19 Jul 11
5 edits
Hypothetical question...
Suppose I believed X was false when it was infact true, and suppose further that
Telling a person correctly that X was true would save a thousand lives (and cost none) whilst
Telling a person incorrectly that X was false would cost a thousand lives (and save none)
Should I convey true or false information about X?
20 Jul 11
Originally posted by AgergIn your hypothetical, it is not clear whether or not you know the further information that reporting X would save lives while reporting not-X would cost lives.
Hypothetical question...
Suppose I believed X was false when it was infact true, and suppose further that
Telling a person correctly that X was true would save a thousand lives (and cost none) whilst
Telling a person incorrectly that X was false would cost a thousand lives (and save none)
Should I convey true or false information about X?
The following could be a hypothetical that I think would show that lying is not always wrong.
Suppose:
(1) P.
(2) You know (1).
(3) You find yourself in a position to either report P to S or report not-P to S.
(4) If you report P to S, then it will cost innocent lives.
(5) You know (4).
(6) If you report not-P to S, then it will spare innocent lives.
(7) You know (6).
Here, you ought to lie and report not-P to S.
20 Jul 11
2 edits
Originally posted by AgergKant would argue that the truth is a moral imperative
Hypothetical question...
Suppose I believed X was false when it was infact true, and suppose further that
Telling a person correctly that X was true would save a thousand lives (and cost none) whilst
Telling a person incorrectly that X was false would cost a thousand lives (and save none)
Should I convey true or false information about X?
for example: If a friend (say a woman) asks how she looks in a particular dress, and you say "great" but she really looks quite slutty (you lie to spare her feelings), and unbeknownst to you she is leaving for a job interview. She is denied employment because the hiring manager felt that she dressed unprofessionally for the interview. She should have been told the truth regardless of her feelings.
When we lie to people (regardless of our intentions) we rob them of their autonomy and ability to decide. It's like saying we don't believe they should have control of their own decision making process
20 Jul 11
Originally posted by AgergThere are of course occasions when lying is the right thing to do, although I'm not entirely convinced that this hypothetical situation is one of them. What happens if you don't choose either option?
Hypothetical question...
Suppose I believed X was false when it was infact true, and suppose further that
Telling a person correctly that X was true would save a thousand lives (and cost none) whilst
Telling a person incorrectly that X was false would cost a thousand lives (and save none)
Should I convey true or false information about X?
20 Jul 11
1 edit
Originally posted by DowardOf course, if we take the Kantian justification(s) for the Categorical Imperative seriously, it shouldn't matter whether she was leaving for an interview. This despite the fact that Kant gave a bizarre and laughably baroque consequentialist justification for lying to the murder at the door.
Kant would argue that the truth is a moral imperative
for example: If a friend (say a woman) asks how she looks in a particular dress, and you say "great" but she really looks quite slutty (you lie to spare her feelings), and unbeknownst to you she is leaving for a job interview. She is denied employment because the hiring manager felt that she dressed u s like saying we don't believe they should have control of their own decision making process
21 Jul 11
Originally posted by DowardThere are many ways of answering the question "how do I look?" without either lying or giving offence. For example, one could say "that blue dress suits you better", or "what are you dressed for?".
If a friend (say a woman) asks how she looks in a particular dress, and you say "great" but she really looks quite slutty (you lie to spare her feelings), and unbeknownst to you she is leaving for a job interview. She is denied employment because the hiring manager felt that she dressed unprofessionally for the interview. She should have been told the truth regardless of her feelings.
Some years ago I spent an extended time in Japan, and in our orientation period we were told that Japanese people generally do not like to say "NO", especially when it can be construed as criticism, rejection, or anything that would make the enquirer "lose face".
So, after having been told that the correct cultural behaviour was to bring a present (always confectionery!) when visiting someone, one day I wanted to bring the host's wife flowers instead of the prescribed sweets. I asked several people whether it would be socially acceptable for me to bring flowers. Without exception, everyone answered "it is better to bring sweets". NOBODY said "No, you should not bring flowers"!.
I haven't got an answer for the dilemme of P and S and people possibly dying. This is probably similar to AliG asking the vegetarian whether he would eat a KFC chicken. After a vehement "NEVER!" the question was: "What would you do if I told you to eat the chicken, and if not, I will kill THIS chicken!"
Bottom line: Honesty is always the best policy.
Except when it is not....
Cheers
CJ
21 Jul 11
Lemonjello:
In your hypothetical, it is not clear whether or not you know the further information that reporting X would save lives while reporting not-X would cost lives.
The following could be a hypothetical that I think would show that lying is not always wrong.
Suppose:
(1) P.
(2) You know (1).
(3) You find yourself in a position to either report P to S or report not-P to S.
(4) If you report P to S, then it will cost innocent lives.
(5) You know (4).
(6) If you report not-P to S, then it will spare innocent lives.
(7) You know (6).
Here, you ought to lie and report not-P to S.
Yes you are correct here in that I didn't specify my knowledge of the consequences of lying or not lying.
I think your proposed solution might suffer a slight flaw in that for step (4) though we know reporting P to S will cost innocent lives, we haven't ruled out the possibly it might also save lives too. Same problem with (6)
Avalanchethecat:
There are of course occasions when lying is the right thing to do, although I'm not entirely convinced that this hypothetical situation is one of them. What happens if you don't choose either option?
Yes, I have been too sloppy setting this question up it seems :]
21 Jul 11
Originally posted by CalJustI haven't got an answer for the dilemme of P and S and people possibly dying. This is probably similar to AliG asking the vegetarian whether he would eat a KFC chicken.
There are many ways of answering the question "how do I look?" without either lying or giving offence. For example, one could say "that blue dress suits you better", or "what are you dressed for?".
Some years ago I spent an extended time in Japan, and in our orientation period we were told that Japanese people generally do not like to say "NO", especially ...[text shortened]... s [b]always the best policy.
Except when it is not....
Cheers
CJ[/b]
The following would be paradigmatic here.
P = You are harboring a family of Jews in your basement.
S = The Gestapo.
21 Jul 11
Originally posted by Agerg[b]Lemonjello:
In your hypothetical, it is not clear whether or not you know the further information that reporting X would save lives while reporting not-X would cost lives.
The following could be a hypothetical that I think would show that lying is not always wrong.
Suppose:
(1) P.
(2) You know (1).
(3) You find yourself in a position to ...[text shortened]... ose either option?
Yes, I have been too sloppy setting this question up it seems :][/b]I think your proposed solution might suffer a slight flaw in that for step (4) though we know reporting P to S will cost innocent lives, we haven't ruled out the possibly it might also save lives too. Same problem with (6)
Okay, in that case, there should be an easy fix. We could just amend it to:
(4) If you report P to S, the net effect will be that it costs innocent lives.
and
(6) If you report not-P to S, the net effect will be that it spares innocent lives.
Or some such...
21 Jul 11
Originally posted by bbarrHi bbarr. Where have you been?
Of course, if we take the Kantian justification(s) for the Categorical Imperative seriously, it shouldn't matter whether she was leaving for an interview. This despite the fact that Kant gave a bizarre and laughably baroque consequentialist justification for lying to the murder at the door.
22 Jul 11
Originally posted by CalJusthad the Japanese people you asked answered truthfully and with clarity it would have been much easeir for you to decide the best course of action. Kant's proposition still stands firm in this regard.
There are many ways of answering the question "how do I look?" without either lying or giving offence. For example, one could say "that blue dress suits you better", or "what are you dressed for?".
Some years ago I spent an extended time in Japan, and in our orientation period we were told that Japanese people generally do not like to say "NO", especially ...[text shortened]... s [b]always the best policy.
Except when it is not....
Cheers
CJ[/b]
side note: I lived in Japan for 4 1/2 years, I know exactly what you mean
23 Jul 11
Originally posted by AgergHypothetical question...
Hypothetical question...
Suppose I believed X was false when it was infact true, and suppose further that
Telling a person correctly that X was true would save a thousand lives (and cost none) whilst
Telling a person incorrectly that X was false would cost a thousand lives (and save none)
Should I convey true or false information about X?
Can you imagine a world where lying didn't exist? No one would be in danger of telling a lie that would cost anyone their life.
But because just one person believed a lie, everyone who ever lived died.
Who's going to believe that?
23 Jul 11
Originally posted by LemonJelloYeah, I noticed that too!
Hi bbarr. Where have you been?
Some years ago (2004 - 2006, I believe) I was quite active on the BB - not much else to do at that time! - and I recall that bbarr regularly made impressive and insightful contributions, some of which I still remember!.
So, hi, bbarr!