27 Jan 11
Originally posted by ZahlanziYes it does. Many children grow up believing their parents to be habitual liars (which they often are). Whether that is a good or bad thing is a different question. I think children should be taught to have a healthy skepticism for everything that is said even when it comes from a figure of authority.
did telling children world wide about santa claus ruined their trust in their parents? let's be serious here
Having said that, I have personally tried to be more honest than most people when talking to my son, and I tell off other adults that deliberately lie to him.
27 Jan 11
I believe that for any type of action, the morality of it depends on the situation as a whole and the complete consequences of the action as far as you can determine them ie the 'greater good'. I do not think there is any possible action that can in isolation be labeled 'always bad'. There must always be a situation where the action in question is the only alternative to a morally worse course of action.
There may be special cases such as 'murder' where one could argue that the word itself implies morally wrong motives (as opposed to manslaughter, killing etc.) ie if I kill someone for a morally right reason, then it is not murder.
- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
27 Jan 11
1 edit
Originally posted by AgergAs regards your second paragraph I disagree with your statement that a lie is not merely a false statement - that is precisely what a lie is! What follows from the lie or the intention behind it is another matter [1][2]. Moreover, though I can accept your *exceptions to the rule* on the grounds of common sense, common sense isn't the issue with this debate; The issue is a universal statement,
[b]Yes, indeed. This was quite a universal Christian teaching until recent times. The Catholic Church taught, and perhaps still does, that lying is an intrinsic evil, first because it violates the natural purpose of human communication, and second, from a consequentialist perspective, the presumption of honesty is necessary for meaningful dialogue and, without xist then I'll concede your point here.[/b]
from a source that betrays (in certain instances) common sense anyway
and so it should be resilient to the sort of pedantry I or others are willing to throw at it - afterall, we're not dealing with the statement "lies are [b]usually wrong", we're dealing with the statement "all lies are wrong".[3] [/b]
First, I cannot think of a single moral philosopher who has so naively defined a lie as a 'false statement'. Even in standard conversation, we would not recognise as a lie a statement which the speaker did not know was false. Conversely, we may still call statement a lie, even when it is true, if the speaker at least thought it to be false and had the intention to deceive. This latter case is a bit controversial but under St Thomas Aquinas' definition of a lie as 'a statement at variance with the mind', it is possible.
Second, and with all due respect, it is really not up to you to contend the definition of lying. You are not a Christian nor do you hold the doctrine that 'lying is always wrong'. It is only up to the person who subscribes to that doctrine to define the terms in question. Especially in the case of religious doctrines, certain nuances and subtleties may be wanted. You of course can object to the doctrine but you have no place to argue that any definitions are wrong.
Third, I have not argued that there are exceptions to the rule that 'all lying is wrong'. Probably there are. I however am not concerned to defend this doctrine; I am simply advising you that a Christian moral philosopher may wish to define lies more narrowly, rather than admit exceptions to this rule.
Your point about mental reservation is an interesting one; however, even granting some leeway on this (and with the strictness I say one should be with what constitutes a lie, I perhaps shouldn't) there is a degree of ambiguity as to what counts as mental reservation and what doesn't - for example, is the statement "I promise to always tell the truth" reserving the words "when it serves my own interest"??
Yes, it is a difficult point. In fact, the Holy See in the seventeenth century officially condemned mental reservations as lies. Since then, however, that position has been mollified. There is a distinction between broad mental reservation and strict mental reservation. A broad mental reservation is the reservation of any words; a strict mental reservation, however, is the reservation of words which in that culture interlocutors should be able to infer. The former are lies, the latter not. In your cases, 'when it serves my own interests' is a broad mental reservation which the listener could not know. If, however, I said 'I promise to help you' I think the listener could detect the words reserved 'barring extreme circumstances' or 'provided that such help is not adverse to me'. Since both intelocutors can infer the content of the reserved speech, no lie has really occurred.
I think the crucial point to grasp is that meaning changes according to context. If my GP doctor asks if I smoke and I reply that I do not, when in fact I do, that would be a lie. In that situation he has no reason to interpret the words differently. If a stranger asks for a cigarette and I reply that I do not smoke, I think that the meaning changes -- I am in effect saying 'In a polite way, I do not want to give you a cigarette'. It's not a lie because in that situation neither am I seeking to deceive nor is the person asking deceived (most likely he recognises this as a polite excuse.) When we are judging if a statement is a lie, we must ask whether the speaker wishes to deceive and whether the listener can in that situation reasonably expect to interpret a statement in its normative sense. If the speaker does not intend to deceive and the listener understands from the context what the speaker actually intends, I can't see how a lie has occurred.
27 Jan 11
Originally posted by twhiteheadi am not talking about habitual liars. i am not talking about parents who keep telling 14 year old that santa exists or how wonderful and special and unique snowflakes they are (again at 10+ years )even when the kid is rock dumb .
Yes it does. Many children grow up believing their parents to be habitual liars (which they often are). Whether that is a good or bad thing is a different question. I think children should be taught to have a healthy skepticism for everything that is said even when it comes from a figure of authority.
Having said that, I have personally tried to be more ...[text shortened]... an most people when talking to my son, and I tell off other adults that deliberately lie to him.
i am talking that one lie can brighten the day of a child that can't reason that good. a child that doesn't tell the difference between a harsh truth and meannes. a parent telling the kid that his spaghetti monster he drew is crap and in no way similar to a cat appears mean to the child. we are talking of course of let's say 3-8 year olds. the age at which you reduce the lies and start telling more truth varies from child to child and how much he can handle it.
would you instruct your child on how many people die in wars? in natural disasters? how many women and children are raped? about disfiguring diseases? how about porn? at what age do you consider it apropriate to introduce your kid to porn (and how awkward that would be). how about if the bank is about to take your house? would you sit your son down and explain debt and bankrupcy to a 7 year old? what good would that do except upset him
my mother told me about santa claus. at about 6-7 years i kinda figured something is askew. so my mother gradually moved from santa brought this to "i am his helper, i was told to give you this". i hardly think my mother is a habitual liar.
the conclusion is: we keep stuff from our children. we protect them from the world because they are not ready. at what time we start letting the world into our children lives depends on the child and on the parent and it is one of the characteristics of a good parent to chooose the apropriate time.
27 Jan 11
3 edits
Originally posted by robbie carrobieyes, but at least i aint a liar and neither was Christ.
yes, but at least i aint a liar and neither was Christ.
(1 Peter 2:21-22) In fact, to this course you were called, because even Christ suffered for you, leaving you a model for you to follow his steps closely. He committed no sin, [b]nor was deception found in his mouth.
you may wish to consult the teachings of Christianity before you launch your tirades upon others, better versed in scripture than you.[/b]
You sure about that statement?!
Let me take you back to earlier this year just before your second self imposed forum ban (the one for throwing around derogatory homphobic insults at ThinkOfOne, classy!!). The thread is your own thread titled -
Hinduism, backdrop to the caste system. Thread 131910
Page 8, 2/3rds of the way down i ask you this question -
If i started calling your missus a 'paki', then you could rightly call me a racist.
To which you replied, and i've bolded some text for emphasis -
no i would not call you a racist, shes from Pakistan, what else would you call her? its a very short difference from Pakistani to Paki, no biggie. i am from Scotland, i get called a jock, is that racist? i dont think so, it makes no difference to me.
When i pointed out to you that not long before this thread you jumped all over someone for using the same term, although that person was using the word in a non racist context. We then had this admission -
ok ok i admit it, if someone called my wife a Paki in the street id find him and toe his balls.
Where i'm from, we call that lying!! What's laughable is that for all the scenarios that have been hypothesised in this thread ie. lying to save peoples lives or lying to shield children from the painful truth of life, you were lying to protect your ego, your own vanity. Instead of having the humility to graciously accept you had lost the argument you lied, and only when i pointed out the absurdity of your position you admitted as such.
It should be noted ThinkOfOne pointed this out to you on the next page of the thread, but you ignored it, which is probably what you'll do to this post anyhow, it's easier to keep the head in the sand.
27 Jan 11
2 edits
Originally posted by Conrau KFirst, I cannot think of a single moral philosopher who has so naively defined a lie as a 'false statement'. Even in standard conversation, we would not recognise as a lie a statement which the speaker did not know was false. Conversely, we may still call statement a lie, even when it is true, if the speaker at least thought it to be false and had the intention to deceive. This latter case is a bit controversial but under St Thomas Aquinas' definition of a lie as 'a statement at variance with the mind', it is possible.
As regards your second paragraph I disagree with your statement that a lie is not merely a false statement - that is precisely what a lie is! What follows from the lie or the intention behind it is another matter [1][2]. Moreover, though I can accept your *exceptions to the rule* on the grounds of common sense, common sense isn't the issue with this deba r actually intends, I can't see how a lie has occurred.
Second, and with all due respect, it is really not up to you to contend the definition of lying. You are not a Christian nor do you hold the doctrine that 'lying is always wrong'. It is only up to the person who subscribes to that doctrine to define the terms in question. Especially in the case of religious doctrines, certain nuances and subtleties may be wanted. You of course can object to the doctrine but you have no place to argue that any definitions are wrong.
Third, I have not argued that there are exceptions to the rule that 'all lying is wrong'. Probably there are. I however am not concerned to defend this doctrine; I am simply advising you that a Christian moral philosopher may wish to define lies more narrowly, rather than admit exceptions to this rule.
Yes, I should have been more careful there; though I didn't actually put it that way I meant, implicitly at least, the intention to convey false information based upon the evaluation of that statement's truth or falsity by the speaker; that said I tend to treat the ancillary intention of the lie - be it for greater good, or for greater harm, or otherwse as a distinct object, and leave it to the "adversary" to somehow argue that as a consequence of this lie, the greater harm is always achieved. (Otherwise, if this intention is a component of the definition, then "lying is always wrong" would be a tautology if the intention was defined to be harmful)
As regards my attempt to resist the narrowing of definition you suggest; I suppose that stems in part from the fact I'd like to reference this thread in future discussions where this point will be raised, and it would be convenient to have a definition which compliments the "majority" (arguably strictest) view (i.e. to avoid any charges of "strawmanship" I' would enlarge the set of all "objectively wrong lies" in their favour before arguing against it
noting of course that the \"minority\" may charge me with doing that anyway
). This is no doubt beyond the concerns of moral philosophers however, and so for the purposes of this particular discussion I take your point on board.
Yes, it is a difficult point. In fact, the Holy See in the seventeenth century officially condemned mental reservations as lies. Since then, however, that position has been mollified. There is a distinction between broad mental reservation and strict mental reservation. A broad mental reservation is the reservation of any words; a strict mental reservation, however, is the reservation of words which in that culture interlocutors should be able to infer. The former are lies, the latter not. In your cases, 'when it serves my own interests' is a broad mental reservation which the listener could not know. If, however, I said 'I promise to help you' I think the listener could detect the words reserved 'barring extreme circumstances' or 'provided that such help is not adverse to me'. Since both intelocutors can infer the content of the reserved speech, no lie has really occurred.
I think the crucial point to grasp is that meaning changes according to context. If my GP doctor asks if I smoke and I reply that I do not, when in fact I do, that would be a lie. In that situation he has no reason to interpret the words differently. If a stranger asks for a cigarette and I reply that I do not smoke, I think that the meaning changes -- I am in effect saying 'In a polite way, I do not want to give you a cigarette'. It's not a lie because in that situation neither am I seeking to deceive nor is the person asking deceived (most likely he recognises this as a polite excuse.) When we are judging if a statement is a lie, we must ask whether the speaker wishes to deceive and whether the listener can in that situation reasonably expect to interpret a statement in its normative sense. If the speaker does not intend to deceive and the listener understands from the context what the speaker actually intends, I can't see how a lie has occurred.
I see your point here, often in ordinary conversation I'll humourously express the negation of what I mean to accentuate it's magnitude and this is usually understood. That said there have been more than a couple of awkward moments where the listener has not picked up on this irony and viewed my statement with haughty suspicion - could it be argued they did construe my statement as a lie?
Indeed if one supposes a speaker who is addressing a number of listeners does perform an act of mental reservation, is the question as to whether he has lied or not contingent upon all listeners acknowledging what was left unspoken?
27 Jan 11
4 edits
Originally posted by Proper KnobI think his latest tactic of playing the victim card by accusing me and Zahlanzi of insulting his "brothers" who died in WW2, inspite of the fact that a) it is entirely irrelevant to the discussion here, and b) my numerous requests for him to demonstrate this wasn't a bare-faced lie with a damning quote or two, will keep him from responding to this one here just to uphold his charade.
[b]yes, but at least i aint a liar and neither was Christ.
You sure about that statement?!
Let me take you back to earlier this year just before your second self imposed forum ban (the one for throwing around derogatory homphobic insults at ThinkOfOne, classy!!). The thread is your own thread titled -
Hinduism, backdrop to the caste syst is probably what you'll do to this post anyhow, it's easier to keep the head in the sand.[/b]
Wish I'd seen that thread though - would have saved me a lot of effort here and elsewhere!
Why can't some people acknowledge when they are wrong? Is it a sign of weakness on their part that they would ever let it be known they realised they had said something controversial, or their reasoning was invalid/contained a mistake??
27 Jan 11
2 edits
Originally posted by Proper Knob[/i]why should i ignore your post, it was you who excommunicated me, not vice versa, and I have never claimed that i have not lied, i merely do not try to make a habit of it, adding your post to the now heap of extraordinary strawmen arguments that have been alleged. What really cuts to the chase is I know of Biblical examples where individuals have deliberately concealed the truth to deceive others, which, had i been asked, i would have cited, but noo, they were too busy heaping their straw men arguments into one mighty heap of sheer absurdity and deluding themselves into believing their own propaganda, this post of your is simply another one of those.
[b]yes, but at least i aint a liar and neither was Christ.
You sure about that statement?!
Let me take you back to earlier this year just before your second self imposed forum ban (the one for throwing around derogatory homphobic insults at ThinkOfOne, classy!!). The thread is your own thread titled -
Hinduism, backdrop to the caste syst is probably what you'll do to this post anyhow, it's easier to keep the head in the sand.[/b]
Did i claim that i have never told a lie, nope, am i claiming that now, nope, what therefore was the meaning of Christs words in relation to me a sinful and imperfect human being, did you even think about that, nope, you just want to pontificate like the rest of the posters on here without actually taking the time or the effort to understand another's perspective. Would you hang out with people that were uninterested in your perspective, no nether would I.
27 Jan 11
Originally posted by Agergperhaps if you take the time to understand another's perspective you would not continue to proliferate your stupid straw men arguments assigning values where none exist.
I think his latest tactic of playing the victim card by accusing me and Zahlanzi of insulting his "brothers" who died in WW2, inspite of the fact that a) it is entirely irrelevant to the discussion here, and b) my numerous requests for him to demonstrate this wasn't a bare-faced lie with a damning quote or two, will keep him from responding to this one here ju ...[text shortened]... they had said something controversial, or their reasoning was invalid/contained a mistake??
27 Jan 11
1 edit
Originally posted by robbie carrobieDo you actually remember what you post on these forums, in fact do you remember what you post even in this thread? This is what you posted in response to Zahlanzi on page 4 of this thread (my emphasis) -
why should i ignore your post, it was you who excommunicated me, not vice versa, and I have never claimed that i have not lied, i merely do not try to make a habit of it, adding your post to the now heap of extraordinary strawmen arguments that have been alleged. What really cuts to the chase is I know of Biblical examples where individuals have del Would you hang out with people that were uninterested in your perspective, no nether would I.
yes, but at least i aint a liar and neither was Christ.
and now your saying
I have never claimed that i have not lied, i merely do not try to make a habit of it.
So you admit you lie.............but not habitually.........................so therefore that doesn't make you a liar?! Your talking complete and utter nonsense. A liar is someone who tells lies, just like you did and admit to doing. How can claim to not be a liar but admit to telling lies??!!
As for this dung about me making a straw man argument, these are all your own words, you have gotten yourself into this pickle. Simply because, as was the case i highlighted in the other thread, your massive ego gets in the way and you can't face admitting your wrong. You have no humility.
27 Jan 11
Originally posted by Proper Knobthe straw man argument argument is a method employed by many lazy and basicaly unskilled debaters.
Do you actually remember what you post on these forums, in fact do you remember what you post even in this thread? This is what you posted in response to Zahlanzi on page 4 of this thread (my emphasis) -
yes, but at least [b]i aint a liar and neither was Christ.
and now your saying
[i]I have never claimed that i have not lied, i mere ...[text shortened]... our massive ego gets in the way and you can't face admitting your wrong. You have no humility.[/b]
intellectually reduced people often cry "straw man!" without really knowing what that is, whether it is correct to use in that instance and forgetting that yelling straw man doesn't magically absolve you from pointing out exactly why the other debater employed a strawman.
27 Jan 11
11 edits
Originally posted by Proper Knobagain you have really no idea, do you, Christ was perfect i am not, therefore naturally the term is understood to be relative, but you dont know that because you are uninterested in knowing anything other than your own assertions. Not only that, you have no idea of what the implications of that are, do you. What is more i can prove you dont know anything, , tell the forum what is my stance on lying? you don't know do you, you dont know any biblical accounts that might have a bearing on how i view lying under certain or specific circumstances, do you, you dont know what my stance is with regard to concealing information from those which have no right to that information do you. You have in fact no idea about anything that i profess other than the projections in your own mind, do you, for you cannot tell the forum one piece of accurate knowledge about me or my beliefs, can you.
Do you actually remember what you post on these forums, in fact do you remember what you post even in this thread? This is what you posted in response to Zahlanzi on page 4 of this thread (my emphasis) -
yes, but at least [b]i aint a liar and neither was Christ.
and now your saying
have never claimed that i have not lied, i mere our massive ego gets in the way and you can't face admitting your wrong. You have no humility.[/b]
i challenge you to produce one principle, one biblical reference that might have a bearing on how i view lying, for as far as i can see, you are truly bereft of anything except your own propaganda and ignorant assertions.
oh as for the assertion about a pickle, well i shall bow to your greater experience, for it certainly takes one to know one.
27 Jan 11
5 edits
Originally posted by ZahlanziYou cannot tell the forum what my stance is with regard to lying, can you, because you dont know. why dont you know? because you are content to make up crappy scenarios and draw your conclusions from your own crappy and contrived fictional non events. You are truly an idiot of grotesque proportions, you have no idea what i believe, nor what principles might have a bearing on how i view lying, because i have not told you anything so you simply make it up. You dont know any Biblical principles nor references which might have a bearing on how i view lying do you? no you dont, you are the intellectual equivalent of a tabloid newspaper, if i were you i would stick to looking at the pictures and reading cartoons, for you absolutely dont know anything about what principles might have a bearing on how i view lying, if you did, you would state them, but you dont, because you are bereft of anything other than your own self certified straw. Get a job as a fire extinguisher Pansy once you heap your straw up you can set it on fire and extinguish it merely by talking to it! more froth on your cappuccino sir! yes please Zapansy!
the straw man argument argument is a method employed by many lazy and basicaly unskilled debaters.
intellectually reduced people often cry "straw man!" without really knowing what that is, whether it is correct to use in that instance and forgetting that yelling straw man doesn't magically absolve you from pointing out exactly why the other debater employed a strawman.