when lying is the right thing to do

Abortion, euthanasia, genetic engineering, Just War theory and other such hot topics.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

ken
Posts: 1891
Joined: Mon May 09, 2016 4:14 am

Re: when lying is the right thing to do

Post by ken » Sun May 28, 2017 11:29 am

surreptitious57 wrote:
Sun May 28, 2017 9:18 am

The most famous one : do you tell the Gestapo that you are hiding Jews in your house [ the answer is obviously no ]
Do not tell Me what I would or would not do.

What 'you' do is NOT what 'I' would necessarily do.

What you would do, may be obvious to you. But what I would do, you have no idea of really.

I have already responded with what I would do to a similar situation to this in this thread. I have already shown that I would not lie and if anything that would probably prevent more harm being done than lying would.

So, have you got any other examples we can take a look at.

By the way "gestapos" and "jews" are NOT actual things, but rather just labels placed on actual human beings. Anyway these human beings with these labels evolved into existence partly and mostly because of lying. Rid the world of lying, and situations like this would NOT occur again.

surreptitious57
Posts: 1493
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:09 am

Re: when lying is the right thing to do

Post by surreptitious57 » Sun May 28, 2017 2:54 pm

I have not told you what you would or would not do. You are entirely independent of me. And therefore free to make up your own mind on this matter. You asked me for an example and I gave you one. I have no others to give. Though I do find it interesting that you think the Jews came into existence partly or mostly because of lying. I know what you mean but it could be interpreted rather ambiguously so just bear this in mind

marjoram_blues
Posts: 1579
Joined: Sat Mar 28, 2015 12:50 pm

Re: when lying is the right thing to do

Post by marjoram_blues » Sun May 28, 2017 3:50 pm

I think it might be right to lie about being a serial Jaffa cake killer.
When the GP asks how can I help you today, what do you say?
Remember self-preservation.

commonsense
Posts: 174
Joined: Sun Mar 26, 2017 6:38 pm

Re: when lying is the right thing to do

Post by commonsense » Sun May 28, 2017 4:45 pm

Walker wrote:
Sun May 28, 2017 11:25 am
commonsense wrote:
Sun May 28, 2017 12:17 am
You don't understand bluffing.
I called yours.
Ha!
😉

ken
Posts: 1891
Joined: Mon May 09, 2016 4:14 am

Re: when lying is the right thing to do

Post by ken » Thu Jun 01, 2017 1:56 pm

surreptitious57 wrote:
Sun May 28, 2017 2:54 pm
I have not told you what you would or would not do. You are entirely independent of me.
When you wrote, "do you tell the Gestapo that you are hiding Jews in your house [ the answer is obviously no ]", then in a sense you have tried to tell Me what I would do. Although I know that is not what I would do so you can not literally tell me what I would do. But by writing it that way you are saying, "this is what you [ken] would do". I know that what you are really saying and that is, that is what you [surreptitious57] would do, but others may get somewhat confused and think that is what I would actually do also, which is not true.
surreptitious57 wrote:
Sun May 28, 2017 2:54 pm
And therefore free to make up your own mind on this matter.
Yes I am free to decide anything I choose, including that I do NOT have my own mind and neither do you. I will say this again, to Me there is only one Mind. I do not have It. I do not own It, and I certainly do not make up, as in change, that one Mind. The one, collective if you like, Mind is fixed. It KNOWS what is true, right, and correct. And, It does not change from this.

Further to this I have already decided what I would do, and I already explained this decision when I wrote what I would do in a like wise situation.
surreptitious57 wrote:
Sun May 28, 2017 2:54 pm
You asked me for an example and I gave you one.
Yes true and thank you. But if had replaced the word 'you' with 'i', then I would not have said, Do not tell Me what I would or would not do.
surreptitious57 wrote:
Sun May 28, 2017 2:54 pm
I have no others to give.
That is fine, but do you really believe that to base one's own beliefs on just one example is really the best thing to do?

Basing the belief, Lying is the right thing to do when it is necessary in order to prevent someone from being harmed, could be seen as a very detrimental belief as that could very easily lead to human beings demise. Every person could then try to justify to themselves that lying is the "right thing to do" in order to not be harmed, for example a young child when questioned by a parent about doing some thing, they could then lie in order to not be punished and/or physically smacked - harmed. Or, an older child when question by a teacher or police officer about doing some thing, could then try to justify to themselves that lying is the "right thing to do" in order to not be punished, ridiculed, and/or physically mistreated - harmed. Or, an adult could when questioned by a police officer or judge about doing some thing, could then try to justify to themselves that lying is the "right thing to do" in order to be punished, judged and/or misjudged, and/or physically detained - harmed. In all cases a person could 'try to justify to themselves that lying is the right thing to do, which obviously it would not be the right thing to do to the people that they are lying to.

By the way I also use the term 'try to justify to themselves' because can lying ever really be justified? And, people can only "try to" justify things to themselves only, because only 'what IS' is truly justified, which is known by ALL, as One, anyway. Only what is truly just can be and IS justified. Every thing else is "tried to" be justified.
surreptitious57 wrote:
Sun May 28, 2017 2:54 pm
Though I do find it interesting that you think the Jews came into existence partly or mostly because of lying. I know what you mean but it could be interpreted rather ambiguously so just bear this in mind
Thanks for pointing that out and I will think about this. If you had provided a clarifying question, however, then I could have very easily and very quickly attempted to dissolve any and all ambiguity, for the others that is, as you say you already know what I mean so I do not have to explain to you what I mean. But without a clarifying question then I am not totally sure of what ambiguity you are seeing, and as you know I do not like to assume anything whatsoever. I do not know, for sure, the ambiguity you are seeing so you might have to explain to Me exactly what you mean.

Would you like to clarify what ambiguity you are seeing? This might help Me to see and understand much better.

If the truth be known there is a rather lot of ambiguity that could be seen in just about every thing I write, but I write in such a way that some ambiguity is hopefully very obvious. I found the more open a person is the more ambiguity they see. I write this way to find the most open and most curious people, and thus the most intelligent ones also. I am learning a way to write that invites curiosity and get people to ask Me clarifying questions. As some are aware here one reason I am here is to just learn how to better express thy Self. I know if people asked Me clarifying questions, continuously, and answered ALL the clarifying questions I ask, then together ALL the meaningful questions in Life will be found as well as answered. And, thus ALL the problems in Life will be solved also.

I am not trying to refute anyone's beliefs or to say that any belief is right or wrong. I am just trying to learn how to express that if people wanted to and began to look at things differently, that is from a truly open perspective, then ALL the meaningful things that they are looking for can be discovered, or more correctly re-discovered. If people just changed the way they think, then they will discover that they actually already knew what was, IS, and will always be true, right, and correct.

Science Fan
Posts: 367
Joined: Fri May 26, 2017 5:01 pm

Re: when lying is the right thing to do

Post by Science Fan » Thu Jun 01, 2017 4:49 pm

It's amusing reading the comments from people who admit that they would tell the Nazis that there were Jews in their basement, while claiming to be morally superior to others for doing so. That's absurd. If everyone opposed fascists, even if that opposition involved lying, that would make the world better off, not worse off. But the real amusing aspect of these comments is the fact that everyone knows the people writing them lie their asses off in the real world, and they lie all the time.

Walker
Posts: 4021
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2015 12:00 am

Re: when lying is the right thing to do

Post by Walker » Thu Jun 01, 2017 11:15 pm

Classic case of projection.

ken
Posts: 1891
Joined: Mon May 09, 2016 4:14 am

Re: when lying is the right thing to do

Post by ken » Fri Jun 02, 2017 1:59 am

Science Fan wrote:
Thu Jun 01, 2017 4:49 pm
It's amusing reading the comments from people who admit that they would tell the Nazis that there were Jews in their basement, while claiming to be morally superior to others for doing so. That's absurd.
Are you referring to this thread here only? I do not recall any person in this thread who admitted that they would tell "nazis" that there were "jews" in their basement.

I also do not recall any person claiming to be morally superior to others.

Could you please refer us to the people and the exact comments you are referring to?
Science Fan wrote:
Thu Jun 01, 2017 4:49 pm
If everyone opposed fascists, even if that opposition involved lying, that would make the world better off, not worse off.
If everyone opposed fascists, then there obviously would not be any fascist existing.

And in your view a world without fascists would be a much better world, right?

Are these so called "fascists" the only people who it is right lie to, or are there "others" also?
Science Fan wrote:
Thu Jun 01, 2017 4:49 pm
But the real amusing aspect of these comments is the fact that everyone knows the people writing them lie their asses off in the real world, and they lie all the time.
Do these people really lie all the time in the "real" world?

Is it actually possible to lie all the time and to lie one's ass off?

Could a more actual true be all adult people lie sometimes.

I am still curios of where these alleged comments are, which you are referring to.

By the way if a person is hiding another person or thing, then would they really tell where that person or thing is anyway?

Does not hiding some thing mean that you would not expose that thing also?

So, I do not think any person who is hiding a person of jewish faith would then also tell the truth and say where that "jew" is. It seems rather contradictory to expose the very thing that one is also hiding. Obviously if and when a person tells the person, who is being called a "nazi", where the person, who is being called a "jew", is, then that person is not the one who is hiding anything. Therefore there is absolutely no reason to do anything but tell the truth, in this situation, anyway.

Walker
Posts: 4021
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2015 12:00 am

Re: when lying is the right thing to do

Post by Walker » Fri Jun 02, 2017 1:26 pm

Science Fan wrote:
Thu Jun 01, 2017 4:49 pm
It's amusing reading the comments from people who admit that they would tell the Nazis that there were Jews in their basement, while claiming to be morally superior to others for doing so. That's absurd. If everyone opposed fascists, even if that opposition involved lying, that would make the world better off, not worse off. But the real amusing aspect of these comments is the fact that everyone knows the people writing them lie their asses off in the real world, and they lie all the time.
What’s amusing is scientists whoring for climate change.

Paris Climate Agreement.
- For the signatories it’s about money and regulatory control. Period.
- What’s odd is the mindless doublespeak by the dutifully outraged about saving and destroying the planet, on behalf of the fat cats … corporations without borders.

Here’s the reasoning:
https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-of ... ate-accord

commonsense
Posts: 174
Joined: Sun Mar 26, 2017 6:38 pm

Re: when lying is the right thing to do

Post by commonsense » Tue Jun 06, 2017 9:26 pm

surreptitious57 wrote:
Sun May 28, 2017 6:42 am
I have already stated that I can not [sic] think of any examples when lying is the right thing do to. That means I can not [sic] think of any examples when lying is necessary in order to prevent someone from being harmed.

The most famous one : [sic] do you tell the Gestapo that you are hiding Jews in your house [ the answer is obviously no ][sic]
This appears to be saying that the most famous example of lying being necessary to prevent someone from being harmed is: do you tell the Gestapo….
The answer is obvious in the following sense: lying actually is necessary in order to prevent harm in this most famous example. While the answer is obvious here, it in no way makes the choice of action any less complex for those who choose to ponder.

ken
Posts: 1891
Joined: Mon May 09, 2016 4:14 am

Re: when lying is the right thing to do

Post by ken » Wed Jun 07, 2017 8:02 am

commonsense wrote:
Tue Jun 06, 2017 9:26 pm
surreptitious57 wrote:
Sun May 28, 2017 6:42 am
I have already stated that I can not [sic] think of any examples when lying is the right thing do to. That means I can not [sic] think of any examples when lying is necessary in order to prevent someone from being harmed.

The most famous one : [sic] do you tell the Gestapo that you are hiding Jews in your house [ the answer is obviously no ][sic]
This appears to be saying that the most famous example of lying being necessary to prevent someone from being harmed is: do you tell the Gestapo….
The answer is obvious in the following sense: lying actually is necessary in order to prevent harm in this most famous example. While the answer is obvious here,
But lying actually is NOT necessary in order to prevent harm in this most "famous" example, as I and others have already shown.

duszek
Posts: 2088
Joined: Wed Jun 03, 2009 5:27 pm
Location: Thin Air

Re: when lying is the right thing to do

Post by duszek » Wed Jun 07, 2017 5:48 pm

If someone is suicidal and asks you: Do you still love me ?
you should say yes.

Love is a vague term anyway so why not be kind ?

commonsense
Posts: 174
Joined: Sun Mar 26, 2017 6:38 pm

Re: when lying is the right thing to do

Post by commonsense » Thu Jun 08, 2017 1:22 pm

ken wrote:
Wed Jun 07, 2017 8:02 am
commonsense wrote:
Tue Jun 06, 2017 9:26 pm
surreptitious57 wrote:
Sun May 28, 2017 6:42 am
I have already stated that I can not [sic] think of any examples when lying is the right thing do to. That means I can not [sic] think of any examples when lying is necessary in order to prevent someone from being harmed.

The most famous one : [sic] do you tell the Gestapo that you are hiding Jews in your house [ the answer is obviously no ][sic]
This appears to be saying that the most famous example of lying being necessary to prevent someone from being harmed is: do you tell the Gestapo….
The answer is obvious in the following sense: lying actually is necessary in order to prevent harm in this most famous example. While the answer is obvious here,
But lying actually is NOT necessary in order to prevent harm in this most "famous" example, as I and others have already shown.

Ken, you have some explaining to do.

"But lying is NOT necessary in order to prevent harm in this 'famous' example, as I and others have already shown."

Alas, Ken, you have not shown what you have claimed here. In fact, you lied. Pay close attention to the logic that follows.

If "I and others have already shown." is true, then you and more than one other must have proved that lying is not necessary to prevent harm in the specified example.

If you have not shown that lying is not necessary to prevent harm in the example, then it is false that you and others have already shown what you claimed above.

Here's the argument you made in posts from 5/21/2017 to present:

I can not [sic] think of any examples when lying is the right thing to do.
Irrelevant. If you can't think of examples of something, it means you can't think of examples of something and not that you have shown anything else.

To Me[sic], lying to preserve your self-image is the wrong thing to do.
Irrelevant. If you think something is the wrong thing to do, it means that your opinion is that the thing is wrong to do. Indeed, your opinion does not make it actually so.

Lying to preserve one's self-image all seems rather contradictory to Me[sic].
Again, irrelevant. If something seems contradictory to you, it doesn't make it, in fact, contradictory. It just seems that way to you.

I will reiterate I can not [sic] think of any examples when lying is the right thing to do.
Same as Above.

I can not [sic] think of any thing nor any time that requires lying.
Same as Above.

If asked if that individual is in the house, then I tell them the truth, "I do not know where they are". For all I know they could have left the house or moved from where they were while I am answering the door, so the truth is I do not know where they are.
Irrelevant. If you choose to tell the truth, no matter how much truth-telling is believed to be the right thing to does not prove that lying is the wrong thing to do.

I would try and [sic]divert their attention away from the issue rather than just lying. If they believe the person they are seeking is in the house, then no amount of lying will stop them anyway. Irrelevant.
I can not [sic] think of any examples when lying is the right thing to do [sic]
Same as Above.

I have already stated that I can not [sic] think of any examples when lying is the right thing do to.
This means you cannot think of any examples when lying is necessary in order to prevent someone from being harmed. And yet it does not demonstrate something other than your cognitive limitation.

I am very simple and sometimes I do not see what human beings see. That is I can not [sic] see, what it is that they see, until it is pointed out to Me [sic].
Same as Above.

You have not shown that lying is not necessary to prevent harm in the example. Your claim is a lie. You may think you have proved your point, but you have not.

Walker
Posts: 4021
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2015 12:00 am

Re: when lying is the right thing to do

Post by Walker » Thu Jun 08, 2017 6:31 pm

The causality is only assumed, based on known factors.

The actual outcome assumed from lying also assumes that the liar is glib enough to fool a Nazi.

Daniel didn’t walk among the lions by being a liar. If he had tried to lie his way through the den, they would have gobbled him up.

Same with Mother Teresa in the slums of Calcutta where, like slums anywhere, someone might knock you in the head and take your money.

ken
Posts: 1891
Joined: Mon May 09, 2016 4:14 am

Re: when lying is the right thing to do

Post by ken » Fri Jun 09, 2017 4:47 pm

commonsense wrote:
Thu Jun 08, 2017 1:22 pm
ken wrote:
Wed Jun 07, 2017 8:02 am
commonsense wrote:
Tue Jun 06, 2017 9:26 pm

This appears to be saying that the most famous example of lying being necessary to prevent someone from being harmed is: do you tell the Gestapo….
The answer is obvious in the following sense: lying actually is necessary in order to prevent harm in this most famous example. While the answer is obvious here,
But lying actually is NOT necessary in order to prevent harm in this most "famous" example, as I and others have already shown.

Ken, you have some explaining to do.

"But lying is NOT necessary in order to prevent harm in this 'famous' example, as I and others have already shown."

Alas, Ken, you have not shown what you have claimed here. In fact, you lied. Pay close attention to the logic that follows.

If "I and others have already shown." is true, then you and more than one other must have proved that lying is not necessary to prevent harm in the specified example.

If you have not shown that lying is not necessary to prevent harm in the example, then it is false that you and others have already shown what you claimed above.

Here's the argument you made in posts from 5/21/2017 to present:

I can not [sic] think of any examples when lying is the right thing to do.
Irrelevant. If you can't think of examples of something, it means you can't think of examples of something and not that you have shown anything else.

To Me[sic], lying to preserve your self-image is the wrong thing to do.
Irrelevant. If you think something is the wrong thing to do, it means that your opinion is that the thing is wrong to do. Indeed, your opinion does not make it actually so.

Lying to preserve one's self-image all seems rather contradictory to Me[sic].
Again, irrelevant. If something seems contradictory to you, it doesn't make it, in fact, contradictory. It just seems that way to you.

I will reiterate I can not [sic] think of any examples when lying is the right thing to do.
Same as Above.

I can not [sic] think of any thing nor any time that requires lying.
Same as Above.

If asked if that individual is in the house, then I tell them the truth, "I do not know where they are". For all I know they could have left the house or moved from where they were while I am answering the door, so the truth is I do not know where they are.
Irrelevant. If you choose to tell the truth, no matter how much truth-telling is believed to be the right thing to does not prove that lying is the wrong thing to do.

I would try and [sic]divert their attention away from the issue rather than just lying. If they believe the person they are seeking is in the house, then no amount of lying will stop them anyway. Irrelevant.
I can not [sic] think of any examples when lying is the right thing to do [sic]
Same as Above.

I have already stated that I can not [sic] think of any examples when lying is the right thing do to.
This means you cannot think of any examples when lying is necessary in order to prevent someone from being harmed. And yet it does not demonstrate something other than your cognitive limitation.

I am very simple and sometimes I do not see what human beings see. That is I can not [sic] see, what it is that they see, until it is pointed out to Me [sic].
Same as Above.

You have not shown that lying is not necessary to prevent harm in the example. Your claim is a lie. You may think you have proved your point, but you have not.
I paid close attention to 'your' logic that followed, and obviously you have not paid much attention at all to My logic.

I did not realize that I had to further explain it to you but anyway here goes, If I tell the person who is being labelled "hitman" or "nazi" that "I do not know where that person is" [that they are seeking] and this deters them away from harming that person, then the truth prevented harm being done. Therefore, there are other measures to prevent harm being done.

If other measures, besides lying, prevent harm being done, then lying actually is NOT necessary to prevent harm . Can you follow this logic now?

You are right in that I have not shown what the outcome was, in this example, but you were unable to show what the outcome was also. In fact your lying may have actually caused not just the harm or death of that person but also of your family members and of yourself too. The outcome is unknown because we both are unable to show it. But we do not need to see the outcome, to see that lying is NOT necessary to prevent harm in this example. The truth may in fact prevent harm in this example. It all depends on what truth is told, and If that truth, or anything else besides lying, prevents harm from being done. If some thing besides lying prevents harm, then lying is NOT necessary to prevent harm.

Now, you are the one who made the claim that, lying is necessary to prevent harm in this example. I responded with, lying is NOT necessary to prevent harm in this example.

The truth is lying may prevent harm, in this example, and it may not. In fact lying may cause far more harm being done, and then if lying does not prevent harm, then the statement lying is necessary to prevent harm, in this example, IS false. In fact lying is necessary to prevent harm, is false in two ways.

My conclusion was lying is NOT necessary to prevent harm.
I have shown examples that telling the truth, (with further questioning), may in fact prevent any harm being done.
If these measures prevents any harm from being done, then lying is NOT necessary to prevent harm.

Surely, this logic is not that hard to follow, this time.

And, as others have actually already shown, if the person labelled "hitman" or "nazi" was told, "Fuck you", and this prevented harm from being done, then, again, lying is NOT necessary to prevent harm, in this example. So, there are actually other ways to prevent harm being done besides just lying AND just telling the truth.

Therefore, lying actually is NOT necessary in order to prevent harm in this most "famous" example, as I and others have already shown, still stands. (Remember I NEVER said the truth is necessary to prevent harm. I just said, "Lying actually is NOT necessary to prevent harm".)


The two ways the statement, lying is necessary to prevent harm, is false is;
Lying may actually cause more harm being done. And,
There are other measures, besides lying, that prevents harm from being done.
Truth and honesty being just one of those other measures.

Again I invite you to show an example of when lying is necessary to prevent harm being done and/or to show when lying is the right thing to do. If and when you do that, then we can take another look at them.

However, I admit I could have previously worded My sentences better by explaining HOW there are other ways that can also prevent harm, without the use of lying necessarily being the way to prevent harm from being done. Maybe if I had, then My claim that I and others had already shown this would have been seen earlier, and thus proved earlier. But I do understand how and why some people are slower than others are to see what is already obvious to others.

Further to this, I STILL can not see, what it is that human beings want Me to see, unless of course they can point it out to Me. I really can not see nor follow the so called "logic" that you wanted Me to see and follow here. I can see and follow where, how, and why your "logic" goes the way it does because of your beliefs. And I can see and follow the attempts that are made by human beings to try to "justify" their wrong and abusive behaviors towards others and themselves but I hope I am not really expect to accept them, let alone agree with them?

Do you have any actual real examples of when lying is the right thing to do, or, when lying is necessary to prevent harm?

I can for now see that IF, and only IF, there was no other way besides lying to prevent harm from being done, then lying might be used. But I still can not think of any examples or of any times when lying is actually necessary to prevent harm from being done. The Truth will always override and outweigh a lie, will It not?

Maybe I do have it all wrong and lying is the right thing to do. I will just have to wait and see what human beings will use next time to try and make a logically sound and valid argument for their "lying is the right thing to do" position.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests