Does lying violate the no harm principle?

[MGL]

Sorry to burst your delusional bubble , that you have linguistic skills ,superior to mine ,but that idea is hilarious ,particularly given that loquacious sentence .
Your question on this is crass and stupid. Wake up you dumb fucker . The world
is transparently a place where people lie.

Can anybody explain what point Shark is trying to make?

All I can infer is that he is very upset about some question I am supposed to have posed, but despite his superior lingusitic skills, does not seem to be able to express himself very well except by the use of clever words such as "dumb fucker".

My impression is he/she has mistaken me for the person who asked if lying is wrong becasue it causes harm.
He/she calls this question crass and stupid because people lie, but offers no demonstration of this inference other than to insist I wake up, get a life, or get over it. What has the fact that people lie have to do with the question of wether lies harm people?

I can think of only three possible interpretations:


1) Shark does not think lying is wrong. Therefore the question of why it is wrong is meaningless.
The reason why he\she thinks lying is OK is because people lie. Presumably the criteria of wether actions are right or wrong merely depends on wether people do them. The only actions that can ever be wrong are ones that nobody ever performs. This make the world a delightful place.

2) Shark accepts lying is wrong but because other people are behaving badly, it is pointless to behave any better. The world is a dump, so the only sensible response is to make it a lot worse. Questions about what makes the world so crap are to be considered as attempts to improve it, and are therefore to be resisted with extreme prejudice.

3) Shark or I have misunderstood the question. Whatever question Shark is responding to, it is rendered ridiculous by the fact that people lie. The only question I can think of that might justify this response is "are there lies?" But I am pretty sure that Wootah was not asking this.


Of course, I may have misunderstood things myself so welcome any explanation that does not rely on expletives to point out my mistakes.

[a Shark]

Sorry to burst your delusional bubble , that you have linguistic skills ,superior to mine ,but that idea is hilarious ,particularly given that loquacious sentence .
Your question on this is crass and stupid. Wake up you dumb fucker . The world
is transparently a place where people lie.

Can anybody explain what point Shark is trying to make?

All I can infer is that he is very upset about some question I am supposed to have posed, but despite his superior lingusitic skills, does not seem to be able to express himself very well except by the use of clever words such as "dumb fucker".

My impression is he/she has mistaken me for the person who asked if lying is wrong becasue it causes harm.
He/she calls this question crass and stupid because people lie, but offers no demonstration of this inference other than to insist I wake up, get a life, or get over it. What has the fact that people lie have to do with the question of wether lies harm people?

I can think of only three possible interpretations:


1) Shark does not think lying is wrong. Therefore the question of why it is wrong is meaningless.
The reason why he\she thinks lying is OK is because people lie. Presumably the criteria of wether actions are right or wrong merely depends on wether people do them. The only actions that can ever be wrong are ones that nobody ever performs. This make the world a delightful place.

2) Shark accepts lying is wrong but because other people are behaving badly, it is pointless to behave any better. The world is a dump, so the only sensible response is to make it a lot worse. Questions about what makes the world so crap are to be considered as attempts to improve it, and are therefore to be resisted with extreme prejudice.

3) Shark or I have misunderstood the question. Whatever question Shark is responding to, it is rendered ridiculous by the fact that people lie. The only question I can think of that might justify this response is "are there lies?" But I am pretty sure that Wootah was not asking this.


Of course, I may have misunderstood things myself so welcome any explanation that does not rely on expletives to point out my mistakes.

Do you really think that I am going to waste my time answering a moral question about the impact of lying in the world?
It is a pedantic ,neurotic ,dumb-fuckers question if I ever heard one.
Who gives a royal fuck about the ethics of lying .
Why dont you just get out the house and do something constructive
in your meaningless existence.

[MGL]

Do you really think that I am going to waste my time answering a moral question about the impact of lying in the world?
It is a pedantic ,neurotic ,dumb-fuckers question if I ever heard one.
Who gives a royal fuck about the ethics of lying .
Why dont you just get out the house and do something constructive
in your meaningless existence.

You may not be wasting your time answering the question, but you seem to be wasting it by indulging your antipathy towards people who do. The irony is, your time would be less of a waste if you were able to explain your aversion to this question, but for some reason you can only manage repeated streams of abuse. Perhaps there is no reason for your aversion and you are feigning it as an excuse to be rude to complete strangers. If this is the case, then please let me be the first to congratulate you on your success in this destructive and meaningless pursuit. If this is the game you were playing all along, you beat me fair and square, deluded as I was for thinking you were being serious.

However, there is a possibility you might actually have an interesting point of view to consider. Yet rather than share it with anybody, you prefer to insult them for not having the idea themselves.

As I am not privy to your secret reasoning, I can only surmise from your attitude that were someone to falsely accuse you of the most heinous crime, you would just shrug your wordly shoulders and resign yourself to life imprisonment, consoled by the thought that at least you weren't stupid enough to think that the liar was doing something wrong. He was only lying and who gives a royal fuck about the ethics of lying?

[marjoramblues]

As I am not privy to your secret reasoning, I can only surmise from your attitude that were someone to falsely accuse you of the most heinous crime, you would just shrug your wordly shoulders and resign yourself to life imprisonment, consoled by the thought that at least you weren't stupid enough to think that the liar was doing something wrong. He was only lying and who gives a royal fuck about the ethics of lying?

This makes me cry every time I read it.
Would I lie to you?

[SpheresOfBalance]

As I am not privy to your secret reasoning, I can only surmise from your attitude that were someone to falsely accuse you of the most heinous crime, you would just shrug your wordly shoulders and resign yourself to life imprisonment, consoled by the thought that at least you weren't stupid enough to think that the liar was doing something wrong. He was only lying and who gives a royal fuck about the ethics of lying?

This makes me cry every time I read it.
Would I lie to you?

I'm assuming that 'a shark' has been banned, as when you click on his name, a link to his profile, it says that the user does not exist. I think he was a troll, and not a troll killer, as he claimed. So be soothed, as he probably didn't believe in his own words, that were just a means of attempting to hook a fish, and nothing more. Or so it might seem.

[marjoramblues]

Are you talking to me, Spheres ?
About sharks,dogs on this forum - they come and go, even within the same character.
Miaow.

[SpheresOfBalance]

Are you talking to me, Spheres ?
About sharks,dogs on this forum - they come and go, even within the same character.
Miaow.

Just trying to me nice and soothing. As the words of MGL's seemed to be in response to 'a shark,' as that's who he quoted, and you mentioned crying, as to his response to 'a shark,' that's all.

[marjoramblues]

Ah but what kind of 'crying'...

[SpheresOfBalance]

Ah but what kind of 'crying'...

At the time it didn't matter, i saw what I believed to be a need, so I attempted to fill it. In this case, right or wrong, matters not.

[marjoramblues]

Spheres, sometimes things have to be set straight. I was trying to be smart with my sentences but not to deceive anyone into thinking I needed help.

Trouble is...I would normally appreciate anyone who attempted to soothe any real hurt in real life...here,my reactions are...wary. No harm done? Thanks.

[EagerForTruth]

OK, until I scrolled that last post I started to think the actually issues of the question weren't going to be addressed in earnest. I'd simply think that if one person rejected the question or insulted it, the rest who think of interest might just ignore the meaningless of the post and continue...ANYWAY as to the bit where the issue was address I'd add that there's also the "white lie" issue to add to the list...the possibility of a lie that in some small way may avoid pain or hurt.

I agree the key factor is the intention, after all no matter how hard one tries to follow the no harm principle it may occur unintentionally.
I'd so the no harm principle means do nothing that you have awareness will result in harm, which I certainly consider myself to go beyond just a physical body.

[HexHammer]

I will propose no it doesn't. The transmission of information in no way damages the cells of another being.

Naturally I want responses.

But if I am right then does that mean that the no harm principle is insufficient because it cannot cover lying.

This is totally devoid of basic psychology, it's through the psychological understanding lying should be understood.