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 t
hat 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.