Political Crossfire Forums

[Fido]

mODULAR mAN wrote: Kant believed it was always immoral to lie, to even break a promise.

If you said you would meet someone at 2:00 and on the way you saw someone who needed help, you were morally bound to help the person, but also morally bound to keep your word.

He claimed sometimes you have to do something immoral if it means being more moral overall.

I don't care for Kant, so i voted "no".

Part of the problem is that when you do not see your actions naturally, that is, as a reflexive defense of ones nature, and the society and people from whom one comes; then you need an over arching philosophy that shines an unnatural light of a larger society. a nation state, or humanity upon ones actions. Kant was looking for that unnatural light. Most philosophers are. Few people accept this unnatural light, and when the guiding light of family and community grows dim they see only in the hyper-natural light of self. In the light of self all acts are just, and all acts are moral. An expanded vision requires a stronger light.

What is anyone to do when a thousand years of history have worked to block the natural light of community without the ability to replace it with a brighter and bigger light we can all see by? The short light of self has only the beam of a coal miner's carbide lamp, good enough for the bowels of the earth; but it is not the search light long range rational thought demands. We do not have universal Christianity to guide us. We have no accepted philosophy to guide us. Nationalism is no guide when all our problems are international. All we have is self. Self is not enough.

[British boy]

The Kantian philosophy states that to any situation there is always a moral absolute, something is wrong and bad or good and just. He would argue that there is never a reason to lie, just temptation and it is a personal choice to choose that.

With this subject most (including many from here) tend to choose a utalitarian approach. where they weigh the overall good to the overall bad and choose what benefits the greatest amount of people.

So is lying okay aslong as it benefits the majority? or just the individual?
and sort of continuing my question What about half-truths?

fido wrote: In the light of self all acts are just, and all acts are moral. An expanded vision requires a stronger light.

sometimes people make choices to or are forced into defying their own moral beliefs-how can all acts be moral?

[Fido]

British boy wrote: The Kantian philosophy states that to any situation there is always a moral absolute, something is wrong and bad or good and just. He would argue that there is never a reason to lie, just temptation and it is a personal choice to choose that.

With this subject most (including many from here) tend to choose a utalitarian approach. where they weigh the overall good to the overall bad and choose what benefits the greatest amount of people.

So is lying okay aslong as it benefits the majority? or just the individual?
and sort of continuing my question What about half-truths?

fido wrote: In the light of self all acts are just, and all acts are moral. An expanded vision requires a stronger light.


sometimes people make choices to or are forced into defying their own moral beliefs-how can all acts be moral?

To agree with Kant, and I want to because I see him as a superior human being, there are two absolutes in regard to morality. One is the practical absolute of self, and the other is the ideal absolute of humanity. Our charge is to make each of these one. We should try to command the terms of our existence so in acting in self interest we are not conflicting with the interest of all humanity. It is easy to see that what endangers individual existence eventually endangers human existence. It is easy to see that what is good for humanity also serves individuals. The problem is that our definition of the individual as a life apart from community and society destroys the critical lens which gives all lives perspective within human existence. We are left seeing only what is right for the individual, and what is good for the person -while the needs of community and even humanity are left out of focus.

[rhetoric]

If most individuals are satisfied by their 'individual light' then in effect wouldn't society be satisfied?

[Fido]

rhetoric wrote: If most individuals are satisfied by their 'individual light' then in effect wouldn't society be satisfied?

If your question is directed at me; my answer is that it has never been shown to be satisfactory to society or individual. Individualism serves people in one stage of their lives only. For a full and complete life people have to live in the eyes of the community. No matter how self serving the myth of the individual is, it is based upon a logical fallacy. As a practical matter the individual is a sub division of the true individual that is the family. Second, the individual is like infinity, a present existence without beginning or end.

[Visimicus]

lying? Wrong?
Of course not.
people lie all the time. If not to another person, to themselves.
we can't help it, as humans, and as a society. we need to lie because we can not handle the truth half the time.
we can't go on with the truth.
lying gets us through the day, and gets us up for tomorrow.
your going to cheat in school, your going to speed (then never admit to it), your going to tell yourself that your beautiful, your going to complain the worlds not fair.
life is a lie, and until you realize that, your just lying to yourself.
when the truth hurts, why would you want to share that pain with the world?
if you are protecting the lives of someone, why would you tell people trying to hurt them where they are(holocaust)
thats life.
morals or no morals. lying is there.

[Paladin]

LostSoul3412 wrote: Red Flag wrote: LostSoul3412 wrote: Red Flag wrote: LostSoul3412 wrote: Yes.

Anyone that says otherwise is merely attempting to justify their own behavior. And who are you to decide what is or isn't Moral? :roll:

I am an individual, and as such I have the authority to hold individual opinions on morality, and what is, or is not, moral. Sure, but you were referring to everyone elses morality. Morality isn't relevant, except to the individual himself. Therefore if I lie in my own best interests then technically I am not doing anything morally wrong to begin with.

Sure you are, you're lying. An individual is free to develop their own morals, but even then, that individual's morals are absolute. Lying is either good, or bad. It cannot be both, and if it is both, then it is merely an attempt for the individual to justify their own immoral behavior because they are afraid to admit their own flaws.

Personally, I say that lying is always wrong, and that we are all immoral creatures.

Only the devil deals in absolutes...who said that? was it C.S. Lewis?

[Paladin]

Lying is not always wrong. Just as killing is not always wrong. Some professions require deception and lies. Lying is wrong if it does not protect good. And good Is. :)

[British boy]

Paladin wrote: Lying is not always wrong. Just as killing is not always wrong. Some professions require deception and lies. Lying is wrong if it does not protect good. And good Is. :)

I think that killing is always wrong. whether the factors that lead to death allow you to justify it doesn't mean the act isn't wrong.

[British boy]

Fido wrote: rhetoric wrote: If most individuals are satisfied by their 'individual light' then in effect wouldn't society be satisfied?

If your question is directed at me; my answer is that it has never been shown to be satisfactory to society or individual. Individualism serves people in one stage of their lives only. For a full and complete life people have to live in the eyes of the community. No matter how self serving the myth of the individual is, it is based upon a logical fallacy. As a practical matter the individual is a sub division of the true individual that is the family. Second, the individual is like infinity, a present existence without beginning or end.

So are you saying that lying to satisy indvidual beliefs is wrong but that if Lying benefits the community is ok?

[Fido]

British boy wrote: Fido wrote: rhetoric wrote: If most individuals are satisfied by their 'individual light' then in effect wouldn't society be satisfied?

If your question is directed at me; my answer is that it has never been shown to be satisfactory to society or individual. Individualism serves people in one stage of their lives only. For a full and complete life people have to live in the eyes of the community. No matter how self serving the myth of the individual is, it is based upon a logical fallacy. As a practical matter the individual is a sub division of the true individual that is the family. Second, the individual is like infinity, a present existence without beginning or end.

So are you saying that lying to satisy indvidual beliefs is wrong but that if Lying benefits the community is ok?

All morality is seen in the light of community. The last individual on the planet will have no use for truth, justice, liberty, law, or love; or any of the many forms human beings relate through. The ideal community is humanity, and to have honor within that community demands honesty. Every other community one may belong to is different from every other, and has different needs for survival. If my community demands honesty I must be honest. If my community finds itself in mortal danger, and would find some protection in a lie; then I am a lying sob. Human beings simply do not exist as individuals. They are the life of their nations and communities, and may be considered as a net positive or negative in regards to their community. All their moral worth is a quality in reference to their community. That person who has no moral worth within their community whether because of dishonesty or another reason cannot have worth as a human being. We have to have honor some place to be able to reference the concept. In this sense, ethics is character. Once we have good character in one community we can carry it with us.

[Fido]

British boy wrote: Paladin wrote: Lying is not always wrong. Just as killing is not always wrong. Some professions require deception and lies. Lying is wrong if it does not protect good. And good Is. :)

I think that killing is always wrong. whether the factors that lead to death allow you to justify it doesn't mean the act isn't wrong.

By common consent life is the highest virtue, and people will trade every other virtue for life. Of course killing is wrong, and since dieing is wrong too so long as there is an alternative then every death we cause should come with an act of justification. How much this is worth is a question only God can decide. I do know this. Property is too easy to produce to kill over it unless its loss immediately threatens ones existence. This too, I know... People are raised with a criminal disregard for their lives and for the lives of others. Video games and movies show a casual prescription of death as the solution to all problems. Yet, as common as it is for the young to throw away their lives on a whim, or to take other lives out of the frustrations of youth; this is not any thing to be encouraged. There is a reason why Murder as a crime has such a low rate of recidivism. It is because all have been there. All have looked at death as some form of solution. But to be near death, and to have caused death when any fool can take life and not even the most brilliant can restore it is cause for reflection. Life is an enormous thing. It is made huge by the quality of hope that is perhaps 99% of its reality. Given the time to think, only the most psychotic killers will not accept the injustice of their act. To take life, as Oedipus did, not knowing what he did is all too common, and yet is no justification. Rather, if it is every ones last resort to the loss of their own life; that is where it should remain. Last resorts like violence, war, and bloodshed should always be last, and always last.

[rhetoric]

Fido wrote: British boy wrote: Fido wrote: rhetoric wrote: If most individuals are satisfied by their 'individual light' then in effect wouldn't society be satisfied?

If your question is directed at me; my answer is that it has never been shown to be satisfactory to society or individual. Individualism serves people in one stage of their lives only. For a full and complete life people have to live in the eyes of the community. No matter how self serving the myth of the individual is, it is based upon a logical fallacy. As a practical matter the individual is a sub division of the true individual that is the family. Second, the individual is like infinity, a present existence without beginning or end.

So are you saying that lying to satisfy individual beliefs is wrong but that if Lying benefits the community is OK?

All morality is seen in the light of community. The last individual on the planet will have no use for truth, justice, liberty, law, or love; or any of the many forms human beings relate through. The ideal community is humanity, and to have honor within that community demands honesty. Every other community one may belong to is different from every other, and has different needs for survival. If my community demands honesty I must be honest. If my community finds itself in mortal danger, and would find some protection in a lie; then I am a lying sob. Human beings simply do not exist as individuals. They are the life of their nations and communities, and may be considered as a net positive or negative in regards to their community. All their moral worth is a quality in reference to their community. That person who has no moral worth within their community whether because of dishonesty or another reason cannot have worth as a human being. We have to have honor some place to be able to reference the concept. In this sense, ethics is character. Once we have good character in one community we can carry it with us.

So the basis of happiness is based off of other people/societies? Family and society has become so degraded that you see the views of individuals just as much as the views of society and, in some cases, the individual's ideals are viewed with more value. The family (at least from what i viewed) is no longer a unit but a group of individuals. People want companionship but, on their own terms. The last human being would have no need for honor, truth, etc. because there would be no one for them to please. I say please because it is not an obligation to follow laws or have morality, it only is under the individuals best interest to do so, if and only if, they see there is something to gain by it. And the people who have the most effect on the world are not the "groups" but the individuals who by their own motives create an ideal or goal that other ju8st choose to follow.

[The Newb]

nope most of my reasons have already been stated by others before me in this post

[Aelryn]

Fido wrote: British boy wrote: Fido wrote: rhetoric wrote: If most individuals are satisfied by their 'individual light' then in effect wouldn't society be satisfied?

If your question is directed at me; my answer is that it has never been shown to be satisfactory to society or individual. Individualism serves people in one stage of their lives only. For a full and complete life people have to live in the eyes of the community. No matter how self serving the myth of the individual is, it is based upon a logical fallacy. As a practical matter the individual is a sub division of the true individual that is the family. Second, the individual is like infinity, a present existence without beginning or end.

So are you saying that lying to satisy indvidual beliefs is wrong but that if Lying benefits the community is ok?

All morality is seen in the light of community. The last individual on the planet will have no use for truth, justice, liberty, law, or love; or any of the many forms human beings relate through. The ideal community is humanity, and to have honor within that community demands honesty. Every other community one may belong to is different from every other, and has different needs for survival. If my community demands honesty I must be honest. If my community finds itself in mortal danger, and would find some protection in a lie; then I am a lying sob. Human beings simply do not exist as individuals. They are the life of their nations and communities, and may be considered as a net positive or negative in regards to their community. All their moral worth is a quality in reference to their community. That person who has no moral worth within their community whether because of dishonesty or another reason cannot have worth as a human being. We have to have honor some place to be able to reference the concept. In this sense, ethics is character. Once we have good character in one community we can carry it with us.

So what if you are presented with a situation in which neither a lie nor the truth will serve the community or the self?

[LostSoul3412]

Aelryn wrote: So what if you are presented with a situation in which neither a lie nor the truth will serve the community or the self?

If there is no benefit to anyone, what is the purpose in any action?

[Aelryn]

What is the purpose in existence if one takes no action? ;)

But to be fair and not answer a question with a question, I'll change my premise- What if a lie would serve the self only, but the truth would not serve self or community? Is it selfish and immoral to give the lie, which has benefit for some, as opposed to the truth which benefits none?

[lovebush]

LostSoul3412 wrote: bob.appleyard wrote: When making a decision, the likely outcomes of the options should be considered. There are only a few things which are always, under all circumstances, wrong. At least, as far as I'm concerned, that's how it flies.

I think that things are either right or wrong, but most choices are between two evils. Standing alone, the choices are both wrong, but when compared to each other one appears to be "right".

So lying is always wrong, but sometimes its the right thing to do. Corrie Temboom faced the dilemma of not wanting to lie but she knew that many lives were at stake if she didnt lie. the only time my life has been at steak was when my wife asked if she looked fat.

[Fido]

rhetoric wrote: Fido wrote: British boy wrote: Fido wrote: rhetoric wrote: If most individuals are satisfied by their 'individual light' then in effect wouldn't society be satisfied?

If your question is directed at me; my answer is that it has never been shown to be satisfactory to society or individual. Individualism serves people in one stage of their lives only. For a full and complete life people have to live in the eyes of the community. No matter how self serving the myth of the individual is, it is based upon a logical fallacy. As a practical matter the individual is a sub division of the true individual that is the family. Second, the individual is like infinity, a present existence without beginning or end.

So are you saying that lying to satisfy individual beliefs is wrong but that if Lying benefits the community is OK?

All morality is seen in the light of community. The last individual on the planet will have no use for truth, justice, liberty, law, or love; or any of the many forms human beings relate through. The ideal community is humanity, and to have honor within that community demands honesty. Every other community one may belong to is different from every other, and has different needs for survival. If my community demands honesty I must be honest. If my community finds itself in mortal danger, and would find some protection in a lie; then I am a lying sob. Human beings simply do not exist as individuals. They are the life of their nations and communities, and may be considered as a net positive or negative in regards to their community. All their moral worth is a quality in reference to their community. That person who has no moral worth within their community whether because of dishonesty or another reason cannot have worth as a human being. We have to have honor some place to be able to reference the concept. In this sense, ethics is character. Once we have good character in one community we can carry it with us.

So the basis of happiness is based off of other people/societies? Family and society has become so degraded that you see the views of individuals just as much as the views of society and, in some cases, the individual's ideals are viewed with more value. The family (at least from what i viewed) is no longer a unit but a group of individuals. People want companionship but, on their own terms. The last human being would have no need for honor, truth, etc. because there would be no one for them to please. I say please because it is not an obligation to follow laws or have morality, it only is under the individuals best interest to do so, if and only if, they see there is something to gain by it. And the people who have the most effect on the world are not the "groups" but the individuals who by their own motives create an ideal or goal that other ju8st choose to follow.

I think you are absolutely correct. We hardly have families, and we seldom have communities. These are all under a lot of stress from law and economics. We are all taught to believe that an individual existence is the key to happiness. I believe it puts happiness out of our reach. It is thought by some to be the key to freedom. I see many examples of greater freedom within close communities, and protection. We stand as individuals, but it only gives greater advantage to those who form into groups, like corporations, religions, unions, or associations. The strength is there, but our aversion to community makes us victims quite young in life. People clique, and people surrender some part of their individuality for protection regardless. The more people are pushed to be individuals the more they look like they all came off the same truck. We just don't stick together where it counts.

But... It is not just for pleasing that people relate, but to make themselves real, and to be recognized as real. And in a sense all reality depends on being shared for its real-ness, its veracity. For the last person on earth all concepts would lose their meaning because we do not share concepts, but we do share meaning. We mean in the lives of others. They mean in our lives. That which is objectively true means in each of our lives.

[Fido]

Aelryn wrote: What is the purpose in existence if one takes no action? ;)

But to be fair and not answer a question with a question, I'll change my premise- What if a lie would serve the self only, but the truth would not serve self or community? Is it selfish and immoral to give the lie, which has benefit for some, as opposed to the truth which benefits none?

I think your question might be: If you don't know the truth, what harm does a myth do? In fact if the myth survives for eons we must accept some possible survival value. For that, I would suggest a common quality of most myths in that they tell why what is, is. If you have an explanation for the creation of the world and the wonder of the firmament that is one thing you don't have to wonder any longer about. The next time a child says why is the frog on the back of the moon I know why. Then everybody can get on with their survival.