Lying is always bad - why???

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
i wouldn't push your luck Zhalanzi the Romanians are hardly any less reprehensible than the French! Perhaps we can talk of the acts of those Romanian so called Christians during WWII, shall we? Nor would i talk of making a mockery of God, considering you have watered down and deviated from scriptural truth, disowned the teaching of the Christ in ord ...[text shortened]... want to condone lying, then that's your business, dont ask me to defend you nefarious action.

and you still dodge the question😀


and you still bring idiotic arguments that have no relevance to the table. yes, romania fought on the side of the axis, yes romania did some nasty things, this has no more relevance than holding a german responsible for what his nazi great grandfather did.

i asked you a simple question and you dodge it like the coward you are. bloody admit that any german who lied knowingly to gestapo officers about harboring jews, or that someone he knew harbored jews not only is he a good christian but he is getting the vip treatment in heaven when he dies.

have some cojones you coward and admit when you are wrong. because it takes a truly abject human being to say the one who lied to nazis, thus saving the life of a brother human did something wrong.

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
and you still dodge the question😀


and you still bring idiotic arguments that have no relevance to the table. yes, romania fought on the side of the axis, yes romania did some nasty things, this has no more relevance than holding a german responsible for what his nazi great grandfather did.

i asked you a simple question and you dodge it like the cow ...[text shortened]... g to say the one who lied to nazis, thus saving the life of a brother human did something wrong.

sorry i read the word idiotic and that was enough for me, when you learn a sense of decorum and civility then you may engage me in discussion, before that, dont bother me again. Hard as it may seem, i have better things to do than be insulted by you.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
sorry i read the word idiotic and that was enough for me, when you learn a sense of decorum and civility then you may engage me in discussion, before that, dont bother me again. Hard as it may seem, i have better things to do than be insulted by you.

sorry, i have better things to do than talk to someone who thinks lying to gestapo officers to save human beings from pain, humiliation and death is a bad thing.

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
sorry, i have better things to do than talk to someone who thinks lying to gestapo officers to save human beings from pain, humiliation and death is a bad thing.

yes, i gather the Romanians know all about that! considering it was they who put so many innocent people to death! next time you pick a straw man and assign values to someone else based or your fictitious assertion, make sure it doesn't come right back at you!

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
yes, i gather the Romanians know all about that! considering it was they who put so many innocent people to death! next time you pick a straw man and assign values to someone else based or your fictitious assertion, make sure it doesn't come right back at you!

you are fukin insane

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
you are fukin insane

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, 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.

So no surprise birthday parties? 😳

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
so let's say a woman tells her husband "husband, i hate you and i hate the little monsters you call our children, i am leaving you and leaving the bratz, i am going to las vegas to be a porn actress and a prostitute in my spear time."

let's say the kids ask "father, why did mother leave?".

should the father tell the truth? remember, the kid didn't as ...[text shortened]... either lie to the kid or leave him scarred for life that his mother doesn't love him.

should the father tell the truth? remember, the kid didn't ask "where is mother?", he asked for the reason specifically. also remember that omission is another form of lie, not that the father is given any loopholes in this matter. he can either lie to the kid or leave him scarred for life that his mother doesn't love him.

First, omission isn't necessarily a lie. If, say, a priest were confronted by a married man asking whether his wife had an affair, the priest's silence would very easily be construed as an admission of her guilt. Silence can be communicative. In your example, however, you couldn't really infer any message from the man's silence. He may not know; he may be embarrassed to say; he may be too emotionally hurt to speak. His refusal to answer would not be equivalent to a lie because you could infer any solid meaning from it (in contrast to the example of the priest.)

Second, I am not convinced by your moral reasoning in this case. How would any lie be better? Should the father say that the mother died? That lie could very easily be detected. But even if the father did tell the truth, why would he bound to tell every detail? Why should he tell the child that his mother didn't love him. What the father could say is that his mother had become violently unstable and had chosen to leave. I think that would be a sounder alternative to any elaborate deception about his mother's absence.

Originally posted by Conrau K
[b]should the father tell the truth? remember, the kid didn't ask "where is mother?", he asked for the reason specifically. also remember that omission is another form of lie, not that the father is given any loopholes in this matter. he can either lie to the kid or leave him scarred for life that his mother doesn't love him.

First, omission isn't ne ...[text shortened]... would be a sounder alternative to any elaborate deception about his mother's absence.[/b]

omission is almost as bad as a lie. suppose a policemen asks you to tell them what you know about a certain murder. you choose to not tell everything, you didn't lie. but the killer goes free as surely as if you would fabricate an alibi for him.


there are shades of grey. sure, you could not tell your child why his mother left. you don't scar him for life telling him his mother left him but you leave him with questions unanswered, leaving the child to find the answer (often assuming the worse). a clever lie (mother had to go away because her job requires her to) would put his mind at ease and at least for a while not question himself, what he may have done to cause his mother to leave. maybe even fabricate postcards supposedly sent from the mother. the child is happy and he doesn't get hurt. and when he can handle the truth he may get it.


there are times when telling the truth is the selfish thing to do. you tell the truth to ease the burden of being the only one who knows. and sometimes, nobody benefits from that truth.

"In your example, however, you couldn't really infer any message from the man's silence."
my example involves a child asking that question. he wouldn't really understand the father wouldn't know why the mother left. he would assume the worse. maybe blame the father. the father would then have to excuse himself but how could he without telling the truth about the mother?


then, on the other hand, picture this: the father, like i said, lies. the mother is away for work. (or other issues, creativity is in order) but still loves her family very much. postcards come every month supposedly from her. the kid is eased into it until when he is older he realizes the truth for himself. he appreciates the father for carrying the burden himself rather than slapping the truth on him. nobody gets hurt


except a notion of "thou shall not tell a lie" that is absurd.

Originally posted by Conrau K
[b]should the father tell the truth? remember, the kid didn't ask "where is mother?", he asked for the reason specifically. also remember that omission is another form of lie, not that the father is given any loopholes in this matter. he can either lie to the kid or leave him scarred for life that his mother doesn't love him.

First, omission isn't ne ...[text shortened]... would be a sounder alternative to any elaborate deception about his mother's absence.[/b]

His refusal to answer would not be equivalent to a lie because you could infer any solid meaning from it (in contrast to the example of the priest.)

Read: His refusal to answer would not be equivalent to a lie because you could not infer any solid meaning from it (in contrast to the example of the priest.)

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
omission is almost as bad as a lie. suppose a policemen asks you to tell them what you know about a certain murder. you choose to not tell everything, you didn't lie. but the killer goes free as surely as if you would fabricate an alibi for him.


there are shades of grey. sure, you could not tell your child why his mother left. you don't scar him for li ...[text shortened]... nobody gets hurt


except a notion of "thou shall not tell a lie" that is absurd.

omission is almost as bad as a lie. suppose a policemen asks you to tell them what you know about a certain murder. you choose to not tell everything, you didn't lie. but the killer goes free as surely as if you would fabricate an alibi for him.

Yes, in certain circumstances, silence can be very serious. Omission can even, in effect, be a lie. For example, if I were in court and testified to a crime, omitting, say, the involvement of another, that would be a lie. But omission isn't necessarily wrong. You have not demonstrated that at all.

there are shades of grey. sure, you could not tell your child why his mother left. you don't scar him for life telling him his mother left him but you leave him with questions unanswered, leaving the child to find the answer (often assuming the worse). a clever lie (mother had to go away because her job requires her to) would put his mind at ease and at least for a while not question himself, what he may have done to cause his mother to leave. maybe even fabricate postcards supposedly sent from the mother. the child is happy and he doesn't get hurt. and when he can handle the truth he may get it.

I really don't see how that is a morally superior decision. Perhaps the child in the end is content and when he discovers the deception understands that the father had the best intentions. On the other hand, perhaps the child ends up distraught at this deception, no longer believes he can trust his own father and becomes even more traumatised that the love he felt towards his mother for so many years was misplaced. Fabricating postcards just strikes me as bizarre. I don't see much point in pursuing this argument further. All we can do is speculate on the infinite possible reaction a child takes. Some positive, some negative. It is unlikely to be productive.

Originally posted by Conrau K
[b]omission is almost as bad as a lie. suppose a policemen asks you to tell them what you know about a certain murder. you choose to not tell everything, you didn't lie. but the killer goes free as surely as if you would fabricate an alibi for him.

Yes, in certain circumstances, silence can be very serious. Omission can even, in effect, be a lie. For ...[text shortened]... ble reaction a child takes. Some positive, some negative. It is unlikely to be productive.[/b]

the entire point of lying to the child is that he is too young to accept the truth. that is why we don't show him killings, rapes and porn (the latter is added in sarcasm). we tell the child the world is sunshine and dayzies but that is not true. there is evil and pain. the good guy DOESN'T always get the girl in the world, the jocks who buly you now WON'T necessarily work for you and most of us WON'T grow up to be anything they want to be.

we give children hope. granma has high chance of recovery (she hasn't, the cancer she has is terminal), there is a santa claus and he will come and give you presents and if you just be yourself, people will love you for who you are (it's mostly a lie, most of you have to lie your buttocks off for people to like you).

take bambi for example. you build him up as the cutest little bugger EVAH. look at him with his scrawny unsure legs and his bunneh friend and aww, his mother loves him and they are both so cute. then BAM, the mother, his only support in life gets blown out of existance by a member of our species. happy times for kids in the theater. how is this for truth? how would you have omission in this case, why would it be moraly superior to "no kid, the hunter missed, and the mother comes back the next scene" and then she comes.

Originally posted by Conrau K
[b]omission is almost as bad as a lie. suppose a policemen asks you to tell them what you know about a certain murder. you choose to not tell everything, you didn't lie. but the killer goes free as surely as if you would fabricate an alibi for him.

Yes, in certain circumstances, silence can be very serious. Omission can even, in effect, be a lie. For ...[text shortened]... ble reaction a child takes. Some positive, some negative. It is unlikely to be productive.[/b]

another point to consider:

omission will leave the child with blanks he will fill at will, most likely with negative outcome.
truth will scar him for life because his mother would rather be a porn star than stay at home with him.
lying however fills the blanks for most of the children. what 7 year old child would question his father, especially when his father gives him the lie he wants to believe anyway? for the moment, lying is the best course. when the child is old enough to question this reality (he doesn't know it is false yet) he might also be old enough to accept the truth and understand why the father lied in the first place.

Originally posted by Conrau K
[b]I'm sure not only Robbie Carrobie holds that lying is always bad (because the Bible says so)

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 con y wrong, is permissible as (by far) the least evil.[/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 it, society would be severely hindered because no one could reasonably gain information vicariously.

There are, however, some important caveats, at least from the traditional Catholic perspective. First, a lie is not merely a false statement. It requires the intention to deceive as well. Second, lying only occurs in formal speech. Jokes and fictional stories are not lies. I would also include perlocutionary acts in the category of informal speech, like compliments, since in a casual conversation no one seriously is concerned with the truth or falsity of these -- compliments are merely acts of kindness to encourage a sense of friendliness. Third, on some occasions, the full content of the statement is not verbally expressed and, so, what looks like a lie may not be. This is infamously known as mental reservation. For example, a telemarketer rings up and asks for me, I say 'he is not present', obviously reserving the words 'present for you'. I don't think this constitutes a lie. This is simply a polite way to rebuff an unwanted and intrusive call and undoubtedly the telemarketer would understand this (there is, anyway, no intent to deceive.)

As regards your fist paragraph here, I think there is a dichotomy between what is the collective purpose behind the entire set of dialogues that take place for the entire population of humans in some interval, and the purpose for the set of dialogues which take place for a small sample of humans in the same interval. The universal statement *lying is always wrong*, (with more generality than you allow) seems to deal with the first at the detriment of the latter.
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 debate; The issue is a universal statement,Reveal Hidden Contentand 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 usually wrong", we're dealing with the statement "all lies are wrong".[3]
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"??


Focusing on the responses you gave to my three preliminary examples, the first one was more of a sanity check than anything else (and at least one fundamentalist has failed said test!); and again, though you'd try to push this one away as an 'obvious' exception to the rule, I have to insist that if we restrict ourselves to the very essense of what a lie entails, regardless of what follows from it; then it was the transit of false and misleading information and as such qualifies for being a lie. As for the second, I can't see what words I could have reserved in the statement "...I don't smoke" without shifting the way in which that reply is relevant to the stranger's question - for example "I don't smoke ~ with strangers" doesn't address his question as to whether I have any that I can "lend"Reveal Hidden Contentto him. Moreover I do count it as an act of deception for I could have just as easily said, truthfully, "I don't have enough to give away"; but in this case there would have been grounds for the conversation to continue and potentially put myself in more danger as I try to successfully end it (without offending the stranger too much). The act of deception in asserting I don't smoke effectively kills off that branch of discussion immediately - as would be my intention in this scenario.
Finally, in the third scenario, it's not so difficult to suppose the child might have instead asked "do you like my cat drawing?", and in this case my set of relevant responses would have been so to convey my evaluation of his "work"; and so keeping them simple enough that they be understood by said four year old these boil down to "yes I like it" or "no I do not like it" - the truthful answer is the one that I reject in this case because as a trivial request for my opinion, it serves no purpose other than to disappoint the child. Indeed as Zahlanzi points out, it's not like this answer will have any appreciable impact on his future as an artist or otherwise.

One final point I will mention is that while a Christian may hold that lying is objectively wrong, they may admit certain situations where lying is permissible. One famous example would be the German concealing Jewish refugees from the Nazis. The Nazis knock on his door and he explains that no Jews are present in the house. This is a lie. There are Jews in the house and he does want to deceive the Nazis. On the other hand, however, the man has a duty to secrecy, one which is made graver because divulging this secret would risk the lives of others. Consequently, when he answers the Nazis, he has three options: revealing where the Jews are (which immediately breaches this duty), silence (which would indirectly expose the Jews because the Nazis might then investigate further) and lying. Lying in this case, while a Christian may still hold it objectively wrong, is permissible as (by far) the least evil.
I have to ask in this case, what does it mean to say lying is objectively wrong if any other action the german might take is also objectively wrong? Is it objectively wrong to be a human that is placed in that dilemma??
One escape I offer out of this one which is usually met with indignation on the part of any theist who would hear it, is that if hypothetically speaking, the statement "lying is always wrong" really was a decree from some god then perhaps this god (who perhaps lied when it said it couldn't lie) may have been lying for the sake of pragmatism on this matter. Indeed given the lack of detailed information as to how it renders it's other works in the Bible, it's reasonable to suppose that this again was an instance where it was decided omitting all the clauses and special cases so to retain full generality would have been impractical or would have given rise to undesirable consequences as these "exceptions" are contorted to serve immoral agendas.




---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1) Similarly, a hammer is an object designed to increase the amount of force one can impart upon a small area - how or where it will be used for the purpose of construction (or otherwise) bears little relevance to it's intrinsic function.
2) As is evident in this thread, at least one theist (Robbie Carrobie) isn't so discriminating - for him all examples where one delivers false statements really are a nefarious act, and I suspect others think the same.
3) On the otherhand, If it is shown it can be directly inferred (without supplementary commentary form people who didn't write the text from which this rule was derived) that such exceptions exist then I'll concede your point here.

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
funny thing: i was gonna ask agerg why did he post such an easy thread in the forums. i mean this should be easy, even fundamentalists can't find lying to be unacceptable in EVERY circumstance. even fundamentalists cannot think a truth that hurts people is preferable to a lie that doesn't (like the nazi example).


i was wrong. some fundamentalists can s too harshly for the way your jw's and your parents broke you into a despicable human being.

There are many ideas to which fundamentalists subscribe that cannot be seen (by myself at least) as anything short of absurd - this is one of them! It also crops up in other discussions and so I wanted to use this thread as a point of reference in those. Unfortunately, it has been somewhat soiled by Robbie's racism (towards yourself), religious bigotry, and blatant evasion of questions posed to him by others.


I'd like to think that his views are based more upon a defiant wish to uphold the veracity of his own interpretation of the Bible in this thread as opposed to being an accurate reflection of his own base morality (which would of course count as the delivery of false information!) - whether I'm wrong or otherwise, fundamentalism is a very dangerous thing in my view!