I lie and feel very good [Archive] - Two Plus Two Newer Archives

vhawk01

04-10-2007, 05:18 PM

[ QUOTE ]
The cutting off finger story reminded me of this. I had printer with a fault from a very major printer manufacturer. I ring 'em up, get the helpdesk which take a few details and put me through to a very helpful techie who asks me to run some tests and call him back.

next day I call back, helpdesk again who ask me questions including 'are you with the printer?' I told them I wasn't (being at work) and expalined I just needed to be put through to the techie who asked me to call him back. Point blank refusal as 'I cannot be put though as I'm not with the printer' we argue for a while and eventually I say.

'Sorry my mistake, I am with the printer'

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not going to be a prick, lie all you want. But just because the harm your lies cause are abstract, distant, and hard for you to perceive does not mean they do not exist. We had a hypothetical in medical ethics one time where you were a doctor in Saudi Arabia, and a 16 year old girl came to you, after having been brutally raped and impregnated, and wanted an abortion. Her father and brothers would kill her if they found out that she was raped, and so the doctors told the parents their daughter had a back problem that required surgery in a different country and had the daughter flown out for the abortion. One doctor refused to go along with the deceit, told the parents (as was the law) and the girl was killed.

The story was given as an example of why cultural relativism is wrong, I suppose, and how blindly following bad laws is bad. To me, it did a better job of exposing the short-sightedness and ignorance of my classmates, who could not possibly conceive of any negative consequences of exporting the girl other than the harm caused to the father and brothers by being lied to. I volunteered this cheery scenario:

The girl gets flown out, has the abortion, and the dad and brothers eventually find out what she left for. They kill her, and the story gets around. Next time a girl has a back problem, her father and brothers kill her, no questions asked.

It might be unlikely, since this was only one incident, but if there is a widespread practice of flying these girls out for this, it will eventually be discovered, and many more people will suffer. These doctors may very well be condemning hundreds of other girls to death.

Your situation is a lot lighter, but do you think your lie is without consequence, and without harm? Your benefit comes from nowhere, and hurts no one?

chezlaw

04-10-2007, 05:23 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Your situation is a lot lighter, but do you think your lie is without consequence, and without harm? Your benefit comes from nowhere, and hurts no one?

[/ QUOTE ]
I think all the consequence of that lie are good.

chez

vhawk01

04-10-2007, 05:25 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Your situation is a lot lighter, but do you think your lie is without consequence, and without harm? Your benefit comes from nowhere, and hurts no one?

[/ QUOTE ]
I think all the consequence of that lie are good.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]
So they have that policy for absolutely no reason whatsoever? I'm not saying you are wrong, it is hard for me to imagine a situation where no harm comes from a lie, but I don't know that its impossible.

Borodog

04-10-2007, 05:38 PM

vhawk01,

I routinely lie a little bit to students. You don't want them to be overconfident in their abilities because that can set them up for a disastrous fall. But you don't want them so discouraged that they fail to make the actual progress they really are capable of. I find it best to boost their self-confidence just a little bit.

ufojoe

04-10-2007, 05:39 PM

V,

You've got to be kidding. Why is this even an issue? It was a proper and good lie. Glad the printer problem is fixed.

No harm!

chezlaw

04-10-2007, 05:41 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Your situation is a lot lighter, but do you think your lie is without consequence, and without harm? Your benefit comes from nowhere, and hurts no one?

[/ QUOTE ]
I think all the consequence of that lie are good.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]
So they have that policy for absolutely no reason whatsoever? I'm not saying you are wrong, it is hard for me to imagine a situation where no harm comes from a lie, but I don't know that its impossible.

[/ QUOTE ]
have you ever dealt with helpdesks??? Its always possible that a lie can result in harm but its expected results that should concern us.

lies can be very good. Do you know were the [insert race here] children are hidden? asks the racial cleansing police.

chez

PLOlover

04-10-2007, 05:54 PM

[ QUOTE ]
We had a hypothetical in medical ethics one time where you were a doctor in Saudi Arabia, and a 16 year old girl came to you,

[/ QUOTE ]

I would also assume that if the dr. is found to be lying the dr may suffer some consequences.

vhawk01

04-10-2007, 06:02 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Your situation is a lot lighter, but do you think your lie is without consequence, and without harm? Your benefit comes from nowhere, and hurts no one?

[/ QUOTE ]
I think all the consequence of that lie are good.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]
So they have that policy for absolutely no reason whatsoever? I'm not saying you are wrong, it is hard for me to imagine a situation where no harm comes from a lie, but I don't know that its impossible.

[/ QUOTE ]
have you ever dealt with helpdesks??? Its always possible that a lie can result in harm but its expected results that should concern us.

lies can be very good. Do you know were the [insert race here] children are hidden? asks the racial cleansing police.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

That objection to Kant was never very convincing to me. So, you lie, they find out, and now they just shoot everyone without asking, rather than bother asking you where the little Jewish girl is. The idea is that their motives are to kill her, and that is what is wrong. You aren't aiding them by telling them where she is, you are sentencing to death the next family who really ISN'T hiding a little Jewish girl.

I think my main position on this is that lying can never be the BEST solution, but perhaps it is possible it is not the worst solution. The best solution in the OP is probably impractical, so perhaps the lie is better than nothing.

vhawk01

04-10-2007, 06:04 PM

[ QUOTE ]
vhawk01,

I routinely lie a little bit to students. You don't want them to be overconfident in their abilities because that can set them up for a disastrous fall. But you don't want them so discouraged that they fail to make the actual progress they really are capable of. I find it best to boost their self-confidence just a little bit.

[/ QUOTE ]

Like I said, I generally side with Kant, but I understand that it isn't always practical, and can envision conflicts, such as yours. To be the contrarian, I would say that these kids will eventually realize you aren't trustworthy, and your effects will no longer work, and now they won't fully trust you when you ARE being honest.

Of course, I would make the concession that, if someone fully expects and WANTS you to lie to them (do I look fat in this dress?) then it isn't lying in any way. As long as its an implicit or explicit understanding, which may very well be the case with your students.

chezlaw

04-10-2007, 06:09 PM

[ QUOTE ]
V,

You've got to be kidding. Why is this even an issue? It was a proper and good lie. Glad the printer problem is fixed.

No harm!

[/ QUOTE ]
Ta

I think V can get away from this by noticing that it wasn't really a lie. I didn't deceive anyone or intend to deceive anyone. She knew I wasn't with the printer and knew that I knew and I knew that she knew that she knew ...

chez

vhawk01

04-10-2007, 06:11 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
V,

You've got to be kidding. Why is this even an issue? It was a proper and good lie. Glad the printer problem is fixed.

No harm!

[/ QUOTE ]
Ta

I think V can get away from this by noticing that it wasn't really a lie. I didn't deceive anyone or intend to deceive anyone. She knew I wasn't with the printer and knew that I knew and I knew that she knew that she knew ...

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

Yep, I definitely can, and made the same point one post up. However, in this situation, it might be a little different, in that she is now knowingly breaking the rules of her own company, rules that other people are forced to follow.

chezlaw

04-10-2007, 06:21 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
V,

You've got to be kidding. Why is this even an issue? It was a proper and good lie. Glad the printer problem is fixed.

No harm!

[/ QUOTE ]
Ta

I think V can get away from this by noticing that it wasn't really a lie. I didn't deceive anyone or intend to deceive anyone. She knew I wasn't with the printer and knew that I knew and I knew that she knew that she knew ...

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

Yep, I definitely can, and made the same point one post up. However, in this situation, it might be a little different, in that she is now knowingly breaking the rules of her own company, rules that other people are forced to follow.

[/ QUOTE ]
She didn't break any rules. I did but claim that kowtowing to morons who make bad rules just encourages them, so for everyones benefit we have a moral duty to break them.

Hopefully she brought it up at some sort of review and just maybe they considered whether a customer calling back with information as requested should be prevented from doing so.

chez

vhawk01

04-10-2007, 06:43 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
V,

You've got to be kidding. Why is this even an issue? It was a proper and good lie. Glad the printer problem is fixed.

No harm!

[/ QUOTE ]
Ta

I think V can get away from this by noticing that it wasn't really a lie. I didn't deceive anyone or intend to deceive anyone. She knew I wasn't with the printer and knew that I knew and I knew that she knew that she knew ...

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

Yep, I definitely can, and made the same point one post up. However, in this situation, it might be a little different, in that she is now knowingly breaking the rules of her own company, rules that other people are forced to follow.

[/ QUOTE ]
She didn't break any rules. I did but claim that kowtowing to morons who make bad rules just encourages them, so for everyones benefit we have a moral duty to break them.

Hopefully she brought it up at some sort of review and just maybe they considered whether a customer calling back with information as requested should be prevented from doing so.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

And I did but correct you, that we have a duty to change them or fight to have them changed, and not to break them.

chezlaw

04-10-2007, 06:47 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
V,

You've got to be kidding. Why is this even an issue? It was a proper and good lie. Glad the printer problem is fixed.

No harm!

[/ QUOTE ]
Ta

I think V can get away from this by noticing that it wasn't really a lie. I didn't deceive anyone or intend to deceive anyone. She knew I wasn't with the printer and knew that I knew and I knew that she knew that she knew ...

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

Yep, I definitely can, and made the same point one post up. However, in this situation, it might be a little different, in that she is now knowingly breaking the rules of her own company, rules that other people are forced to follow.

[/ QUOTE ]
She didn't break any rules. I did but claim that kowtowing to morons who make bad rules just encourages them, so for everyones benefit we have a moral duty to break them.

Hopefully she brought it up at some sort of review and just maybe they considered whether a customer calling back with information as requested should be prevented from doing so.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

And I did but correct you, that we have a duty to change them or fight to have them changed, and not to break them.

[/ QUOTE ]
and I claim the best (probably only) way to change them is to break them. Hence its our duty to do so.

chez

chezlaw

04-10-2007, 06:54 PM

vhawk, I'd also make the claim that these 'rules' have no validity. certainly in this case I never agreed to them, in fact they didn't exist when I bought the printer.

companies, govenments etc make up rules all the time and in the past I've responded by making up my own which always results in fun conversations.

chez

vhawk01

04-10-2007, 06:57 PM

[ QUOTE ]
vhawk, I'd also make the claim that these 'rules' have no validity. certainly in this case I never agreed to them, in fact they didn't exist when I bought the printer.

companies, govenments etc make up rules all the time and in the past I've responded by making up my own which always results in fun conversations.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok, then you aren't violating any rule (I never said you were) but this receptionist is, on your behalf, if she knows you are lying, and is being deceived if she doesn't know you are lying.

BTW, I enjoy examples like this, because they aren't emotional and don't carry much baggage. They are a bit silly, and not exactly favorable to my side (not many people find as much honor in refusing to lie to a printer secretary as they do in refusing to lie to evil Saudis) but the points are the same and we can be civil.

chezlaw

04-10-2007, 07:12 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
vhawk, I'd also make the claim that these 'rules' have no validity. certainly in this case I never agreed to them, in fact they didn't exist when I bought the printer.

companies, govenments etc make up rules all the time and in the past I've responded by making up my own which always results in fun conversations.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok, then you aren't violating any rule (I never said you were) but this receptionist is, on your behalf, if she knows you are lying, and is being deceived if she doesn't know you are lying.

BTW, I enjoy examples like this, because they aren't emotional and don't carry much baggage. They are a bit silly, and not exactly favorable to my side (not many people find as much honor in refusing to lie to a printer secretary as they do in refusing to lie to evil Saudis) but the points are the same and we can be civil.

[/ QUOTE ]
but she didn't break any rules, her job was to follow a script which she did. The rules do not require her to think (which is the whole problem).

[Actually I suspect she did break the rules as she was probably mistaken not to put me through in these circumstances, and also probably should have put me through to a supervisor (but that's nothing to do with my 'lie')]

but it seems now that you think I didn't lie or break any rules, very civil of you /images/graemlins/grin.gif but what did I do wrong?

chez

vhawk01

04-10-2007, 07:20 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
vhawk, I'd also make the claim that these 'rules' have no validity. certainly in this case I never agreed to them, in fact they didn't exist when I bought the printer.

companies, govenments etc make up rules all the time and in the past I've responded by making up my own which always results in fun conversations.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok, then you aren't violating any rule (I never said you were) but this receptionist is, on your behalf, if she knows you are lying, and is being deceived if she doesn't know you are lying.

BTW, I enjoy examples like this, because they aren't emotional and don't carry much baggage. They are a bit silly, and not exactly favorable to my side (not many people find as much honor in refusing to lie to a printer secretary as they do in refusing to lie to evil Saudis) but the points are the same and we can be civil.

[/ QUOTE ]
but she didn't break any rules, her job was to follow a script which she did. The rules do not require her to think (which is the whole problem).

[Actually I suspect she did break the rules as she was probably mistaken not to put me through in these circumstances, and also probably should have put me through to a supervisor (but that's nothing to do with my 'lie')]

but it seems now that you think I didn't lie or break any rules, very civil of you /images/graemlins/grin.gif but what did I do wrong?

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe I don't understand the rules, but is she or is she not supposed to let 'non-printer' people through? I understood she was not, but yet she did. This is breaking a rule. You can claim that she did not KNOWINGLY break it, because you lied to her, but you also said your lie was not exactly convincing. You don't get to skirt the issue by playing both sides.

jogger08152

04-10-2007, 07:30 PM

I wonder: if somebody, some mortal enemy of yours, were to raise a pistol to shoot you, would you agonize about where the bullet might wind up if you duck out of the way? Or would you just duck?

Aesop version: you (the girl-exporter) are not culpable even if bad things seem to happen because of your "good" deed. Because it is *only* seeming: the future harm in your example is caused not by the doctor/smuggler, but rather by the people who murder their daughter/sister because she's suffering from back-pain, which in turn might indicate she was raped and is covering it up.

chezlaw

04-10-2007, 07:30 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
vhawk, I'd also make the claim that these 'rules' have no validity. certainly in this case I never agreed to them, in fact they didn't exist when I bought the printer.

companies, govenments etc make up rules all the time and in the past I've responded by making up my own which always results in fun conversations.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok, then you aren't violating any rule (I never said you were) but this receptionist is, on your behalf, if she knows you are lying, and is being deceived if she doesn't know you are lying.

BTW, I enjoy examples like this, because they aren't emotional and don't carry much baggage. They are a bit silly, and not exactly favorable to my side (not many people find as much honor in refusing to lie to a printer secretary as they do in refusing to lie to evil Saudis) but the points are the same and we can be civil.

[/ QUOTE ]
but she didn't break any rules, her job was to follow a script which she did. The rules do not require her to think (which is the whole problem).

[Actually I suspect she did break the rules as she was probably mistaken not to put me through in these circumstances, and also probably should have put me through to a supervisor (but that's nothing to do with my 'lie')]

but it seems now that you think I didn't lie or break any rules, very civil of you /images/graemlins/grin.gif but what did I do wrong?

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe I don't understand the rules, but is she or is she not supposed to let 'non-printer' people through? I understood she was not, but yet she did. This is breaking a rule. You can claim that she did not KNOWINGLY break it, because you lied to her, but you also said your lie was not exactly convincing. You don't get to skirt the issue by playing both sides.

[/ QUOTE ]
No her job is to follow a script and tick boxes, that's all. There's a reason why these poeple are being replaced by automated systems or in some rare cases by help desks that can help.

You wouldn't say an equivalent automated system was breaking any rules if I went back and changed an answer.

chez

jogger08152

04-10-2007, 07:47 PM

[Edit: disregard, you already answered this below. (This was a variant of the "do I look good in this dress" question.)]

jogger08152

04-10-2007, 07:50 PM

[ QUOTE ]

And I did but correct you, that we have a duty to change them or fight to have them changed, and not to break them.

[/ QUOTE ]
You did make this claim, but you are of course mistaken.

chezlaw

04-10-2007, 08:06 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

And I did but correct you, that we have a duty to change them or fight to have them changed, and not to break them.

[/ QUOTE ]
You did make this claim, but you are of course mistaken.

[/ QUOTE ]
I think he may be right but we have an ambiguity on 'rule'. I understand a rule to be reached by agreement - even if I don't like the rule I may agree to it and then shouldn't break it.

I defended this view vs DS and lucky me when talking of stopping at a red light when no-one is about which I would do if I'd agreed to always stop at red lights.

However, I don't recognise rules' made by someone else as having any force unless agreed. Also, i think when we judge these 'rules' as bad then not only do we not have to abide by them but there's a strong case for saying we should actively break them.

chez

vhawk01

04-10-2007, 11:17 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I wonder: if somebody, some mortal enemy of yours, were to raise a pistol to shoot you, would you agonize about where the bullet might wind up if you duck out of the way? Or would you just duck?

Aesop version: you (the girl-exporter) are not culpable even if bad things seem to happen because of your "good" deed. Because it is *only* seeming: the future harm in your example is caused not by the doctor/smuggler, but rather by the people who murder their daughter/sister because she's suffering from back-pain, which in turn might indicate she was raped and is covering it up.

[/ QUOTE ]

All well and good, and all still true if I just tell the father the truth. I mean, her death is almost certainly going to be the result, but I didn't cause it, her father did. So, I am choosing not to place the lives (but by lives I really mean net suffering) of all the future people who will be harmed by my decision above the suffering and life of the girl (in our example). Bear in mind that, in reality, I'm almost certainly going to lie in this spot...the girl in front of me is worth ten girls I don't know and can't see, when she is screaming not to let her die.

vhawk01

04-10-2007, 11:20 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

And I did but correct you, that we have a duty to change them or fight to have them changed, and not to break them.

[/ QUOTE ]
You did make this claim, but you are of course mistaken.

[/ QUOTE ]
I think he may be right but we have an ambiguity on 'rule'. I understand a rule to be reached by agreement - even if I don't like the rule I may agree to it and then shouldn't break it.

I defended this view vs DS and lucky me when talking of stopping at a red light when no-one is about which I would do if I'd agreed to always stop at red lights.

However, I don't recognise rules' made by someone else as having any force unless agreed. Also, i think when we judge these 'rules' as bad then not only do we not have to abide by them but there's a strong case for saying we should actively break them.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

And I agreed with all of this, and was perhaps a bit confused by the specifics of your situation. I certainly don't think you are bound by the rules of this company, rules you never consented to or agreed to follow. And if you insist it is the case that the worker lady did not break any rules either, I'm ok with that. I still don't see where the lie disappeared to. If we treat the secretary like a mindless automaton (a stretch? maybe not) then you really just lied directly to her superior or whomever, you just did it on an answering machine. It doesn't change much, except the rule you are breaking is a societal one.

jogger08152

04-10-2007, 11:25 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I am choosing not to place the lives (but by lives I really mean net suffering) of all the future people who will be harmed by my decision above the suffering and life of the girl (in our example). Bear in mind that, in reality, I'm almost certainly going to lie in this spot...the girl in front of me is worth ten girls I don't know and can't see, when she is screaming not to let her die.

[/ QUOTE ]
Actually what's happening is you're correctly intuiting that immediate certainty is more important than distant possibility. You're going to snap off a murder now, because you can, rather than allowing yourself not to act. "Something bad might happen", after all, can always be argued - and therefore has no value when applied to indirect results in comparison to immediate, direct ones.

jogger08152

04-10-2007, 11:28 PM

What societal rule are you refering to?

vhawk01

04-10-2007, 11:29 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I am choosing not to place the lives (but by lives I really mean net suffering) of all the future people who will be harmed by my decision above the suffering and life of the girl (in our example). Bear in mind that, in reality, I'm almost certainly going to lie in this spot...the girl in front of me is worth ten girls I don't know and can't see, when she is screaming not to let her die.

[/ QUOTE ]
Actually what's happening is you're correctly intuiting that immediate certainty is more important than distant possibility.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thats exactly the kind of lazy, emotional thinking that gets so many people into trouble. That is exactly the easy way out. Her death isn't certain, it is just very likely. The deaths and suffering of all the others is not certain either, and less likely, but how much less? We aren't weighing a certainty versus a possibility, we are weight two possibilities, and the less likely one carries far more suffering and death. Its a balancing act, and my experience has shown me (but may certainly be flawed) that lying inevitably results in more suffering. Inevitably might be a strong word, since we are graced with the blessing of only running the experiment (life) once.

vhawk01

04-10-2007, 11:31 PM

[ QUOTE ]
What societal rule are you refering to?

[/ QUOTE ]

Don't lie. One of the strongest, most important rules in any society, even if it is so often broken. I don't think society could exist without it.

PairTheBoard

04-10-2007, 11:33 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Actually what's happening is you're correctly intuiting that immediate certainty is more important than distant possibility.

[/ QUOTE ]

Also, why does one have to presume that the unintended consequences of the lie are necessarily bad ones. Maybe there are good possibilities you haven't thought of. You don't really know do you? What you do have is good reason to believe the immediate consequences will be good.

PairTheBoard

vhawk01

04-10-2007, 11:35 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What societal rule are you refering to?

[/ QUOTE ]

Don't lie. One of the strongest, most important rules in any society, even if it is so often broken. I don't think society could exist without it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Think about it from a game theory perspective. The strategy of sometimes lying is always going to be a winning one, unless society places extremely strict penalties on lying. But the cooperative, 'no one lies' strategy has far more efficiency and accomplishes goals far better than the "most often tell the truth but sometimes lie" strategy. The problem is, we are good but not great game theoreticians, and the short-term allure of acting in our own best interest prohibits us from being as strict as we would need to be against lying. If we are that strict, its going to cost us when we ourselves inevitably lie. So, we moralize about it (something I am trying very hard NOT to do) while tacitly allowing a certain amount of lying. Its a better overall strategy than wanton lying, but sub-optimal.

vhawk01

04-10-2007, 11:36 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Actually what's happening is you're correctly intuiting that immediate certainty is more important than distant possibility.

[/ QUOTE ]

Also, why does one have to presume that the unintended consequences of the lie are necessarily bad ones. Maybe there are good possibilities you haven't thought of. You don't really know do you? What you do have is good reason to believe the immediate consequences will be good.

PairTheBoard

[/ QUOTE ]

I have good reason to think the long-term consequences will be bad. They will just be diluted and spread out among many. There will be repercussions to lying to this girls father and brothers. This is not an isolated case...you cannot do this once and then not do it again. Such widespread use of this tactic can only end badly for all young girls.

chezlaw

04-10-2007, 11:41 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

And I did but correct you, that we have a duty to change them or fight to have them changed, and not to break them.

[/ QUOTE ]
You did make this claim, but you are of course mistaken.

[/ QUOTE ]
I think he may be right but we have an ambiguity on 'rule'. I understand a rule to be reached by agreement - even if I don't like the rule I may agree to it and then shouldn't break it.

I defended this view vs DS and lucky me when talking of stopping at a red light when no-one is about which I would do if I'd agreed to always stop at red lights.

However, I don't recognise rules' made by someone else as having any force unless agreed. Also, i think when we judge these 'rules' as bad then not only do we not have to abide by them but there's a strong case for saying we should actively break them.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

And I agreed with all of this, and was perhaps a bit confused by the specifics of your situation. I certainly don't think you are bound by the rules of this company, rules you never consented to or agreed to follow. And if you insist it is the case that the worker lady did not break any rules either, I'm ok with that. I still don't see where the lie disappeared to. If we treat the secretary like a mindless automaton (a stretch? maybe not) then you really just lied directly to her superior or whomever, you just did it on an answering machine. It doesn't change much, except the rule you are breaking is a societal one.

[/ QUOTE ]
It doesn't matter whether I insist she broke no rules as either she didn't or its her fault for not following the 'what to do if the customer takes the mick' rule or its the companies failure for not having a 'what to do if the customer takes the mick' rule. None of these cases present an ethical reason for me for me to act differently.

All that happened here is I refused to play by bad (imo)rules that I never agreed to. Ethicaly I believe this is correct and like a good kantian its how I wish everyone to behave.

chez

andyfox

04-10-2007, 11:42 PM

My wife's name is Lynne. Spelled as it is, companies we deal with believe that it could well be a man's name, so when I call up to handle a problem on an account with her name on it, and they ask whom they are speaking to, I just say I'm Lynne.

No harm, no foul, no? It just helps you get things done without hurting anyone, like saying, "nice to see you."

vhawk01

04-10-2007, 11:49 PM

[ QUOTE ]
My wife's name is Lynne. Spelled as it is, companies we deal with believe that it could well be a man's name, so when I call up to handle a problem on an account with her name on it, and they ask whom they are speaking to, I just say I'm Lynne.

No harm, no foul, no? It just helps you get things done without hurting anyone, like saying, "nice to see you."

[/ QUOTE ]

I have a really hard time having a beef with this. I mean, slippery slope I guess, but I do this all the time, partly because I know I am intelligent enough to determine the times when my lies are in the best interest of all. Is that conceit, and am I always correct? I dunno, batting 1.000 so far.

vhawk01

04-10-2007, 11:50 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

And I did but correct you, that we have a duty to change them or fight to have them changed, and not to break them.

[/ QUOTE ]
You did make this claim, but you are of course mistaken.

[/ QUOTE ]
I think he may be right but we have an ambiguity on 'rule'. I understand a rule to be reached by agreement - even if I don't like the rule I may agree to it and then shouldn't break it.

I defended this view vs DS and lucky me when talking of stopping at a red light when no-one is about which I would do if I'd agreed to always stop at red lights.

However, I don't recognise rules' made by someone else as having any force unless agreed. Also, i think when we judge these 'rules' as bad then not only do we not have to abide by them but there's a strong case for saying we should actively break them.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

And I agreed with all of this, and was perhaps a bit confused by the specifics of your situation. I certainly don't think you are bound by the rules of this company, rules you never consented to or agreed to follow. And if you insist it is the case that the worker lady did not break any rules either, I'm ok with that. I still don't see where the lie disappeared to. If we treat the secretary like a mindless automaton (a stretch? maybe not) then you really just lied directly to her superior or whomever, you just did it on an answering machine. It doesn't change much, except the rule you are breaking is a societal one.

[/ QUOTE ]
It doesn't matter whether I insist she broke no rules as either she didn't or its her fault for not following the 'what to do if the customer takes the mick' rule or its the companies failure for not having a 'what to do if the customer takes the mick' rule. None of these cases present an ethical reason for me for me to act differently.

All that happened here is I refused to play by bad (imo)rules that I never agreed to. Ethicaly I believe this is correct and like a good kantian its how I wish everyone to behave.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

You wish everyone to lie in this exact situation, or you wish everyone to lie in situations where it is easier for them if they lie?

chezlaw

04-10-2007, 11:53 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

And I did but correct you, that we have a duty to change them or fight to have them changed, and not to break them.

[/ QUOTE ]
You did make this claim, but you are of course mistaken.

[/ QUOTE ]
I think he may be right but we have an ambiguity on 'rule'. I understand a rule to be reached by agreement - even if I don't like the rule I may agree to it and then shouldn't break it.

I defended this view vs DS and lucky me when talking of stopping at a red light when no-one is about which I would do if I'd agreed to always stop at red lights.

However, I don't recognise rules' made by someone else as having any force unless agreed. Also, i think when we judge these 'rules' as bad then not only do we not have to abide by them but there's a strong case for saying we should actively break them.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

And I agreed with all of this, and was perhaps a bit confused by the specifics of your situation. I certainly don't think you are bound by the rules of this company, rules you never consented to or agreed to follow. And if you insist it is the case that the worker lady did not break any rules either, I'm ok with that. I still don't see where the lie disappeared to. If we treat the secretary like a mindless automaton (a stretch? maybe not) then you really just lied directly to her superior or whomever, you just did it on an answering machine. It doesn't change much, except the rule you are breaking is a societal one.

[/ QUOTE ]
It doesn't matter whether I insist she broke no rules as either she didn't or its her fault for not following the 'what to do if the customer takes the mick' rule or its the companies failure for not having a 'what to do if the customer takes the mick' rule. None of these cases present an ethical reason for me for me to act differently.

All that happened here is I refused to play by bad (imo)rules that I never agreed to. Ethicaly I believe this is correct and like a good kantian its how I wish everyone to behave.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

You wish everyone to lie in this exact situation, or you wish everyone to lie in situations where it is easier for them if they lie?

[/ QUOTE ]
I wish everyone to refuse to play by rules they believe bad and never agreed to.

chez

vhawk01

04-10-2007, 11:59 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

And I did but correct you, that we have a duty to change them or fight to have them changed, and not to break them.

[/ QUOTE ]
You did make this claim, but you are of course mistaken.

[/ QUOTE ]
I think he may be right but we have an ambiguity on 'rule'. I understand a rule to be reached by agreement - even if I don't like the rule I may agree to it and then shouldn't break it.

I defended this view vs DS and lucky me when talking of stopping at a red light when no-one is about which I would do if I'd agreed to always stop at red lights.

However, I don't recognise rules' made by someone else as having any force unless agreed. Also, i think when we judge these 'rules' as bad then not only do we not have to abide by them but there's a strong case for saying we should actively break them.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

And I agreed with all of this, and was perhaps a bit confused by the specifics of your situation. I certainly don't think you are bound by the rules of this company, rules you never consented to or agreed to follow. And if you insist it is the case that the worker lady did not break any rules either, I'm ok with that. I still don't see where the lie disappeared to. If we treat the secretary like a mindless automaton (a stretch? maybe not) then you really just lied directly to her superior or whomever, you just did it on an answering machine. It doesn't change much, except the rule you are breaking is a societal one.

[/ QUOTE ]
It doesn't matter whether I insist she broke no rules as either she didn't or its her fault for not following the 'what to do if the customer takes the mick' rule or its the companies failure for not having a 'what to do if the customer takes the mick' rule. None of these cases present an ethical reason for me for me to act differently.

All that happened here is I refused to play by bad (imo)rules that I never agreed to. Ethicaly I believe this is correct and like a good kantian its how I wish everyone to behave.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

You wish everyone to lie in this exact situation, or you wish everyone to lie in situations where it is easier for them if they lie?

[/ QUOTE ]
I wish everyone to refuse to play by rules they believe bad and never agreed to.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

But still, its not like you just 'refused to play by the rules.' You lied. This is breaking a rule you DID agree to, presumably. There are ways you could have broken the silly rule you didn't agree with, but you chose a way which caused you to break a rule you DO agree with. Or maybe not, but thats what I'm trying to get at.

chezlaw

04-11-2007, 12:04 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

And I did but correct you, that we have a duty to change them or fight to have them changed, and not to break them.

[/ QUOTE ]
You did make this claim, but you are of course mistaken.

[/ QUOTE ]
I think he may be right but we have an ambiguity on 'rule'. I understand a rule to be reached by agreement - even if I don't like the rule I may agree to it and then shouldn't break it.

I defended this view vs DS and lucky me when talking of stopping at a red light when no-one is about which I would do if I'd agreed to always stop at red lights.

However, I don't recognise rules' made by someone else as having any force unless agreed. Also, i think when we judge these 'rules' as bad then not only do we not have to abide by them but there's a strong case for saying we should actively break them.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

And I agreed with all of this, and was perhaps a bit confused by the specifics of your situation. I certainly don't think you are bound by the rules of this company, rules you never consented to or agreed to follow. And if you insist it is the case that the worker lady did not break any rules either, I'm ok with that. I still don't see where the lie disappeared to. If we treat the secretary like a mindless automaton (a stretch? maybe not) then you really just lied directly to her superior or whomever, you just did it on an answering machine. It doesn't change much, except the rule you are breaking is a societal one.

[/ QUOTE ]
It doesn't matter whether I insist she broke no rules as either she didn't or its her fault for not following the 'what to do if the customer takes the mick' rule or its the companies failure for not having a 'what to do if the customer takes the mick' rule. None of these cases present an ethical reason for me for me to act differently.

All that happened here is I refused to play by bad (imo)rules that I never agreed to. Ethicaly I believe this is correct and like a good kantian its how I wish everyone to behave.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

You wish everyone to lie in this exact situation, or you wish everyone to lie in situations where it is easier for them if they lie?

[/ QUOTE ]
I wish everyone to refuse to play by rules they believe bad and never agreed to.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

But still, its not like you just 'refused to play by the rules.' You lied. This is breaking a rule you DID agree to, presumably. There are ways you could have broken the silly rule you didn't agree with, but you chose a way which caused you to break a rule you DO agree with. Or maybe not, but thats what I'm trying to get at.

[/ QUOTE ]
I never agreed not to lie. Some lies are good.

chez

vhawk01

04-11-2007, 12:10 AM

[ QUOTE ]
I never agreed not to lie. Some lies are good.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

Thats what I figured your position is, but I would ask, how do you know when the lies are good or not? You say you would wish everyone to behave the way you did here, and so I asked the question, lie in this specific situation or in situations very much like this one? This is why they are categorical imperatives, because 'situations very much like this one' is a really dangerous phrase. Its easy to say "lie when appropriate" but thats the same as saying "Do good." Obviously, but whats good?

Your analogy to the red lights thread is very appropriate, I think.

PairTheBoard

04-11-2007, 12:13 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Actually what's happening is you're correctly intuiting that immediate certainty is more important than distant possibility.

[/ QUOTE ]

Also, why does one have to presume that the unintended consequences of the lie are necessarily bad ones. Maybe there are good possibilities you haven't thought of. You don't really know do you? What you do have is good reason to believe the immediate consequences will be good.

PairTheBoard

[/ QUOTE ]

I have good reason to think the long-term consequences will be bad. They will just be diluted and spread out among many. There will be repercussions to lying to this girls father and brothers. This is not an isolated case...you cannot do this once and then not do it again. Such widespread use of this tactic can only end badly for all young girls.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not so sure about that myself. No-lying as part of an overall Total-Cooperation might be optimal for an optimal society. But we don't have an optimum society. Sometimes the optimum activity in a suboptimum society is one of non-cooperation. It can act to destabalize the suboptimum status quo and actuate change. The change may be disruptive and not necessarily for the better. On the other hand it may unleash forces for progress previously stiffled by the inertia of the status quo. You can look to the examples of Mahatma Gandhi and Martin Luther King Jr.

Personally, I also like the example of Bill Clinton whose noncooperation with the Invaders of Privacy was far and away the more important principle to uphold.

PairTheBoard

chezlaw

04-11-2007, 12:14 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I never agreed not to lie. Some lies are good.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

Thats what I figured your position is, but I would ask, how do you know when the lies are good or not? You say you would wish everyone to behave the way you did here, and so I asked the question, lie in this specific situation or in situations very much like this one? This is why they are categorical imperatives, because 'situations very much like this one' is a really dangerous phrase. Its easy to say "lie when appropriate" but thats the same as saying "Do good." Obviously, but whats good?

[/ QUOTE ]
I wish everyone lies whenever they believe it good.

I don't think that causes any problems and its far less dangerous then lying even when you believe it bad.

chez

vhawk01

04-11-2007, 12:35 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I never agreed not to lie. Some lies are good.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

Thats what I figured your position is, but I would ask, how do you know when the lies are good or not? You say you would wish everyone to behave the way you did here, and so I asked the question, lie in this specific situation or in situations very much like this one? This is why they are categorical imperatives, because 'situations very much like this one' is a really dangerous phrase. Its easy to say "lie when appropriate" but thats the same as saying "Do good." Obviously, but whats good?

[/ QUOTE ]
I wish everyone lies whenever they believe it good.

I don't think that causes any problems and its far less dangerous then lying even when you believe it bad.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

So you think everyone should speed when they believe it good as well, or are people better at predicting the likely negative consequences of lying far better than they are at predicting the same for speeding?

I seem to be stuck in between positions here, and I'm not sure I can see my way out of it. On the one hand, your position seems very similar to the speeding one, where obviously the optimal solution is for me to do whatever I want, since I will do the smart thing, but since everyone else will NOT do the smart thing, the next best solution is for all of us to follow stricter laws. On the other hand, PTB reminds me that Kant's system is more or less based on the idea that if NO ONE lies, the society will be operating under an optimal strategy, but that isn't the case, so I am being too idealistic.

chezlaw

04-11-2007, 12:51 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I never agreed not to lie. Some lies are good.

chez

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Thats what I figured your position is, but I would ask, how do you know when the lies are good or not? You say you would wish everyone to behave the way you did here, and so I asked the question, lie in this specific situation or in situations very much like this one? This is why they are categorical imperatives, because 'situations very much like this one' is a really dangerous phrase. Its easy to say "lie when appropriate" but thats the same as saying "Do good." Obviously, but whats good?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I wish everyone lies whenever they believe it good.

I don't think that causes any problems and its far less dangerous then lying even when you believe it bad.

chez

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So you think everyone should speed when they believe it good as well, or are people better at predicting the likely negative consequences of lying far better than they are at predicting the same for speeding?

[/ QUOTE ]
Absolutely, I want everyone to speed when they believe it to be good.

chez

vhawk01

04-11-2007, 12:55 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I never agreed not to lie. Some lies are good.

chez

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Thats what I figured your position is, but I would ask, how do you know when the lies are good or not? You say you would wish everyone to behave the way you did here, and so I asked the question, lie in this specific situation or in situations very much like this one? This is why they are categorical imperatives, because 'situations very much like this one' is a really dangerous phrase. Its easy to say "lie when appropriate" but thats the same as saying "Do good." Obviously, but whats good?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I wish everyone lies whenever they believe it good.

I don't think that causes any problems and its far less dangerous then lying even when you believe it bad.

chez

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So you think everyone should speed when they believe it good as well, or are people better at predicting the likely negative consequences of lying far better than they are at predicting the same for speeding?

[/ QUOTE ]
Absolutely, I want everyone to speed when they believe it to be good.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

So you'd prefer no laws at all?

chezlaw

04-11-2007, 01:05 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I never agreed not to lie. Some lies are good.

chez

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Thats what I figured your position is, but I would ask, how do you know when the lies are good or not? You say you would wish everyone to behave the way you did here, and so I asked the question, lie in this specific situation or in situations very much like this one? This is why they are categorical imperatives, because 'situations very much like this one' is a really dangerous phrase. Its easy to say "lie when appropriate" but thats the same as saying "Do good." Obviously, but whats good?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I wish everyone lies whenever they believe it good.

I don't think that causes any problems and its far less dangerous then lying even when you believe it bad.

chez

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So you think everyone should speed when they believe it good as well, or are people better at predicting the likely negative consequences of lying far better than they are at predicting the same for speeding?

[/ QUOTE ]
Absolutely, I want everyone to speed when they believe it to be good.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

So you'd prefer no laws at all?

[/ QUOTE ]
Not at all.

I'm in favour of sensible speed limits but when people believe the right thing to do is to break the limit then they should do so.

chez

PairTheBoard

04-11-2007, 01:07 AM

[ QUOTE ]
So you think everyone should speed when they believe it good as well, or are people better at predicting the likely negative consequences of lying far better than they are at predicting the same for speeding?

I seem to be stuck in between positions here, and I'm not sure I can see my way out of it. On the one hand, your position seems very similar to the speeding one, where obviously the optimal solution is for me to do whatever I want, since I will do the smart thing, but since everyone else will NOT do the smart thing, the next best solution is for all of us to follow stricter laws. On the other hand, PTB reminds me that Kant's system is more or less based on the idea that if NO ONE lies, the society will be operating under an optimal strategy, but that isn't the case, so I am being too idealistic.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not sure if I was clear. I'm not saying our society is suboptimal because not everyone practices No-Lying. I'm saying that if everyone practiced No-Lying our society might still be suboptimum for other reasons. Even if everyone practiced Total Cooperation, including Total No-Lying, our society might still be suboptimum for other reasons. What I'm saying is that in suboptimum societies, it is sometimes a moral imperative, a duty, to offer resistance in the form of NonCooperation. When the Masturbation Police come knocking on your door to enforce the new Anti-Masturbation Laws, and ask you if you have masturbated in the last month, it is your Duty to Lie to them. NonCooperation is a moral imperative.

The example of speeding actually serves to illustrate how noncooperation really works. Practically nobody around where I drive obeys the 65-70mph speed limit on the freeways. We all go at least 75-85mph. We are practicing intelligent cooperative NonCooperation with the Law. We are happy to see the reckless driver going 100mph pulled over. We are also happy to be jointly breaking the speed limit ourselves and getting away with it.

Such Intelligent NonCooperation goes on all the time and actually makes society work better on the whole. In some cases such as with Gandhi and King it can even Transform a suboptimum society. Who's to say that each of us practicing intelligent NonCooperation don't serve to slowly transform society for the better. You have the power of massive parallel processing going on. And who's to say that the Doctor, in his act of NonCooperation, is not doing his little bit to undermine the stability of the brutal and barbaric society that would kill that innocent girl.

PairTheBoard

vhawk01

04-11-2007, 01:10 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I never agreed not to lie. Some lies are good.

chez

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Thats what I figured your position is, but I would ask, how do you know when the lies are good or not? You say you would wish everyone to behave the way you did here, and so I asked the question, lie in this specific situation or in situations very much like this one? This is why they are categorical imperatives, because 'situations very much like this one' is a really dangerous phrase. Its easy to say "lie when appropriate" but thats the same as saying "Do good." Obviously, but whats good?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I wish everyone lies whenever they believe it good.

I don't think that causes any problems and its far less dangerous then lying even when you believe it bad.

chez

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So you think everyone should speed when they believe it good as well, or are people better at predicting the likely negative consequences of lying far better than they are at predicting the same for speeding?

[/ QUOTE ]
Absolutely, I want everyone to speed when they believe it to be good.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

So you'd prefer no laws at all?

[/ QUOTE ]
Not at all.

I'm in favour of sensible speed limits but when people believe the right thing to do is to break the limit then they should do so.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

These are no laws at all. I mean, presumably you think they should still be punished, but thats not really the point.

chezlaw

04-11-2007, 01:17 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I never agreed not to lie. Some lies are good.

chez

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Thats what I figured your position is, but I would ask, how do you know when the lies are good or not? You say you would wish everyone to behave the way you did here, and so I asked the question, lie in this specific situation or in situations very much like this one? This is why they are categorical imperatives, because 'situations very much like this one' is a really dangerous phrase. Its easy to say "lie when appropriate" but thats the same as saying "Do good." Obviously, but whats good?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I wish everyone lies whenever they believe it good.

I don't think that causes any problems and its far less dangerous then lying even when you believe it bad.

chez

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So you think everyone should speed when they believe it good as well, or are people better at predicting the likely negative consequences of lying far better than they are at predicting the same for speeding?

[/ QUOTE ]
Absolutely, I want everyone to speed when they believe it to be good.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

So you'd prefer no laws at all?

[/ QUOTE ]
Not at all.

I'm in favour of sensible speed limits but when people believe the right thing to do is to break the limit then they should do so.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

These are no laws at all. I mean, presumably you think they should still be punished, but thats not really the point.

[/ QUOTE ]
Don't know what you mean. They are laws exactly as we have them in society, they are not laws as in the laws of physics.

They are rules which we can chose when to break. You seem to be insisting on not breaking them even if the expected result would be catastrophic. I say break them whenever you believe it right to do so.

Sounds like there should be happy medium except that my ethics include yours.

chez

vhawk01

04-11-2007, 01:21 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I never agreed not to lie. Some lies are good.

chez

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Thats what I figured your position is, but I would ask, how do you know when the lies are good or not? You say you would wish everyone to behave the way you did here, and so I asked the question, lie in this specific situation or in situations very much like this one? This is why they are categorical imperatives, because 'situations very much like this one' is a really dangerous phrase. Its easy to say "lie when appropriate" but thats the same as saying "Do good." Obviously, but whats good?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I wish everyone lies whenever they believe it good.

I don't think that causes any problems and its far less dangerous then lying even when you believe it bad.

chez

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So you think everyone should speed when they believe it good as well, or are people better at predicting the likely negative consequences of lying far better than they are at predicting the same for speeding?

[/ QUOTE ]
Absolutely, I want everyone to speed when they believe it to be good.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

So you'd prefer no laws at all?

[/ QUOTE ]
Not at all.

I'm in favour of sensible speed limits but when people believe the right thing to do is to break the limit then they should do so.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

These are no laws at all. I mean, presumably you think they should still be punished, but thats not really the point.

[/ QUOTE ]
Don't know what you mean. They are laws exactly as we have them in society, they are not laws as in the laws of physics.

They are rules which we can chose when to break. You seem to be insisting on not breaking them even if the expected result would be catastrophic. I say break them whenever you believe it right to do so.

Sounds like there should be happy medium except that my ethics include yours.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

Right, but the idea behind making a law is that it should be followed. If you think the law should be disregarded at times, then you shouldn't be making the law...the law is wrong. So, making a law while fully intending for it to be CORRECT to break it (not just accepting the inevitability) means these aren't really laws. It cannot be a law that it is incorrect to steal if it is sometimes correct to steal. You need to reword your law to be more specific or get rid of it entirely.

chezlaw

04-11-2007, 01:27 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I never agreed not to lie. Some lies are good.

chez

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Thats what I figured your position is, but I would ask, how do you know when the lies are good or not? You say you would wish everyone to behave the way you did here, and so I asked the question, lie in this specific situation or in situations very much like this one? This is why they are categorical imperatives, because 'situations very much like this one' is a really dangerous phrase. Its easy to say "lie when appropriate" but thats the same as saying "Do good." Obviously, but whats good?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I wish everyone lies whenever they believe it good.

I don't think that causes any problems and its far less dangerous then lying even when you believe it bad.

chez

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So you think everyone should speed when they believe it good as well, or are people better at predicting the likely negative consequences of lying far better than they are at predicting the same for speeding?

[/ QUOTE ]
Absolutely, I want everyone to speed when they believe it to be good.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

So you'd prefer no laws at all?

[/ QUOTE ]
Not at all.

I'm in favour of sensible speed limits but when people believe the right thing to do is to break the limit then they should do so.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

These are no laws at all. I mean, presumably you think they should still be punished, but thats not really the point.

[/ QUOTE ]
Don't know what you mean. They are laws exactly as we have them in society, they are not laws as in the laws of physics.

They are rules which we can chose when to break. You seem to be insisting on not breaking them even if the expected result would be catastrophic. I say break them whenever you believe it right to do so.

Sounds like there should be happy medium except that my ethics include yours.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

Right, but the idea behind making a law is that it should be followed. If you think the law should be disregarded at times, then you shouldn't be making the law...the law is wrong. So, making a law while fully intending for it to be CORRECT to break it (not just accepting the inevitability) means these aren't really laws. It cannot be a law that it is incorrect to steal if it is sometimes correct to steal. You need to reword your law to be more specific or get rid of it entirely.

[/ QUOTE ]
I disagree with that totally. Its is necessary that the law is an ass /images/graemlins/wink.gif

If, as I claim and seems obviously true laws are never perfect then it doesn't follow that we should always obey imperfect laws or dispense with laws altogether.

It's a process that requires cooperation and non-cooperation to evolve optimally.

chez

PairTheBoard

04-11-2007, 01:37 AM

[ QUOTE ]
It cannot be a law that it is incorrect to [insert borderline law here] if it is sometimes correct to [insert borderline law here]. You need to reword your law to be more specific or get rid of it entirely.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sometimes the only power people have to change a law is to break it. Also, it is practically impossible to write all laws to cover all situations. In fact, the vagueness of the law is what a lot of legal arguments revolve around. Legal experts here can probably go into great depth about the Theory of "The Law". I suspect it's not as simple as you think.

PairTheBoard

Metric

04-11-2007, 01:41 AM

I think chezlaw's lie is less of lie and more analogous to a bluff. The phone answer lady knew damn well he wasn't with the machine -- it was obvious, chez was about to burst out laughing himself. But denying a customer his requested support when he claims to be with the machine is simply too expensive a move for her to call. She's out of position with very little to gain, and potentially a lot to lose.

vhawk01

04-11-2007, 01:51 AM

[ QUOTE ]
I think chezlaw's lie is less of lie and more analogous to a bluff. The phone answer lady knew damn well he wasn't with the machine -- it was obvious, chez was about to burst out laughing himself. But denying a customer his requested support when he claims to be with the machine is simply too expensive a move for her to call. She's out of position with very little to gain, and potentially a lot to lose.

[/ QUOTE ]

Good poker analogy (a rarity to be sure). This is why chez feels good about his 'lie' and why I don't feel bad about it. It is more of a bluff, in that no one is being deceived while the rules are technically being broken.

vhawk01

04-11-2007, 01:54 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It cannot be a law that it is incorrect to [insert borderline law here] if it is sometimes correct to [insert borderline law here]. You need to reword your law to be more specific or get rid of it entirely.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sometimes the only power people have to change a law is to break it. Also, it is practically impossible to write all laws to cover all situations. In fact, the vagueness of the law is what a lot of legal arguments revolve around. Legal experts here can probably go into great depth about the Theory of "The Law". I suspect it's not as simple as you think.

PairTheBoard

[/ QUOTE ]

But thats not what I was saying. I am talking about chez, who AGREES with the law, but thinks that it is sometimes correct to break it. That is contradictory. In your case, people who do NOT agree with the law are powerless to change it and can only break it. Thats fine. But chez is saying he thinks it is a GOOD law, and that it is sometimes correct to break it. That means it is a bad law. The law should be more specific or a different law should exist, one that it is not correct to break. Keep in mind that 'correct' and 'inevitable' are very different. We all know laws are going to be broken.

I agree with your last point, of course this is all impractical. Our laws can only be so specific. But thats sort of the whole point. Because laws can only be so specific, even in the case where the immediate good is obviously served by breaking the law, the long-term good isn't, because now everyone else can break the law. Thats why there are penalties, and they are stiff enough to deter lawbreaking (ideally).

chezlaw

04-11-2007, 02:05 AM

[ QUOTE ]
I think chezlaw's lie is less of lie and more analogous to a bluff. The phone answer lady knew damn well he wasn't with the machine -- it was obvious, chez was about to burst out laughing himself. But denying a customer his requested support when he claims to be with the machine is simply too expensive a move for her to call. She's out of position with very little to gain, and potentially a lot to lose.

[/ QUOTE ]
Definiteley a large part of it but there's another huge part that made me feel very good.

Its not just that it was too expensive to call but that it was uncallable. My claim is that no-one in the whole company who cared whether I was with the printer was capable of telling if I was with it. Hence it couldn't possibly matter whether I was with the printer or not and hence it was a supremely silly thing to insist upon.

chez

chezlaw

04-11-2007, 02:15 AM

[ QUOTE ]
But thats not what I was saying. I am talking about chez, who AGREES with the law, but thinks that it is sometimes correct to break it. That is contradictory.

[/ QUOTE ]
Its not contradictory. When I say I agree with the law I don't mean its perfect. Obviously perfect law would be best but all I did was disagree with you claim that if it isn't perfect we should still obey it or throw it out.

Further I claim perfect law is impossible (I think this is obviously true).

So the correct thing to do is have imperfect laws and break them when we think its right to do so.

chez

PairTheBoard

04-11-2007, 02:17 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Because laws can only be so specific, even in the case where the immediate good is obviously served by breaking the law, the long-term good isn't, because now everyone else can break the law.

[/ QUOTE ]

We agree the law can't be perfectly written. But it can work perfectly. That can only happen if people break the law intelligently. Like chezlaw says, it's a process of cooperation and noncoperation. The process, when applied intelligently, serves to perfect the non perfect law. As far as enforcing the law goes, that's what the lawyers end up sorting out in court. That's far from straight forward.

It's really the same principle for why a free market works better than a Verticle Power Structured Command Economy. It's the power of massive parallel processing vs. the single processor.

PairTheBoard

tisthefire

04-11-2007, 02:56 AM

i have a couple questions for vhawk, the first one goes back a ways in your argument, but it's about the inevitable negative consequences of lies, if i tell you i'm 6'5" (which i am not) what possible negative consequences could there be, also, as far as breaking laws, i believe the law don't steal is a good law, however if there is a person unable to feed himself, i believe that the law of self preservation trumps the law of don't steal and that he is correct in stealing food, thoughts?

jogger08152

04-11-2007, 09:13 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I am choosing not to place the lives (but by lives I really mean net suffering) of all the future people who will be harmed by my decision above the suffering and life of the girl (in our example). Bear in mind that, in reality, I'm almost certainly going to lie in this spot...the girl in front of me is worth ten girls I don't know and can't see, when she is screaming not to let her die.

[/ QUOTE ]
Actually what's happening is you're correctly intuiting that immediate certainty is more important than distant possibility.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thats exactly the kind of lazy, emotional thinking that gets so many people into trouble. That is exactly the easy way out. Her death isn't certain, it is just very likely. The deaths and suffering of all the others is not certain either, and less likely, but how much less? We aren't weighing a certainty versus a possibility, we are weight two possibilities, and the less likely one carries far more suffering and death.

[/ QUOTE ]
I can't speak to whether your act of saving the girl would be lazy or emotional (as opposed to analytical), but mine wouldn't. The certainty (or, if you prefer, near certainty) of the death of the girl in front of you is immediate. You can project the entire chain of events between "you send her home" and "she is murdered" with a high degree of accuracy. In the second case you can do nothing of the sort. You have, at best, the vague uncertainty that "something bad may happen if you lie" to weigh against the immediate, proximate death of two (let's not forget the conceptus) people.

[ QUOTE ]
Its a balancing act, and my experience has shown me (but may certainly be flawed) that lying inevitably results in more suffering. Inevitably might be a strong word, since we are graced with the blessing of only running the experiment (life) once.

[/ QUOTE ]
This last is rather ironic, given your first point. Are you honestly saying that your experience tells you that lying "inevitably" results in more suffering? Never in your life have you seen or heard of a lie that turned out to be for the better? Meaning every US spy in the old Soviet Union did his work entirely for ill? Every time somebody used a false pretext to spring a surprise party on a friend or loved one, it resulted in great suffering? Every time somebody lied to the gestapo about hiding a Jew or gypsy, more murders resulted? Every single time?

Carefully analyzing your claim ("lies inevitably cause harm"), would you not also have to characterize it as the same sort of lazy, emotional thinking that would drive you to rescue the girl in the first place ("she will inevitably die")?

jogger08152

04-11-2007, 09:15 AM

jogger08152

04-11-2007, 09:21 AM

chezlaw

04-11-2007, 09:47 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I never agreed not to lie. Some lies are good.

chez

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Thats what I figured your position is, but I would ask, how do you know when the lies are good or not? You say you would wish everyone to behave the way you did here, and so I asked the question, lie in this specific situation or in situations very much like this one? This is why they are categorical imperatives, because 'situations very much like this one' is a really dangerous phrase. Its easy to say "lie when appropriate" but thats the same as saying "Do good." Obviously, but whats good?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I wish everyone lies whenever they believe it good.

I don't think that causes any problems and its far less dangerous then lying even when you believe it bad.

chez

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Everyone already lies the vast majority of the time they believe it is good.

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm not sure that's true at least if we ignore trivial cases but I hope it is.

[ QUOTE ]
The exceptions are people whose doctrine/indoctrination interferes with their reason in a situation where the good that will come from a lie is obvious and manifest, but they still cannot bring themselves to do it.)

[/ QUOTE ]
I think the main exceptions are other desires like fear or greed. We tell the truth when we believe we should lie for the same reasons we lie when we believe we should tell the truth.

chez

vhawk01

04-11-2007, 02:22 PM

[ QUOTE ]
i have a couple questions for vhawk, the first one goes back a ways in your argument, but it's about the inevitable negative consequences of lies, if i tell you i'm 6'5" (which i am not) what possible negative consequences could there be, also, as far as breaking laws, i believe the law don't steal is a good law, however if there is a person unable to feed himself, i believe that the law of self preservation trumps the law of don't steal and that he is correct in stealing food, thoughts?

[/ QUOTE ]

The consequences for this type of lie are more general. I am inevitably going to find out. I might not find out this specific lie, but we are talking about systems of behavior, so if you lie this one time, you have to lie in all situations like this, or at least, you have to lie from time to time. The negative consequences of living in a world where people lie to me are wasted time and effort deciphering which things are true and which are lies. There is a cost, albeit very small, that will be paid in every human interaction I have for the rest of my life. Knowing that people sometimes lie, I can never take anything at face value, and am forced to independently confirm important details (besides the independent confirmation I would be required to do anyway based on fallibility). These are incredibly subtle, and so easily dismissed, but still very real, and not "possible future consequences" but near-certainties.

vhawk01

04-11-2007, 02:25 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Actually what's happening is you're correctly intuiting that immediate certainty is more important than distant possibility.

[/ QUOTE ]

Also, why does one have to presume that the unintended consequences of the lie are necessarily bad ones. Maybe there are good possibilities you haven't thought of. You don't really know do you? What you do have is good reason to believe the immediate consequences will be good.

PairTheBoard

[/ QUOTE ]

Yep. This rebuttal to V's position is absolute.

[/ QUOTE ]

/images/graemlins/confused.gif If they are, please explain them to me, I'm more than happy to listen. I hope you don't think it has been done in this thread. What PTB is talking about is the same thing you mistakenly concluded earlier, i.e. that we are weighing the certain positive effects versus the potential negative effects. This is obviously not the case. We are weighing the VERY LIKELY positive effects versus the LESS LIKELY possible negative consequences. But just because the likelihoods are uneven does not settle the question. Shooting heroin is almost guaranteed to make me feel really good, right now, and it is far less likely (but still very likely) to make me feel really bad later on, including the likelihood of addiction, arrest, and so on. Surely you don't think the solution to this question is an obvious, 'absolute' choice to shoot up?

PairTheBoard

04-11-2007, 03:21 PM

jogger08152

04-11-2007, 05:19 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Actually what's happening is you're correctly intuiting that immediate certainty is more important than distant possibility.

[/ QUOTE ]

Also, why does one have to presume that the unintended consequences of the lie are necessarily bad ones. Maybe there are good possibilities you haven't thought of. You don't really know do you? What you do have is good reason to believe the immediate consequences will be good.

PairTheBoard

[/ QUOTE ]

Yep. This rebuttal to V's position is absolute.

[/ QUOTE ]

/images/graemlins/confused.gif If they are, please explain them to me, I'm more than happy to listen. I hope you don't think it has been done in this thread. What PTB is talking about is the same thing you mistakenly concluded earlier, i.e. that we are weighing the certain positive effects versus the potential negative effects. This is obviously not the case. We are weighing the VERY LIKELY positive effects versus the LESS LIKELY possible negative consequences.

[/ QUOTE ]
You are missing the point. What PTB said both succinctly and eloquently is that in your focus on "LESS LIKELY possible negative consequences", you are forgetting that there are also LESS LIKELY possible positive consequences. This is the why your argument fails: for every unlikely negative consequence you can suggest, I can offer an unlikely positive consequence. After all cancellations are complete, what you have is the opportunity to save a life. There will be no "stand alone" unlikely negatives; each will be matched by an unlikely positive.

For instance, you offered the example of the lie being heard of later, and random girls being murdered because they suffered lower back pain.

A counterexample might be: the young woman you export for an abortion decides to seek political assylum, obtains it, and later becomes an activist advocating change in her own nation. Through her efforts and international pressure, the murder of rape victims becomes illegal in her homeland.

We could argue about the relative probabilities of these two events (though I suspect neither of us could accurately predict what the probabilities are, other than that both are unlikely), but the argument would be immaterial to the central issue: "chaotic" consequences such as you suggest - that is, consequences which cannot be accurately predicted or forseen - can be used equally well as an argument both for and against any given course of action. Thus, unless the likelihood can be refined to an identifiable level such that a true cost/benefit analysis can be performed, they must be dismissed as an irrelevant distraction.

jogger08152

04-11-2007, 05:39 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Right, but the idea behind making a law is that it should be followed. If you think the law should be disregarded at times, then you shouldn't be making the law...the law is wrong. So, making a law while fully intending for it to be CORRECT to break it (not just accepting the inevitability) means these aren't really laws.

[/ QUOTE ]
Not really. Instead it points up a limitation of law in general.

[ QUOTE ]
It cannot be a law that it is incorrect to steal if it is sometimes correct to steal.

[/ QUOTE ]
"should not", not "cannot". See Les Miserables at some point if you doubt this.

[ QUOTE ]
You need to reword your law to be more specific or get rid of it entirely.

[/ QUOTE ]
Nope, the law simply requires judgment. Not coincidentally, western societies have judges. Trying to delineate every possible contingency would be impossible, and even a failed effort to do so would make the law completely unwieldy.

And consider: would it even improve things? What happens now is, if you speed when you think you should, sometimes you will be pulled over by a cop. If he agrees that you were driving appropriately (perhaps you had a chainsaw embedded in your thigh and were flying to the hospital), he will either let you go or in some cases even escort you to your destination. If he disagrees, he will issue you a ticket, which you can protest before a judge and/or jury. This system, while obviously allowing for inconsistant standards applied inconsistantly, still works pretty well from a pragmatic standpoint.

jogger08152

04-11-2007, 05:47 PM

Weird. Not only am I not aware of this as a law; I don't believe it is either followed or enforced - which would be pretty weird if it's the most important law we have. Hell, it's barely even a more.

chezlaw

04-11-2007, 06:01 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
i have a couple questions for vhawk, the first one goes back a ways in your argument, but it's about the inevitable negative consequences of lies, if i tell you i'm 6'5" (which i am not) what possible negative consequences could there be, also, as far as breaking laws, i believe the law don't steal is a good law, however if there is a person unable to feed himself, i believe that the law of self preservation trumps the law of don't steal and that he is correct in stealing food, thoughts?

[/ QUOTE ]

The consequences for this type of lie are more general. I am inevitably going to find out. I might not find out this specific lie, but we are talking about systems of behavior, so if you lie this one time, you have to lie in all situations like this, or at least, you have to lie from time to time. The negative consequences of living in a world where people lie to me are wasted time and effort deciphering which things are true and which are lies. There is a cost, albeit very small, that will be paid in every human interaction I have for the rest of my life. Knowing that people sometimes lie, I can never take anything at face value, and am forced to independently confirm important details (besides the independent confirmation I would be required to do anyway based on fallibility). These are incredibly subtle, and so easily dismissed, but still very real, and not "possible future consequences" but near-certainties.

[/ QUOTE ]
Sure but that's far better than not being able to rely on someone acting as they believe to be good. We can't trust someone who can't be relied upon to behave in the way they believe to be good so there's not much use in knowing that they wont lie.

and if you have a fair idea of what the believe to be good and know they will generally behave that way (accept maybe in very extreme circumstances) then you almost never need to check whether they lied or not.

chez

vhawk01

04-11-2007, 07:22 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Actually what's happening is you're correctly intuiting that immediate certainty is more important than distant possibility.

[/ QUOTE ]

Also, why does one have to presume that the unintended consequences of the lie are necessarily bad ones. Maybe there are good possibilities you haven't thought of. You don't really know do you? What you do have is good reason to believe the immediate consequences will be good.

PairTheBoard

[/ QUOTE ]

Yep. This rebuttal to V's position is absolute.

[/ QUOTE ]

/images/graemlins/confused.gif If they are, please explain them to me, I'm more than happy to listen. I hope you don't think it has been done in this thread. What PTB is talking about is the same thing you mistakenly concluded earlier, i.e. that we are weighing the certain positive effects versus the potential negative effects. This is obviously not the case. We are weighing the VERY LIKELY positive effects versus the LESS LIKELY possible negative consequences.

[/ QUOTE ]
You are missing the point. What PTB said both succinctly and eloquently is that in your focus on "LESS LIKELY possible negative consequences", you are forgetting that there are also LESS LIKELY possible positive consequences. This is the why your argument fails: for every unlikely negative consequence you can suggest, I can offer an unlikely positive consequence. After all cancellations are complete, what you have is the opportunity to save a life. There will be no "stand alone" unlikely negatives; each will be matched by an unlikely positive.

For instance, you offered the example of the lie being heard of later, and random girls being murdered because they suffered lower back pain.

A counterexample might be: the young woman you export for an abortion decides to seek political assylum, obtains it, and later becomes an activist advocating change in her own nation. Through her efforts and international pressure, the murder of rape victims becomes illegal in her homeland.

We could argue about the relative probabilities of these two events (though I suspect neither of us could accurately predict what the probabilities are, other than that both are unlikely), but the argument would be immaterial to the central issue: "chaotic" consequences such as you suggest - that is, consequences which cannot be accurately predicted or forseen - can be used equally well as an argument both for and against any given course of action. Thus, unless the likelihood can be refined to an identifiable level such that a true cost/benefit analysis can be performed, they must be dismissed as an irrelevant distraction.

[/ QUOTE ]

WHAT?!?!? You think there is going to be a complete cancellation, so that you don't need to consider any future consequences of any action you take? Of course that is incorrect. You make a bold assertion that for EVERY possible negative consequence you can come up with an equally likely possible positive consequence. This is ridiculous, and shocking that you would assert it. How do you make any decisions at all, then? I am not talking about chaotic consequences that cannot be predicted. I am talking about consequences that most certainly CAN be predicted. It IS going to be the case that, if someone lies to me, and I find out, my future interactions with that person will be less efficient and more strained. This isn't some nebulous consideration. It might be difficult to exactly quantify, but it is every bit as much a real part of my decision-making process as the more immediate and likely consequences.

vhawk01

04-11-2007, 07:24 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Weird. Not only am I not aware of this as a law; I don't believe it is either followed or enforced - which would be pretty weird if it's the most important law we have. Hell, it's barely even a more.

[/ QUOTE ]

Its pretty fundamental to a functioning society. Minimizing lying facilitates cooperation and communication. Chez' ideal only works if the overall level of lying is already low.

vhawk01

04-11-2007, 07:27 PM

jogger08152

04-11-2007, 07:57 PM

Not sure if I'm miscommunicating or you're misconstruing my response. Point by point:

[ QUOTE ]
WHAT?!?!? You think there is going to be a complete cancellation, so that you don't need to consider any future consequences of any action you take?

[/ QUOTE ]
No. At risk of speaking tautologically, I need to consider only those consequences which bear considering.

The consequence you suppose in your original example ("other girls may be murdered for suffering from lower back pain") falls into the realm of what I view as imponderable. Yes, this may happen. But so may other, good consequences that are similarly remote. ("After her near brush with death (from which I save her), she becomes an activist and brings about positive change.")

It is precisely because the chances of all of these are extremely low, and because there are quite literally an incalculable number of remote, indirect possibilities, I believe we both can and should disregard all of them.

This is much different from disregarding a consequence (good or ill) whose likelihood is "obviously" higher. Naturally I don't advocate that. I just filter out your specific example because it doesn't meet my "causal threshold".

[ QUOTE ]
You make a bold assertion that for EVERY possible negative consequence you can come up with an equally likely possible positive consequence.

[/ QUOTE ]
No, not quite. I asserted that for every possible REMOTE negative consequence, I can come up with at least one similarly (not equally: neither one of us can quantify either probability, remember?) unlikely positive consequence. The emphasis I place on "remote", which you ignore totally in your comment above this, is the most important aspect of my assertion.

[ QUOTE ]
How do you make any decisions at all, then?

[/ QUOTE ]
After you've read the above it should be clear.

[ QUOTE ]
I am not talking about chaotic consequences that cannot be predicted.

[/ QUOTE ]
You were in the post I'm responding to.

[ QUOTE ]
I am talking about consequences that most certainly CAN be predicted. It IS going to be the case that, if someone lies to me, and I find out, my future interactions with that person will be less efficient and more strained.

[/ QUOTE ]
1. You needn't find out.
2. Your reaction may not be what you assert above. You may be able to put yourself in their place and realize that they lied for a perfectly understandable, even predictable, reason, such that resentment on your part would be ridiculous.

[ QUOTE ]
This isn't some nebulous consideration. It might be difficult to exactly quantify, but it is every bit as much a real part of my decision-making process as the more immediate and likely consequences.

[/ QUOTE ]
If by "this" you mean the strain you mention in the previous paragraph, that's fine. It's simply a single negative consequence of lying that you need to weigh against the positive consequences of any given lie. Oftentimes, for you, it may oughtweigh the positives. Sometimes it may not. But you asserted that (in your experience) it "always" would. That's what I object to, as the example you cited (the soon-to-be-a-murder-victim-middle-eastern-girl) is antithetical to your contention.

chezlaw

04-11-2007, 09:05 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Weird. Not only am I not aware of this as a law; I don't believe it is either followed or enforced - which would be pretty weird if it's the most important law we have. Hell, it's barely even a more.

[/ QUOTE ]

Its pretty fundamental to a functioning society. Minimizing lying facilitates cooperation and communication. Chez' ideal only works if the overall level of lying is already low.

[/ QUOTE ]
trust facilitates cooperation not truth telling. It is the case that most of the time we believe the right thing to do is to tell the truth but its a mistake to conclude its the truth telling that's fundemental.

chez

Philo

04-12-2007, 01:00 AM

[ QUOTE ]
We had a hypothetical in medical ethics one time where you were a doctor in Saudi Arabia, and a 16 year old girl came to you, after having been brutally raped and impregnated, and wanted an abortion. Her father and brothers would kill her if they found out that she was raped, and so the doctors told the parents their daughter had a back problem that required surgery in a different country and had the daughter flown out for the abortion. One doctor refused to go along with the deceit, told the parents (as was the law) and the girl was killed.

The story was given as an example of why cultural relativism is wrong, I suppose, and how blindly following bad laws is bad. To me, it did a better job of exposing the short-sightedness and ignorance of my classmates, who could not possibly conceive of any negative consequences of exporting the girl other than the harm caused to the father and brothers by being lied to. I volunteered this cheery scenario:

The girl gets flown out, has the abortion, and the dad and brothers eventually find out what she left for. They kill her, and the story gets around. Next time a girl has a back problem, her father and brothers kill her, no questions asked.

It might be unlikely, since this was only one incident, but if there is a widespread practice of flying these girls out for this, it will eventually be discovered, and many more people will suffer. These doctors may very well be condemning hundreds of other girls to death.

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course it is possible that her fathers and brothers might find out that she was flown out for an abortion, and it is possible that they would then kill her, and even that they might institute a harsher, "no questions asked" policy of killing girls who develop back problems (although if this practice has no apparent connection to the rationale behind killing girls who have abortions I do not see any reason to think it would be adopted).

Do you think this possibility means that the doctors were unjustified in helping the girl?

It is always possible that a greater injustice will be perpetrated by those with the authority and power to do so if they find out that their authority has been undermined, but there is a fallacy in thinking that the possibility of further harm therefore makes resisting such practices wrong. If enough people resist (say, if enough people within the society decided to help girls in this situation) then the practice of killing them would eventually stop, and that is the goal of resistance.

Philo

04-12-2007, 01:22 AM

This discussion seems to be proceeding under the common presmise of a consequentialist morality, but consequentialism certainly has its critics. Some would argue that it is wrong to perform an act the known consequences of which will be the death of one innocent person at the hands of, say, some tyrant, even if not performing the act will lead to the death of more than one innocent person.

tisthefire

04-12-2007, 01:31 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
i have a couple questions for vhawk, the first one goes back a ways in your argument, but it's about the inevitable negative consequences of lies, if i tell you i'm 6'5" (which i am not) what possible negative consequences could there be, also, as far as breaking laws, i believe the law don't steal is a good law, however if there is a person unable to feed himself, i believe that the law of self preservation trumps the law of don't steal and that he is correct in stealing food, thoughts?

[/ QUOTE ]

The consequences for this type of lie are more general. I am inevitably going to find out. I might not find out this specific lie, but we are talking about systems of behavior, so if you lie this one time, you have to lie in all situations like this, or at least, you have to lie from time to time. The negative consequences of living in a world where people lie to me are wasted time and effort deciphering which things are true and which are lies. There is a cost, albeit very small, that will be paid in every human interaction I have for the rest of my life. Knowing that people sometimes lie, I can never take anything at face value, and am forced to independently confirm important details (besides the independent confirmation I would be required to do anyway based on fallibility). These are incredibly subtle, and so easily dismissed, but still very real, and not "possible future consequences" but near-certainties.

[/ QUOTE ]firstly, i would contend you already know that people sometimes lie, at the very least your posts in this forum can demonstrate that, but let's forget that, i'm far more interested in your response to my second question about stealing to keep from starving