for such and then decide whether or not they are soundIf some are unwilling to admit there can be absolute and objective principles, then we need to discuss that first as it makes no sense to speak of whether something is good or bad if there are no absolute and objective principles.
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.Even if we did admit such (and that is far, far away for me) you'd still have to demonstrate how lying fits, in all cases, the criteria for being objectively 'wrong'Once we admit there are absolute and objective principles, then the question becomes whether lying is wrong or conversely always telling the truth is right are one of those principles. Only if we agree that those are absolute principles can we then discuss why it might be justified to violate such a principle in some circumstances.
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.
No, not a decree. And maybe not really a "law of the universe" at least not in all cases. I am sleepy is a subjective truth - only I can know whether that is true or not. CS Lewis wrote the Tales of Narnia is an objective truth, it is true whether I (or anyone) knows it or not. But the later while objectively true is certainly not a "universal law".Hmm...correct me if I'm wrong then, given you are an objectivist does this mean that lying is always wrong by some form of decree and is in requirement of no further explanation other than this? Or do you argue that it is a fundamental law of the universe (whereby I'd expect some form of justification for this assertion)?
Assuming it isn't the latter, then surely the entity laying down this 'objective', immoveable law by deciding it just is, would be using its own subjective opinions (for want of better wording) to formulate them? This would be reducable to 'lying is wrong because X says so'. I would then ask what if X wasn't telling the whole truth or lying when he said such???
You are correct in saying that I am not an objectivist by the way.
No, not a decree. And maybe not really a "law of the universe" at least not in all cases. I am sleepy is a subjective truth - only I can know whether that is true or not. CS Lewis wrote the Tales of Narnia is an objective truth, it is true whether I (or anyone) knows it or not. But the later while objectively true is certainly not a "universal law".
objective truth does not mean we all know it or believe it to be true. Objective in this case means what we know to be true, is true independent of our (or even anyone) knowing it. And truth to me is saying or knowing "what is".
The fact God says lying is an abomination to Him, while we know it must true that anything against His Will would be an abomination, it is not the reason we say it is an absolute princible that lying is wrong. In this case God is proclaiming "what is", not decreeing what is.(wrong because he says so).
Lying can only be right, wrong or morally neutral. We know lying cannot be neutral because that would mean whether we lie or not would have no bearing on whether in any situation we did the right thing or not in lying. Clearly it makes a difference. And in most situations it can be shown to be illogical to lie (Spock's big thing). Right and wrong are the only remaining choices. It cannot be both. And whatever lying is, telling the truth being the opposite would have to be the moral opposite of lying.
No, saying it is TRUE that CS Lewis wrote the Tales is a universal truth. IOW it is objectively true that he did so, whether you or I or anyone KNOWS he did so. It is not about the impact of the statement."CS Lewis wrote the Tales of Narnia" isn't a universal statement. (unless you define some trivial singleton set universe containing 'Tales of Narnia' of course!)
no, even if I say that it is a truth (universally true) that lying and killing are wrong, it does not follow that there are no cases where lying or killing are NOT the objectively RIGHT thing to do.'Lying is always wrong' however objective, is a universal statement. It is a statement that says for all lies, there can never exist a case in which lying is not wrong.
As my analogy was NOT correctly understood or portrayed in the objectivist view (see last comment), am not sure how we can conclude it is not plausible or that the analogy did not work.I say that unless this somewhat strong assertion can be justified I see no reason to accept it as even plausible.
Your analogy here doesn't work
Well I agree, some Buddhist and other eastern thinkers might disagree with that statement. Ok, let me try a different track as it appears am not doing well explaining my view.I haven't seen any argument to suggest that 'lying is wrong' is in the same league as say, 'the universe we live in exists'...the latter here being a brute fact.
Am not saying evaluating any particular situation is simple or that the process we go through to decide is always simple.Again, not being an objectivist (if that is even relevent), I don't see why the set of all lies should be entirely contained within one of only 3 sets: that which is bad, that which is neutral or that which is good. This seems like too much of a simplification.
Secondly and more importantly if
Maybe am not explaining myself well."We know lying cannot be neutral because that would mean whether we lie or not would have no bearing on whether in any situation we did the right thing or not in lying" is a valid argument then we can interchange neutral with good or bad and still have a valid argument!
ie:"We know lying cannot be bad because that would mean whether we lie or not would have no bearing on whether in any situation we did the right thing or not in lying"
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?