I lie and feel very good

[vhawk01]

[ 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 [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img] 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]

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]

[ 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 [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img] 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]

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

[jogger08152]

[ 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]

[ 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]

[ 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]

[ 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]

[ 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]

What societal rule are you refering to?