DPMartin wrote: ↑Thu Apr 22, 2021 4:05 pm
Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Tue Apr 20, 2021 5:27 pm
Again, it's important to make a distinction between saying/acting as if you agree and actually agreeing.
I just gave an example. I don't actually think you're quite understanding what I'm saying. So I was lying above, but I acted as if I completely agreed with you.
There needs to be a distinction, because we can say things and act in ways that are not honest.
well then unethical you may be, but others in the agreement that you agree to are justified to hold you accountable to them via the agreement. though in some cases the others may not have the ability to enforce it, and in some cases where there's a power and authority included in the agreement therefore they can forced you to make it right according to the agreement.
Whether lying is unethical, whether anyone is justified to hold people accountable for agreements, etc. is subjective--it's a matter of individuals' preferences/dispositions. And again, it's something people can express agreement on and act in accord with while not actually agreeing with it. People would generally do that when there are benefits to be gained and/or consequences to avoid, where their preferences for those scenarios are stronger than their preference regarding what they disagree with.
Think of it this way: someone might prefer eating candy to eating broccoli, but if they know that they're going to be punished for doing so, or even for saying so, then their preference for not being punished may very well outweigh their preference for (saying that they prefer) eating candy to eating broccoli, so they're going to say things and behave in a way that avoids punishment--even though they don't at all agree with the situation. (They'll resent it, and it could eventually result in subversiveness or revolt.)
This is why, if we want people to be honest, we have to make it so that they're not penalized for their honesty, whatever it might happen to be.