You are right as usual intuitively.henry quirk wrote: ↑Wed Jun 29, 2022 10:37 pmNo. Lyin is wrong even if no one outside the liar and the one lied to are aware of it. Lyin' is wrong even if the one lied to never becomes aware he was lied to. But if he does become aware of it and wants to plead his case, someone has to evaluate his claim. Before we penalize Sam for lyin' we, those who weren't there, have to evaluate the claim against Sam.Lying is wrong only because of a context that needs to be established after the fact when it becomes wrong at the time of the event because of the context.
But, enough: you don't understand...it is what it is.
I would not say 'lying is morally wrong' as the terms 'right' or 'wrong' can lead to many misunderstandings.
'lying' is a moral deviant, i.e. a deviation from the standard objective moral principle, 'lying is not permissible' period!
The point is 'if lying is permitted universally, then it can lead to possible genocide in its extreme'.
As such to be fool-proof or idiot-proof, the general moral principle is 'lying is not permissible' period!
BUT this objective moral principle is merely a guide and should never be imposed on any individual.
A credible moral system [only possible in the future*] will ensure individuals will develop their moral competence to the extent they would naturally never be triggered to lie.
It does not mean they cannot lie at all, but if the situation necessitate a lie to optimize the well being of all, then they will lie but only after thinking over it many times. Even then, thereafter they will take the necessary preventive steps to avoid the need to lie in the future.
A credible moral system will also strive to ensure humans [only in the future*] will not have to face any situations where they have to lie. If they ever have to do, it would only be very rare cases.
* it is too late for such a project in the present due the the present psychological states of the majority of humans which are being more beastly than being human.