commonsense wrote: ↑Wed May 24, 2017 2:11 am
Walker wrote: ↑Tue May 23, 2017 10:11 am
If your purpose is to fool people for one reason or another, then you lie.
Restated, whenever your intention is to mislead, the right thing to do is to lie.
When could whenever come into play, fulfilling the conditions of the premise? Possibly in the event of a conflict where the value of lying outweighs the conflicting value.
Lying might be the right thing to do when pitted against the preservation of life, for example when the hitman comes to your door; perhaps when lying to preserve a relationship, such as when asked, “Does this outfit make my butt look too big?” or when a prisoner of war is being interrogated by the enemy.
Of course, lying might not always be the preferred course of action in these and other examples, however these are indeed instances where lying could be the right thing to do.
Thank you, Walker, for leading me to this. And thank you, everyone, for the counterarguments that are sure to follow.
Those situations do not require lying.
Question: Hitman at the door asking questions, and you both know the situation.
Answer to hitman: F-you.
Question: Does this make my butt look big?
Answer: If the butt is already big, the answer is either it makes the butt irrestible, or the answer is that you always liked the cut of the other garment (which happens to be black and thus doesn’t accentuate the ass.) If the butt is not big the answer is, no, it does not make your butt look big.
Now, define big. If the butt is humungous you both know it, and if the question is asked in that situation, then you're both either going to get a good laugh, or the above answer will still apply.
Question: POW being interrogated.
Answer: Name, rank and serial number.
*
Best to remember that the standard against which lying and truth is measured is life, because life is the measure of all things.
The standard is not an abstract morality.
The standard is not a movie, or a song.
Abstract morality is instantly used against you in situations of confrontation that you think might require lying. An example of this is Christians who have respect for clean living, clean speech, and peace, and try to live accordingly. Well, this becomes a point of attack for those disrespectful to Christianity, because it is a concept. It becomes a point of mockery, especially if the attacker can goad the Christian into doing something that a Christian would not do, according to the abstracts. If the non-Christian can goad the Christian into anger and non-peacefulness, that action will refute the concept of the Christian objective, and that action will prove whatever it is that the goader wants it to prove, for in fact the Christian is gritting his teeth and obviously thinking hostile thoughts, judging by that facial expression.
The non-Christian is free to act like a parading, singing bully if he must under the conditions for he is not bound to that Christian concept of clean speech, etc. Or, if he so chooses because he thinks he is in control, he might in fact be out of control and later even say, that wasn't me.
Making one’s understanding of a text-book situation, the basis of interpreting reality, in fact becomes a limitation. This is caused by clinging to a standard other than life, and because naturally, whatever cure one clings to in turn becomes the disease.
How about if this mysterious hitman … this blank slate receiving philosophical projections as if he is nothing more than a concept placeholder standing there … what if he is imminently threatening what is most precious to you and demanding that you tell secrets that will result in death for someone. Do you think your lies or truth will make any difference to such a creature?
Now, what do
you do?
Morality situation
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ks2SXmI4Njc
(any complaints?)