Lies, Cons,and the American Way

[LuckyR]

Lying to those who do not deserve the truth is not immoral.

I would say it is. It puts you on their level.

So everyone (criminals, con men, etc) deserves your truth? Good luck with that.

[Lacewing]

This is off topic, but the reductionist explanations you offer seem to demonstrate the problems with reductionist. Everyone knows that liars lie. We don't need to measure brain chemistry to figure that out. The brain chemistry measurements seem scientific, but add nothing to our understanding of psychology

Everyone also knows that if we were omniscient, sub atomic physics could explain the universe. As it is, it adds little to our understanding.

Since repetitive lying may result in losing awareness of doing it, lying may not have much to do with being immoral if a person is not even aware of what they're doing. Furthermore, the way someone thinks and acts could be the result of their vibrational energy, which might cause them to lack the kind of consciousness expected for making moral choices.

Although you asked: Is lying immoral? Any opinions?... it appears that you only want replies that fit with your particular mindset. Good luck.

[Immanuel Can]

Lying to those who do not deserve the truth is not immoral.

I would say it is. It puts you on their level.

So everyone (criminals, con men, etc) deserve your truth? Good luck with that.

It's not about what they deserve. It should be a matter of who we are.

And actually, if we want to defeat a liar, the way to do it is with the truth. In a field of deceptions, they can always just swim like a fish; only the truth brings them up short.

[LuckyR]

I would say it is. It puts you on their level.

So everyone (criminals, con men, etc) deserve your truth? Good luck with that.

It's not about what they deserve. It should be a matter of who we are.

And actually, if we want to defeat a liar, the way to do it is with the truth. In a field of deceptions, they can always just swim like a fish; only the truth brings them up short.

A not uncommon opinion. Thus why the Gestapo scenario was invented. Your answer? I, of course, don't need to invent an answer.

[Immanuel Can]

So everyone (criminals, con men, etc) deserve your truth? Good luck with that.

It's not about what they deserve. It should be a matter of who we are.

And actually, if we want to defeat a liar, the way to do it is with the truth. In a field of deceptions, they can always just swim like a fish; only the truth brings them up short.

A not uncommon opinion. Thus why the Gestapo scenario was invented. Your answer?

I'm not familiar with "the Gestapo scenario." Do you simply mean telling the truth to the Gestapo in all circumstances, as per Kant's earlier example? I don't think you owe the Gestapo any answer at all.

On this note, I'm reminded of an elderly Dutch man who was rounded up in Holland for hiding Jews. The Germans were loading him on a truck to take him to Ravensbruck prison, and one of the soldiers pulled him aside and said, "Listen, old man: promise me you'll hide no more Jews and I'll let you go home and die in your bed."

The old Dutchman replied, "If you send me home, then tomorrow I will open my door to the next man who knocks."

The soldier replied, "Then get on the truck."

All the Jewish refugees hidden in the man's house escaped with their lives. The old man was killed in the concentration camp.

You might have supposed he'd have been better to lie. Many people would think so. And some would surely point out that if he lied, he might have been able to continue as a rescuer -- although once the Gestapo knew about him, that seems less likely.

But he understood that the choice was not only about saving Jews, which he was able to do, simply by not speaking; it was about saving his own character, too. It was not just about what kind of persons the Gestapo were being; it was about what kind of a man he was, and what he stood for. They were the purveyors of lies and cruelty; he was the purveyor of mercy and truth. And finally, whether or not he has any reward for that will have to remain a matter of different belief between you and me, perhaps. But I have always admired him, in any case.

[LuckyR]

It's not about what they deserve. It should be a matter of who we are.

And actually, if we want to defeat a liar, the way to do it is with the truth. In a field of deceptions, they can always just swim like a fish; only the truth brings them up short.

A not uncommon opinion. Thus why the Gestapo scenario was invented. Your answer?

I'm not familiar with "the Gestapo scenario." Do you simply mean telling the truth to the Gestapo in all circumstances, as per Kant's earlier example? I don't think you owe the Gestapo any answer at all.

On this note, I'm reminded of an elderly Dutch man who was rounded up in Holland for hiding Jews. The Germans were loading him on a truck to take him to Ravensbruck prison, and one of the soldiers pulled him aside and said, "Listen, old man: promise me you'll hide no more Jews and I'll let you go home and die in your bed."

The old Dutchman replied, "If you send me home, then tomorrow I will open my door to the next man who knocks."

The soldier replied, "Then get on the truck."

All the Jewish refugees hidden in the man's house escaped with their lives. The old man was killed in the concentration camp.

You might have supposed he'd have been better to lie. Many people would think so. And some would surely point out that if he lied, he might have been able to continue as a rescuer -- although once the Gestapo knew about him, that seems less likely.

But he understood that the choice was not only about saving Jews, which he was able to do, simply by not speaking; it was about saving his own character, too. It was not just about what kind of persons the Gestapo were being; it was about what kind of a man he was, and what he stood for. They were the purveyors of lies and cruelty; he was the purveyor of mercy and truth. And finally, whether or not he has any reward for that will have to remain a matter of different belief between you and me, perhaps. But I have always admired him, in any case.

Exactly my point, thanks for posting. You just explained why I added "Good luck with that".

I prefer life to admired, but dead. To each their own. I'm not saying you're wrong, just a different prioritization algorithm.

Though to be honest, your belief that the Gestapo don't deserve an answer is a subset of my stance that they "don't deserve my truth". So when pushed we're more similar than different.

[Immanuel Can]

I prefer life to admired, but dead. To each their own. I'm not saying you're wrong, just a different prioritization algorithm.

Perfectly fair. I agree.

Though to be honest, your belief that the Gestapo don't deserve an answer is a subset of my stance that they "don't deserve my truth". So when pushed we're more similar than different.

The real difference is simple: one requires us to lie. The other allows us to walk in the truth. And my suggestion would be that it's really ultimately about who we are, not about who they are.

I submit to you that we cannot usually control what other people do. We cannot make liars stop lying. But we don't have to give them the power to make us into liars like them. Even when they threaten us, we can take that power back to ourselves, and decide how we will behave, regardless of what they do.

[Alexiev]

This is off topic, but the reductionist explanations you offer seem to demonstrate the problems with reductionist. Everyone knows that liars lie. We don't need to measure brain chemistry to figure that out. The brain chemistry measurements seem scientific, but add nothing to our understanding of psychology

Everyone also knows that if we were omniscient, sub atomic physics could explain the universe. As it is, it adds little to our understanding.

Since repetitive lying may result in losing awareness of doing it, lying may not have much to do with being immoral if a person is not even aware of what they're doing. Furthermore, the way someone thinks and acts could be the result of their vibrational energy, which might cause them to lack the kind of consciousness expected for making moral choices.

Although you asked: Is lying immoral? Any opinions?... it appears that you only want replies that fit with your particular mindset. Good luck.

Vibrational energy may cause the earth to spin and the people to do what they do. Does that obviate morality? If we are fated to do what we do does that mean we are incapable of evil? I don't think so.

With regard to the gestapo example, I think lying is acceptable, even righteous. If you say, "I'm not telling you" the SS might torture or drug you to get the truth. If you send them off on false leads you may save lives.

Here's another example. You are writing a memoir. By stretching the truth, you are able to make your story more entertaining, morally edifying, and educational. You harm nobody (except possibly yourself), and improve the lives of millions of readers. How is that immoral?

[LuckyR]

I prefer life to admired, but dead. To each their own. I'm not saying you're wrong, just a different prioritization algorithm.

Perfectly fair. I agree.

Though to be honest, your belief that the Gestapo don't deserve an answer is a subset of my stance that they "don't deserve my truth". So when pushed we're more similar than different.

The real difference is simple: one requires us to lie. The other allows us to walk in the truth. And my suggestion would be that it's really ultimately about who we are, not about who they are.

I submit to you that we cannot usually control what other people do. We cannot make liars stop lying. But we don't have to give them the power to make us into liars like them. Even when they threaten us, we can take that power back to ourselves, and decide how we will behave, regardless of what they do.

I don't necessarily disagree though to be honest the status of others routinely substantively influences (some would say governs) the practical application of our moral codes.

Killing another human violates just about everyone's moral code, yet similarly just about everyone can come up with a scenario where they are fine with killing a particular human in particular circumstances.

[Immanuel Can]

I prefer life to admired, but dead. To each their own. I'm not saying you're wrong, just a different prioritization algorithm.

Perfectly fair. I agree.

Though to be honest, your belief that the Gestapo don't deserve an answer is a subset of my stance that they "don't deserve my truth". So when pushed we're more similar than different.

The real difference is simple: one requires us to lie. The other allows us to walk in the truth. And my suggestion would be that it's really ultimately about who we are, not about who they are.

I submit to you that we cannot usually control what other people do. We cannot make liars stop lying. But we don't have to give them the power to make us into liars like them. Even when they threaten us, we can take that power back to ourselves, and decide how we will behave, regardless of what they do.

I don't necessarily disagree though to be honest the status of others routinely substantively influences (some would say governs) the practical application of our moral codes.

If so, then maybe there's something wrong. Should not our own moral code govern us? And if it comes from outside of us, are we not being manipulated by those with lower standards?

Killing another human violates just about everyone's moral code,

Oh, not at all. There are quite a lot of people who advocate it, and some even consider it meritorious.

The radicals who, this morning, launched a vicious attack on Israel yelling "Allahu akbar" seem to think their killings are highly virtuous. And in the West, we routinely dignify the murder of innocents by calling it "choice."

[LuckyR]

Perfectly fair. I agree.
The real difference is simple: one requires us to lie. The other allows us to walk in the truth. And my suggestion would be that it's really ultimately about who we are, not about who they are.

I submit to you that we cannot usually control what other people do. We cannot make liars stop lying. But we don't have to give them the power to make us into liars like them. Even when they threaten us, we can take that power back to ourselves, and decide how we will behave, regardless of what they do.

I don't necessarily disagree though to be honest the status of others routinely substantively influences (some would say governs) the practical application of our moral codes.

If so, then maybe there's something wrong. Should not our own moral code govern us? And if it comes from outside of us, are we not being manipulated by those with lower standards?

Killing another human violates just about everyone's moral code,

Oh, not at all. There are quite a lot of people who advocate it, and some even consider it meritorious.

The radicals who, this morning, launched a vicious attack on Israel yelling "Allahu akbar" seem to think their killings are highly virtuous. And in the West, we routinely dignify the murder of innocents by calling it "choice."

Ok, but my point is: for those who do, they can often find a particular individual in a particular situation which "violates" their code.

[Immanuel Can]

Killing another human violates just about everyone's moral code,

Oh, not at all. There are quite a lot of people who advocate it, and some even consider it meritorious.

The radicals who, this morning, launched a vicious attack on Israel yelling "Allahu akbar" seem to think their killings are highly virtuous. And in the West, we routinely dignify the murder of innocents by calling it "choice."

Ok, but my point is: for those who do, they can often find a particular individual in a particular situation which "violates" their code.

Perhaps. But really, what is that to you and I?

If we have opportunity, we may wish to prevent such violations of morality. If we do not, we cannot. But either way, the thing we really have to attend to is not who THEY are being, but the persons YOU and I are being. It is to the care of our own souls that we must attend first. Nothing is morally achieved by our joining the corrupt in their corruption.

[Alexiev]

Oh, not at all. There are quite a lot of people who advocate it, and some even consider it meritorious.

The radicals who, this morning, launched a vicious attack on Israel yelling "Allahu akbar" seem to think their killings are highly virtuous. And in the West, we routinely dignify the murder of innocents by calling it "choice."

Ok, but my point is: for those who do, they can often find a particular individual in a particular situation which "violates" their code.

Perhaps. But really, what is that to you and I?

If we have opportunity, we may wish to prevent such violations of morality. If we do not, we cannot. But either way, the thing we really have to attend to is not who THEY are being, but the persons YOU and I are being. It is to the care of our own souls that we must attend first. Nothing is morally achieved by our joining the corrupt in their corruption.

I agree. But that begs the question of whether lying to the gestapo (or to entertain and enlighten readers) is immoral. If it is not, why would it damage the liar's soul? Perhaps, as Lace pointed out, lying once might encourage further, less acceptable lies. But we can judge that once it happens.

That, at least, is what it is to I. (Sorry. I couldn't resist.)

[Immanuel Can]

Ok, but my point is: for those who do, they can often find a particular individual in a particular situation which "violates" their code.

Perhaps. But really, what is that to you and I?

If we have opportunity, we may wish to prevent such violations of morality. If we do not, we cannot. But either way, the thing we really have to attend to is not who THEY are being, but the persons YOU and I are being. It is to the care of our own souls that we must attend first. Nothing is morally achieved by our joining the corrupt in their corruption.

I agree. But that begs the question of whether lying to the gestapo (or to entertain and enlighten readers) is immoral. If it is not...

It is. Because lying is always wrong.

Silence is not. Refusal to engage with immoral persons is not. Walking away is not. But joining them in their misdeeds, whatever they may be, is. And the problem is what it makes us into.

When we look for moral excuses for ourselves in the fallibility of others, we look in vain. It's on us what we do. It's not on us what they do.

[Alexiev]

Perhaps. But really, what is that to you and I?

If we have opportunity, we may wish to prevent such violations of morality. If we do not, we cannot. But either way, the thing we really have to attend to is not who THEY are being, but the persons YOU and I are being. It is to the care of our own souls that we must attend first. Nothing is morally achieved by our joining the corrupt in their corruption.

I agree. But that begs the question of whether lying to the gestapo (or to entertain and enlighten readers) is immoral. If it is not...

It is. Because lying is always wrong.

Silence is not. Refusal to engage with immoral persons is not. Walking away is not. But joining them in their misdeeds, whatever they may be, is. And the problem is what it makes us into.

When we look for moral excuses for ourselves in the fallibility of others, we look in vain. It's on us what we do. It's not on us what they do.

I understand that this is your poition. But on what basis or principle do you base it? Obviously, if "lying is always wrong", your position is reasonable. But if you are merely asserting that position without basing it on some principle with which I agree, you cannot hope to persuade me or anyone else that you are correct.