On Bullshit by Harry Frankfurt

[reasonvemotion]

Do you believe the "intent is the same" when , for example, a man lies to a woman, telling her he loves her to get her into bed vs. a parent lies to a child about the existence of Santa Claus?

I see the intent to deceive in those cases totally and completely different.

They both have an aim or purpose, that is what intent is.

If you think your above statement lacks aim or purpose, please explain.

[artisticsolution]

Do you believe the "intent is the same" when , for example, a man lies to a woman, telling her he loves her to get her into bed vs. a parent lies to a child about the existence of Santa Claus?

I see the intent to deceive in those cases totally and completely different.

They both have an aim or purpose, that is what intent is.

If you think your above statement lacks aim or purpose, please explain.

in·tent
noun \in-ˈtent\
Definition of INTENT
1
a : the act or fact of intending : purpose; especially : the design or purpose to commit a wrongful or criminal act <admitted wounding him with intent>
b : the state of mind with which an act is done : volition
2
: a usually clearly formulated or planned intention : aim <the director's intent>
3
a : meaning, significance
b : connotation 3
See intent defined for English-language learners »
See intent defined for kids »
Examples of INTENT

She thinks I'm trying to make things difficult for her, but that's not my intent.
What was the the writer's intent?
The intent of the law is to protect consumers.
He was charged with assault with intent to kill.

Webster dictionary


Here is the subtle nuance I think you are missing. Yes, both have an aim or a purpose...so what? Everything we do has an aim or purpose. It is why we get up in the morning...i.e our aim or purpose is to take a shower, brush our teeth, go to work, etc. We always have an intent. Does that mean that all intentions are the same? No. Does that mean that all intentions to deceive are the same? No. You can deceive with good intentions or with bad intentions. You're intent is either good or bad or neutral.

If you want to take a hard line such as this, saying, " You either deceive or you don't", then I would say we all deceive everyday and there is no such thing as "you either deceive or you don't". Humans deceive. When we dress ourselves our intent is to deceive. If it wasn't then we would not care how we looked. The fact is everyday, we change our appearance...which is to a degree, a type of deception. Why do we not just wake up and go to work? Why when we get home do we "slip into something more comfortable?" and shed the "costume" we wore all day? Are there clothes you would not be "caught dead in?" Why? Is it because some clothes make a person feel less than in another person's eyes? We can deceive sometimes simply to avoid ridicule.

We can have an intent to deceive in order to harm or murder, we can also have an intent to deceive in order to please or be kind. Just because we intend to deceive does not mean that our intent is the same.

Reasonvemotion: "Both are vehicles to deceive.

Either way the intent is the same.

If his concern/argument is exclusively a "critique of sincerity qua bullshit", then bullshit, is always the most dishonorable and offensive, if viewing broadly both examples, I see no difference or degree of difference in their deception. You either deceive or you don't."

AS: In the case of Sandyhook, the teacher who hid her pupils and then lied to the gunman about their whereabouts, thus saving them from certain death....was her intent to deceive "dishonorable and offensive"?

Here is a case where the gunman was being most honest in his intent and the teacher most dishonest in her intent. Which person would you say was being more "dishonorable and offensive", the honest one or the dishonest one?

[reasonvemotion]

I think we are at crossed purposes here.

You have given me several different examples to prove a point.

What I am trying to get across to you is.

I am referring to the motive, the end result. Deception.

I think Harry Frankfurt says it quite clearly.

His eye is not on the facts at all, as the eyes of the honest man and of the liar are, except insofar as they may be pertinent to his interest in getting away with what he says.

[artisticsolution]

I think we are at crossed purposes here.

You have given me several different examples to prove a point.

What I am trying to get across to you is.

I am referring to the motive, the end result. Deception.

I think Harry Frankfurt says it quite clearly.

His eye is not on the facts at all, as the eyes of the honest man and of the liar are, except insofar as they may be pertinent to his interest in getting away with what he says.

Either you are bullshitting yourself or trying to bullshit me. I am going to go with the former...I don't believe you understand what you are saying. You are not just referring to "the motive, the end result". If you were you would not
group the motive and the end result together. The motive comes BEFORE the end result.

You want to act like you are simple saying that "all lies are the same...they all equal deception". And that is fine if you want to make that statement. The problem for is when you want to make that statement AND attach a moral value. That is when your statement becomes an absurd one as I have shown you there are plenty of reasons why a lie can be 'morally' right.

The minute that you go from "all lies are deception" to "all lies are deception and deception is morally wrong" you cross over from the absolute position into a moral conundrum. You go from a statement of fact to a statement of absurdity. So I have a problem with your reasoning when you betray your idea with IDEALS. Do you even understand what I am saying? I truly wonder if you are capable. And that is not INTENDED to be an insult...it's just that I am blown away that you don't hear the subtle nuance in your language or voice.

Here is the problem you are having in your reasoning:

1. Motive and end result are two different things.

"INTENT" is the motive which can be morally wrong or right depending on the circumstances. "END RESULT" is what ensues from the motive....which may be morally wrong or right depending on the circumstances.

2. You can't separate the honest man from the liar....when you do that you make a moral judgment. When you make a moral judgment...i.e. the liar is morally wrong "trying to get away with something..." and the honest man is morally right, because honesty is the best policy. Then you have to prove :

a. honesty is really the best policy and

b. there exists an honest man which is separate from the dishonest man. and by that...I mean a man who is ALWAYS honest vs one who is ALWAYS dishonest.

The absolutest position you are taking makes me think you naively believe there exist such men independent of each other. It is just not rational to believe in such nonsense hence the reason you are having trouble proving lying is morally wrong....not that you can bring yourself to understand that is what you are saying by use of your language. And if you are not saying that...and all you are saying is "all lies = deception" then you are redundant i.e not saying anything...which I believe = tautology.

[chaz wyman]

Frankfurt makes an important distinction between lying and bullshitting.

I thought they were one and the same. Bullshitting, can be, I suppose, viewed with humour, whereas lying usually involves a degree of maliciousness and intent?

Did you read it?

[CJDOMIN]

Regardless of a speaker's intent bullshit can be defined as the manipulation of reality by a communicator to his or her audience. If purposeful, it is lying. If it is done without intent, then it is called delusion (not bullshit). Frankfurt assumes that all bullshit is without intent which is in error. Some bullshit is by intent. The legitimate and significant difference between lying and bullshit, is that lying actually attempts to alter or contradict reality and bullshit usually takes a real truth and warps, enhances or stretches it to fit the need of the speaker. Example: In reality a man caught a fish that was a one pound trout. Bullshit might render this fact a huge fish that fought like a shark. Lying would be that the man caught a two hundred pound shark that had a trout in its stomach. Let us not be persuaded that the two are not related, but rather they are the same phenomenon located at different points along a continuum. There are liars who are deluded and believe they are telling the truth and their are bullshitters who know they are not. Harry is being naive in order to dichotomize a singular linguistic behavior. I believe there is more value in understanding the communication of untruths as a continuum where degree is the defining characteristic of the terms lying and bullshit and not intent. First of all intent is nearly impossible to establish with any accuracy in most cases. Our brains are not perfect remembering machines and have proven to be unreliable recording devices. I also disagree with Frankfurt that the reason there is more bullshit today is because we are under obligation to have opinions on all subjects regardless of our knowledge. It is my humble opinion that if there is more bullshit today than in the past, (which I have not seen any scientific studies proving it) it would be more influenced by our narcissism and worship of celebrity, which leads people into false narratives and hyperbole in order to fit in and feel included or relevant. The corporate advertising, government propaganda and biased media are also major factors influencing the level of both lying and bullshit in western culture. On Bullshit was a fun read but it beckons to be flushed out and developed.

[creativesoul]

Lies are not necessarily false. So, the author's conception is a bit ill-conceived from the start...