Political Crossfire Forums

[rhetoric]

Fido wrote: 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.

True. Individuality is the new fad so it fades out true individuals. And it is always greater to have companionship to experience the good and the bad. Also the ability to compare and contrast with others does represent was is real and what is not. But, I think to truly help others we must first ground our self in something we believe in as an individual, not as a community.

How would this sum up your beliefs? "The world is my country, all mankind are my brethren, and to do good is my religion. " -Thomas Paine

[Aelryn]

Fido wrote: 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.

This is a good position, but not the one I was referring to. I referred more to a situation in which you absolutely know what is true, but are presented with the circumstances to lie for your benefit, or tell the truth to the benefit of no one. Example: A man is dying in a painful manner, and has no chance for survival. This man is clearly within his last minutes of life, and BEGS you to put him out of his misery, and you do so. (We'll assume planecrash survival, and that you have sufficient medical knowledge to determine that he will not live, and that you have insufficient means to do anything other than prolong his suffering for perhaps another hour. You have no reason to expect him to survive until a rescue crew with any reasonable chance of him surviving ensuing coems) A day and a half later (long after he would have died miserably anyway) you are rescued by a rescue crew.

You are asked how the man died. You can relay that he died of his injuries, or that you put him down. If you relay that you put him down, there are obvious legal ramifications to deal with (and as a doctor, we'll also assume you have enough medical knowledge to have put him down without leaving any glaring clues that wouldn't likely be passed over as to the cause of his death being his injuries.) This all requires a lot of assumptions, but most of philosophy does. Relaying the truth to his family indicates that he was suffering and killed, and they are likely to be riddled with inner turmoil over whether or not he could've pulled through (grieving minds will often cling to the irrational). Relaying the truth to the authorities puts your well-being and freedom at risk. Relaying the truth to the public at large will forever cast a shadow over you, as there will always be people who doubt the necessity/mercifulness of your actions, as opposed to an official ruling that he died of his injuries.

Lying to the family, you could tell them that although he died of his injuries, he was unconscious and did not suffer. Lying to the authorities, no pall is cast over your medical practice or your freedom. And the public at large will still disseminate rumors over the situation, no matter what.

Is lying in this situation immoral?

[lovebush]

Aelryn wrote: Fido wrote: 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.

This is a good position, but not the one I was referring to. I referred more to a situation in which you absolutely know what is true, but are presented with the circumstances to lie for your benefit, or tell the truth to the benefit of no one. Example: A man is dying in a painful manner, and has no chance for survival. This man is clearly within his last minutes of life, and BEGS you to put him out of his misery, and you do so. (We'll assume planecrash survival, and that you have sufficient medical knowledge to determine that he will not live, and that you have insufficient means to do anything other than prolong his suffering for perhaps another hour. You have no reason to expect him to survive until a rescue crew with any reasonable chance of him surviving ensuing coems) A day and a half later (long after he would have died miserably anyway) you are rescued by a rescue crew.

You are asked how the man died. You can relay that he died of his injuries, or that you put him down. If you relay that you put him down, there are obvious legal ramifications to deal with (and as a doctor, we'll also assume you have enough medical knowledge to have put him down without leaving any glaring clues that wouldn't likely be passed over as to the cause of his death being his injuries.) This all requires a lot of assumptions, but most of philosophy does. Relaying the truth to his family indicates that he was suffering and killed, and they are likely to be riddled with inner turmoil over whether or not he could've pulled through (grieving minds will often cling to the irrational). Relaying the truth to the authorities puts your well-being and freedom at risk. Relaying the truth to the public at large will forever cast a shadow over you, as there will always be people who doubt the necessity/mercifulness of your actions, as opposed to an official ruling that he died of his injuries.

Lying to the family, you could tell them that although he died of his injuries, he was unconscious and did not suffer. Lying to the authorities, no pall is cast over your medical practice or your freedom. And the public at large will still disseminate rumors over the situation, no matter what.

Is lying in this situation immoral?

So the lie seemingly hurts no one and the truth will hurt many. Im feeling pretty good about lying on this one. Although I must point out the body is laying amongst a wrecked plane. its hard to imagine being asked what killed him. "Well Im fairly certain it wasnt old age!" there a sarcastic answer and you dont have to lie.

[melchizedek22]

When you wife say,"do these pants make my a$$ look big"?
What are you going to say,even if your marry to "Jenifer Lopez"

[lovebush]

melchizedek22 wrote: When you wife say,"do these pants make my a$$ look big"?
What are you going to say,even if your marry to "Jenifer Lopez"

you say"honey , it aint the pants!"

[The politcal Juggalo]

i think that it is not always wrong to lie as long as you uphold your honor and you are doing it for the protection of some one else, but if you lie just to gain something for yourself then it is wrong

[von libertinism]

LostSoul3412 wrote: Anyone that says otherwise is merely attempting to justify their own behavior.
How so?

[Fido]

Aelryn wrote: Fido wrote: 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.

This is a good position, but not the one I was referring to. I referred more to a situation in which you absolutely know what is true, but are presented with the circumstances to lie for your benefit, or tell the truth to the benefit of no one. Example: A man is dying in a painful manner, and has no chance for survival. This man is clearly within his last minutes of life, and BEGS you to put him out of his misery, and you do so. (We'll assume planecrash survival, and that you have sufficient medical knowledge to determine that he will not live, and that you have insufficient means to do anything other than prolong his suffering for perhaps another hour. You have no reason to expect him to survive until a rescue crew with any reasonable chance of him surviving ensuing coems) A day and a half later (long after he would have died miserably anyway) you are rescued by a rescue crew.

You are asked how the man died. You can relay that he died of his injuries, or that you put him down. If you relay that you put him down, there are obvious legal ramifications to deal with (and as a doctor, we'll also assume you have enough medical knowledge to have put him down without leaving any glaring clues that wouldn't likely be passed over as to the cause of his death being his injuries.) This all requires a lot of assumptions, but most of philosophy does. Relaying the truth to his family indicates that he was suffering and killed, and they are likely to be riddled with inner turmoil over whether or not he could've pulled through (grieving minds will often cling to the irrational). Relaying the truth to the authorities puts your well-being and freedom at risk. Relaying the truth to the public at large will forever cast a shadow over you, as there will always be people who doubt the necessity/mercifulness of your actions, as opposed to an official ruling that he died of his injuries.

Lying to the family, you could tell them that although he died of his injuries, he was unconscious and did not suffer. Lying to the authorities, no pall is cast over your medical practice or your freedom. And the public at large will still disseminate rumors over the situation, no matter what.

Is lying in this situation immoral?

This may seem strange, but I don't do hypotheticals. I find it is best to know before hand what is good, such as honesty and life, and wait upon a situation to throw them into doubt. I have had to see people dieing, and I have had to snatch at least one from death. Even that is frightening because then you have one more future to fear, and one more virtue to fear the loss of. All I can tell you is that if you know where good resides as a practical matter it is as reliable as a compass in the fog. We seldom have the opportunity to do purely good or purely bad in this life. We always have the opportunity to do our best, and to do better.

[British boy]

Aelryn wrote: Fido wrote: 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.

This is a good position, but not the one I was referring to. I referred more to a situation in which you absolutely know what is true, but are presented with the circumstances to lie for your benefit, or tell the truth to the benefit of no one. Example: A man is dying in a painful manner, and has no chance for survival. This man is clearly within his last minutes of life, and BEGS you to put him out of his misery, and you do so. (We'll assume planecrash survival, and that you have sufficient medical knowledge to determine that he will not live, and that you have insufficient means to do anything other than prolong his suffering for perhaps another hour. You have no reason to expect him to survive until a rescue crew with any reasonable chance of him surviving ensuing coems) A day and a half later (long after he would have died miserably anyway) you are rescued by a rescue crew.

You are asked how the man died. You can relay that he died of his injuries, or that you put him down. If you relay that you put him down, there are obvious legal ramifications to deal with (and as a doctor, we'll also assume you have enough medical knowledge to have put him down without leaving any glaring clues that wouldn't likely be passed over as to the cause of his death being his injuries.) This all requires a lot of assumptions, but most of philosophy does. Relaying the truth to his family indicates that he was suffering and killed, and they are likely to be riddled with inner turmoil over whether or not he could've pulled through (grieving minds will often cling to the irrational). Relaying the truth to the authorities puts your well-being and freedom at risk. Relaying the truth to the public at large will forever cast a shadow over you, as there will always be people who doubt the necessity/mercifulness of your actions, as opposed to an official ruling that he died of his injuries.

Lying to the family, you could tell them that although he died of his injuries, he was unconscious and did not suffer. Lying to the authorities, no pall is cast over your medical practice or your freedom. And the public at large will still disseminate rumors over the situation, no matter what.

Is lying in this situation immoral?

I think it is still wrong to lie in that situation, based on my own morals, although I concede that I would lie to. I think that how much you can live with a situation afterwards plays a big part.

[thefranzkafkafront]

agentkgb wrote: No. If, for instance, there is a group ready to massacre a group of civilians and you know where they are, certainly telling the truth would be wrong and since lying could send them in the wrong direction, thereby reducing the probability of them finding the civilians on their own, I think lying would be the moral thing to do.

Ah the inquistive murder, yes that dose rather own theories such as kants ethic.

[anselfir]

If by lying one assumes that a certain trust or expectation was broken, then it is not perfect, and therefore evil.
If lying is just the misrepresentation of information, then there is the condition that the individual may not really know what is true, and when he misrepresents his own truth, what should we make of that. That discussion is about behavior in nonideal knowledge, and it is rather fuzzy to come up with a satisfactory conclusion, other than "this s*cks."

[Fido]

oneofthem wrote: If by lying one assumes that a certain trust or expectation was broken, then it is not perfect, and therefore evil.
If lying is just the misrepresentation of information, then there is the condition that the individual may not really know what is true, and when he misrepresents his own truth, what should we make of that. That discussion is about behavior in nonideal knowledge, and it is rather fuzzy to come up with a satisfactory conclusion, other than "this s*cks."

Your definition of lying is short. Is it always morally wrong? No! Any defense of society is moral and more justified than any truth that endangers society. There has to be a framework, or a template, if you will where even falsehood is justified, or it is not justified. Lying to strangers is not wrong, but the highest virtue if it does not hurt, but does help the community. You owe truth to your community whether they like it or not. Honesty is honor, but only within the context of community.

[anselfir]

Well, society is made of individuals. I assume "damaging" society means damaging some elements of society, of which betrayal of trust certainly is included. The act of lying then is by definition an imperfect condition, thus it is not justified, as in, it is not just to lie.

of course, to make sense of your statement, I need to know what you mean by "damaging the community." are you taking the sum of all the damages or benefits to each individual in the community, and only regard the net sum as relevant? There are other interpretations of course, but I do not know which one you mean.

What is the big deal about community, reduce it to the atomic interpersonal relations.

[baleyg]

Fido wrote: 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, do you count in individual actions at all.. or only in the sense that they benefit the community?

[bob.appleyard]

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".

The choices are never considered alone. They wouldn't be choices otherwise.

[Fido]

baleyg wrote: Fido wrote: 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, do you count in individual actions at all.. or only in the sense that they benefit the community?

What I see is that the individual is the life of the community, and that the community is the soul of the individual. Community is the source of moral perspective and, in fact, all understanding and culture. This is not a question of chicken or egg. Society cannot live without individuals, and yet it can do without some individuals. No individuals could exist without community at some point in their lives, because it is the source of our lives. So, much as we say communities are made up of individuals, the fact is that they are made of all the individuals and alone the individual counts for nothing.

[anselfir]

Well, since the community cannot think or evaluate or judge or feel, its soul is relevant to no one in particular. Are you the community, able to take care of its soul?