Lying is always bad???

[ebia]

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.

I don't think I've got anything to add to what Iv'e already said.

 

[DrBubbaLove]

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!

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.

I now have to be careful that this analogy translates correctly when applied to lying.

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?

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.

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.

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. "

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.

If 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.

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 sound

.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.

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.

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'

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.

 

[andreha]

Well, here's my take. I'll even back it up with scripture if I have to.

Lying isn't always bad. Trust me. Just picture your loving wife, asking you "Honey, does this make me look fat?" The best reply would be a loving reply. The Bible does make it clear that the highest commandment is that of love. So, it means you should love someone, even if it means stretching the truth. Remember, Christians live according to the new testament now, not under the law with the 10 commandments. God knows that no man can ever obey all those commandments.

So, yes. Lying isn't always bad. If you do it out of love for someone, then it is much better than hurting them with the truth. It really depends on the situation. If your intention is to genuinely protect someone from hurt, then it's fine. If it's to conceal one's own faults, then it becomes a problem.

 

[Grega]

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.

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.

 

[Emmy]

Dear Grega. Once anyone is known to be liar, even ift it only happened a couple of times, people will not believe him, orher again. That is a valid reason, and can only be bad? Then there is the case that when you lie, and in time every human forgets some things or other, there are only 2 things one can do. Keep on inventing new lies, and sooner or later one will be known as someone who cannot be trusted, or accept the fact that lying leads nowhere, and become a bit of a joker. It is because God loves us, He wants to protect us from that. Lying is always bad, unless it becomes a matter of life and death, then it will be between the " liar," and God, and gratefully our God will see our hearts, and He is a Just God. I say this humbly and kindly, Grega. Greetings from Emmy, sister in Christ.

 

[DrBubbaLove]

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.

 

[Grega]

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, 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"
"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!) 'Lying is always wrong' however, 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. 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

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 (from this proposed God's subjective perspective...not necessarily mine!), 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).
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.

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.
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 "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"

 

[ajqrszwn]

Is lying bad?

What about this case?

I know someone who is a closet homosexual, but he says that he is hetero. He is sexually attracted to males, not females. This is technically lying, but he tells me that God created him that way. He does not practice homosexuality, but he tells me, "it's who I am" (in other words, it's fundamental to who he is).

So what do you think?

AJ

 

[DrBubbaLove]

"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, 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.

'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.

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.

Contrary to this subjectivist portrayal of my view, the objectivist view does not exclude that there ARE relative situations and our subjective motives which factor into the equation. Either one of those can make it OBJECTIVELY right to do something wrong in a given situation.

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

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 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.

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.

Telling the truth about something and lying about the same thing are opposites. Hopefully you agree. If we remove situation and motive from the evaluation process, we still have two exact opposites. If (and from the objectivist view) we say a thing is either morally neutral, good or bad, then lets evaluate the possibilities.

If both neutral, then in a given scenario with both situation and motive fixed, doing either would have no influence on the consideration of whether it was the right or wrong thing to do. Yet we know it can matter a great deal whether we do one or the other in any given scenario. So these cannot be neutral acts. BTW being neutral would not mean it would never be objectively wrong to do it (as in a baseball bat is neutral (neither good or bad) but bashing a head with it is not a neutral act)

The only other option is good or bad. As good and bad are also opposites, it seems illogical to suggest that that telling a lie or telling the truth could both be good. One must be good and the other bad. Boiled down to that choice, it should not be much of a struggle to reach the conclusion with simple logic that telling the truth is good, and so then telling a lie is bad. And goes to exactly why Spock (pure logic) would say lying is illogical. While we would not go that far, we feel safe in saying that in most cases it is illogical to lie.

A retort to this might be, well each could be either good or bad. But I think what we are really saying is that these choices are neutral and the situation/motive makes the difference. But as we covered already, if these are truly neutral, then we should be able to freeze situation and motive, substitute either and have it make no difference (because they are supposedly neutral). Clearly our experience tells us we cannot do that in all cases. And in most cases it probably matters a great deal. So again, doing the one or the other cannot be neutral.

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.

Am not saying evaluating any particular situation is simple or that the process we go through to decide is always simple.
Am saying it possible for there to be objective truths and in this case “lying being bad” is one of those. As there are no objective truths with subjectivism, we should not wonder that such view can not see anything as either being good, bad or neutral. Everything is subjective.

Again, saying it is objectively true that lying is bad, does not mean it could never be objectively right to lie. Of course it could - but not because lying is good (or neutral) but because of the relative situation - Nazi skinhead asking “where did you hide the Jewish kids?”. All that proves is that situations are relative, not that lying is good or even sometimes good.

Secondly and more importantly if

"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"

Maybe am not explaining myself well.
If lying is neutral, (and by being opposite telling the truth would be neutral as well) then in ANY given situation (meaning we fix motive and the relative situation does not change and then evaluate either lying or telling the truth), the moral outcome should be independent of which we do. Clearly that is not the case. It matters a great deal which we do in some situations (Nazi-Jewish kids) and arguably very little in others (honey did you pay the bill on time?).

Am not sure how it follows from that logic that one can then substitute bad or good for neutral and reach the same conclusions.

If lying is bad (and I agree that it is), then unless the relative situation and our (subjective) motive both make it objectively right to do so, it would be objectively wrong to lie in all other cases because we said lying is bad. Even telling the truth can be the objectively wrong thing to do in this view of morality (Nazi and Jewish kids). It does not make telling the truth bad or neutral to say that, just objectively wrong to do so in that scenario.

 

[heron]

Kids are taught not to lie, and that has worked itself into the culture. But scriptures warn against consistent liars -- people you can't trust -- and against bearing false witness, which is a more formal justice situation.