Lying is always bad - why???

Originally posted by souverein
There are certainly some deceptive statements which serve the greater good with an economy that cannot be met by some other truthful statement. My issue in this thread has been the universality and generality of all lies being bad which certain theists tend to espouse - and I haven't actually been given an argument (beyond gainsaying) to support the pos even with the best intentions - are normally in the long run very harmful to young children.

and at the same time the necessety of cunning indicates there is something badly wrong with such an economy system.
I'm not so sure I agree with this; if we reduce the action of lying down to it's skeleton and treat the consequences separately (not neglecting them) then it is merely the will to present false information to the listener with respect to what the speaker regards as true. Undoubtedly there are many cases where the consequences of this action are undesirable either in the short term or the long term, whilst in others it may be true that they serve to shift what is true merely by the placebo effect of believing the false statement. For example, consider:

Person X believes he has no confidence and asks Y whether he has any grounds to try and strike up a conversation with some person Z. Y knowing X believes he has no confidence and secretly agrees with this evaluation - and also knowing that Z doesn't like talking to people who have no confidence lies and tells X that he is often impressed with X's confidenceReveal Hidden Contentand should just pluck up the courage in this instance to talk to Z. X acting on misplaced optimism acts confidently and successfully engages Z in dialogue.

I would say, in this scenario (acknowledging the potential X may fail and reinforce his belief) this lie has in some sense induced a situation where it becomes a true statement!


Yes, I agree if you mean Xmas stories. But I wonder if Father Xmas (Santa Claus) stories are lies. To me they are more like long termed jokes. Jokes very often contain some twisted truths. We like them because they make life more exciting colourful. I think that is why kids can easily accept them. You were not lying, but playful kidding.
Real lies - even with the best intentions - are normally in the long run very harmful to young children.
Fair enough, though by certain people's standards, such partitions of what are lies and what are not don't apply.

Originally posted by Agerg
You always tell the truth presumably because you feel you have some objective duty to do this, this is done with the binary mindset that things are either black or they are white. You have not presented me with a rational argument to support your universal position other than it is true by your decree.

Your responses will be of the form

- "You miss the upid and you are..."
- "None of those, infact... [insert some trivial response]"

lol. You readily admit to practicing deception and self-deception, yet cannot seem to comprehend that your "reality" is of your own making. You should read up on ego defense mechanisms as more than a few seem to apply.

Please reread my post. With that and gaining an understanding of ego defense mechanisms, hopefully you'll gain some much needed insight into yourself as well as the universe in general.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
lol. You readily admit to practicing deception and self-deception, yet cannot seem to comprehend that your "reality" is of your own making. You should read up on ego defense mechanisms as more than a few seem to apply.

Please reread my post. With that and gaining an understanding of ego defense mechanisms, hopefully you'll gain some much needed insight into yourself as well as the universe in general.

Yeah that response was no.2 of my "predictions". You have nothing to offer me here that I deem edifying, or having any appreciable level of integrity.

As I said before, feel free to walk away under the impression you have "won" this debate.

Originally posted by Agerg
[b]and at the same time the necessety of cunning indicates there is something badly wrong with such an economy system.
I'm not so sure I agree with this; if we reduce the action of lying down to it's skeleton and treat the consequences separately (not neglecting them) then it is merely the will to present false information to the listener with respect to ...[text shortened]... certain people's standards, such partitions of what are lies and what are not don't apply.[/b]

The use of a placebo is indeed equal to telling a lie: a wordless lie , Not many people will oppose to it as long as it works. The lie is permitted because it prevents or cures greater harm ( in your example lack of confidence). The white lie.

So Kant was mistaken by stating a lie is always wrong. Good or wrong depends on the circumstances.(Ross)

Let us try to apply this to religion. Atheists claim that religions are filled with lies. Assuming the atheist are right, it doesn't mean religions are immoral or bad. First we have to find out if these lies are (or were?) functional and prevent(ed) greater harm. If so religious lies could be alright from a perspective of utilitarianism.

Originally posted by souverein
The use of a placebo is indeed equal to telling a lie: a wordless lie , Not many people will oppose to it as long as it works. The lie is permitted because it prevents or cures greater harm ( in your example lack of confidence). The white lie.

So Kant was mistaken by stating a lie is always wrong. Good or wrong depends on the circumstances.(Ross)

Le t(ed) greater harm. If so religious lies could be alright from a perspective of utilitarianism.

So Kant was mistaken by stating a lie is always wrong. Good or wrong depends on the circumstances.(Ross)

Let us try to apply this to religion. Atheists claim that religions are filled with lies. Assuming the atheist are right, it doesn't mean religions are immoral or bad. First we have to find out if these lies are (or were?) functional and prevent(ed) greater harm. If so religious lies could be alright from a perspective of utilitarianism.

I would actually like to find the time to read some of Kant's works at some point but yes, I disagree with the overview of his position on this subject - indeed since I don't hold to any sort of objective morality I see no way to regard things as objectively good or bad - though that's not to say I can't hold they are subjectively or societally bad - i.e. I can regard rapists, paedaphiles, animal abusers, serial killers (acknowledging arguments that their sanity may be impaired), and so on.. as nasty humans for more reasons than I as a sentient creature have the ability to empathise with other creatures. Other creatures may think differently however.

With religion I find my self having to be careful what I'm allowed to consider being a lie, and what I should instead consider an inaccurate statement regarded as true on behalf of the theist who communicate the teachings of their holy books or perhaps the ancient human originators of said books. As far as moderate religion goes I cannot find anyway to hold it as immoral or bad (given a non "God"-centred definition of moral). Furthermore I don't disagree that the utility of religious "lies" are intrinsically bad as there are many positive features of non dogmatic religious belief as a consequence both for individuals and the entire human species. Just the thought that death is not the end can (it seems) offer comfort and grounding to those who believe in some sort of god.

Fundamentalist religion on the other hand is a totally different kettle of fish!

Originally posted by Agerg
Yeah that response was no.2 of my "predictions". You have nothing to offer me here that I deem edifying, or having any appreciable level of integrity.

As I said before, feel free to walk away under the impression you have "won" this debate.

Integrity? You're the one who has repeatedly mischaracterized my posts.

If anything, you're the one trying to "feel free to walk away under the impression you have 'won' this debate". Your attempts to insinuate that I am the one doing so is just your latest mischaracterization. For the record, I have not in any way declared any type of victory. In fact, I have little interest in "winning" or "debating".

You threw a little hissy fit because I suggested that "perhaps" you were missing points and/or had lost track of points. A hissy fit that evidently you still can't quite bring under control.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
Integrity? You're the one who has repeatedly mischaracterized my posts.

If anything, you're the one trying to "feel free to walk away under the impression you have 'won' this debate". Your attempts to insinuate that I am the one doing so is just your latest mischaracterization. For the record, I have not in any way declared any type of victory. In fact ck of points. A hissy fit that evidently you still can't quite bring under control.

In fact, I have little interest in "winning" or "debating".
Yes...that did not quite escape my notice!

You've pretty much spammed me to the brim with more than suggestions I "perhaps" missed the point (though you fail to point out how of course) and attacks against my comprehension skills.

Your rebuttals(?) were (with the exception of one which lacked relevance and a whimsical scattering of veiled ad-homs) merely reaffirmations of the proposition you already assume.