Lies, Cons,and the American Way

[Immanuel Can]

In "Reflections on Gandhi" Orwell asserts that not all of us aspire to sainthood.

I think it's fairer to say that none of us do, by nature or instinct.

In addition, although to the Christian morality may be objectively determined by God, God's will is not always objectively apparent. The Bible is a complicated and difficult book, subject to many interpretations.

One of the remarkable things about the Bible is this: it's easy enough to understand that even a child can grasp its core message, and complicated enough to have legitimately occupied the world's leading literary, philosophical and theological scholars over millennia.

Even seemingly direct commandments (like the ten) are subject to interpretation. Kill? Murder? Is first degree manslaughter prohibited?

On the surface, not hard; in application, more demanding, but still doable.

What you'll find is that the majority of cases are actually not very hard. It's the liminal cases, the one in which values are set off against each other that require precise discernment. And we all have enough of both, in life.

If we attend to the unproblematic cases, we will acquire skills at discerning more difficult ones. And God Himself has promised to supplement the wisdom of those who lack it, if they ask in faith (Jas. 1:5-8).

[Will Bouwman]

What sin is a fertilised egg guilty of?

You mean, "Does an in utero human being have a nature disposed to sin?"

No. I mean what sin is a fertilised egg guilty of?

Just wait. Ask that question again during "the terrible twos."

Very well. What sin is a two year old guilty of?

[Immanuel Can]

What sin is a fertilised egg guilty of?

You mean, "Does an in utero human being have a nature disposed to sin?"

No. I mean what sin is a fertilised egg guilty of?

An in utero human being. We don't agree on how the person in question should be characterized. We're certainly not going to agree, then, on the moral status of that person.

Just wait. Ask that question again during "the terrible twos."

Very well. What sin is a two year old guilty of?

Have you ever had one? The rage, entitlement and self-will of a two-year-old is truly something to behold.

[Alexiev]

Have you ever had one? The rage, entitlement and self-will of a two-year-old is truly something to behold.

I have. My son was, like God's, practically perfect at every age. At least, I've always thought so.

[Immanuel Can]

Have you ever had one? The rage, entitlement and self-will of a two-year-old is truly something to behold.

I have. My son was, like God's, practically perfect at every age. At least, I've always thought so.

You're a lucky, lucky man. They don't call it "the terrible twos" for nothing.

[promethean75]

"The rage, entitlement and self-will of a two-year-old is truly something to behold."

And indicative of the original, morally unconditioned natural instinct of the human being.

Why aren't toddlers perfectly behaved and why don't they share everything. The unadulterated force of ego and will without anything more in mind than taking possession of the world of objects and satisfying appetites and desires.

Don't check out stirner's 'the false principle of our education' becuz it's more or less a glorification of that orginal liberated state. The pre-superego phase unfettered by the conscience. Obviously unworkable in adulthood and this phase only exists becuz the human child requires at least four or five years before he can comprehend what virtuous behavior is in any given context.... so that developmental period consists of trimming neurons and allocating brain resources to storing and processing moral information to organize behavior, to understand value, rights and wrongs, fair and unfair, etc. Before that he/she is a barbarian, but it's okay becuz they have no power yet. Mom and dad have it all.

Bro if i had kids they would be like little Vulcans when they were five. Your actions are illogical, father. I would hear this all the time. I would have them reading Aristotle for dummies at like ten.

[Age]

Our mythology suggests that the "American Way" is dilligence and hard work, which will be rewarded financially (and is morally admirable).

'Who's' mythology suggests 'this'?

And, WHY do 'you' have such a mythology "alexiev"?

I suggest that if absolutely ANY one has a 'mythology', then 'that one' STILL does NOT YET RECOGNIZE and KNOW what the word 'mythology' means, nor refers to, exactly?

This mythology is promoted by the Capitalists who fruitlessly wish that it were true.

In fact, if there is an "American Way" or an "American Dream" it resides in the quick score. It sent our ancestors scrambling to California and the Klondike in Gold Rushes that impoverished the vast majority of the rushers. It is reflected in our election of the con-man Donald Trump as President. Lottery tickets sell well.

Mark Twain once said, "Show me a man who don't lie, and I'll show you a man who ain't got much to say." (Or perhaps that quote is a lie, too)

Two current news stories remind me of this.

First, Sam Bankman-Fried is on trial for defrauding customers out of billions of dollars in his crypto-currency company and his hedge fund. Yello Kid Weil, perhaps the greatest American con-man, once said that you can't con an honest man. You have to find those looking for an "angle". Crypoto-currency seems the perfect opportunity. It's a con, and those investing are looking for a quick score, like the Gold Rushers of yore. I haven't followed the case closely enough to have an educated opinion about Bankman Fired's guilt of innocense. What do others think? Is crypto-currency a con? Is Bankman-Fried (the son of two Stanford Law Professors who specialize in legal ethics and are also being sued for accepting gifts from their billionaire son) guilty?

Second, two superstars in social science are being accused of fraud. Dan Ariely and Francesca Gino are leaders in the post-modern movement that has questioned the foundation of classic Economic Theory: the notion that economic man is a "rational actor". Of course they are right ---but it also appears that they have both fudged their data to support their conclusions. Ariely was an economics professor at MIT, Gino a professor at Harvard. They rose to the top of their professions (with $50,000 lecture honororiums) by publishing paper after paper explaining how and when people lie and deceive. It appears that they were themselves lying and deceiving (I just read a current New Yorker article about them, but I can't find it on line to provide a link). Perhaps the dishonest are prone to studying dishonesty.

Is lying immoral?

Yes

If so, would it be immoral to lie to protect a friend, or lie to the Gestapo about where the Jews are hiding?

Why not just tell the Truth, instead, to protect a friend, or to a group of human beings looking for another group of human beings?

If these lies are acceptable, doesn't that show that it is not lying ipso facto that is immoral, but some result that comes from lying? Any opinions?

But lying is not acceptable when the Truth can be used. The Truth can ALWAYS be used, if 'It' had been, then there would NOT 'now' be human beings wanting to hurt, harm, nor damage "other" human beings.

[Age]

Have you ever had one? The rage, entitlement and self-will of a two-year-old is truly something to behold.

I have. My son was, like God's, practically perfect at every age. At least, I've always thought so.

You're a lucky, lucky man. They don't call it "the terrible twos" for nothing.

Here we have ANOTHER VERY SICK individual who 'tries to' BLAME children, and babies, for 'things'.

WHEN children are 'angels', or like Gods, then this is NOT due to so-called 'luck'.

Also, calling 'it' the 'terrible twos' IS a self-fulfilling prophecy. 'you', adult human beings, GET what 'you' WANT TO SEE.

[Walker]

What sin is a fertilised egg guilty of?

You mean, "Does an in utero human being have a nature disposed to sin?"

Just wait. Ask that question again during "the terrible twos."

That reminds me of what I saw one the grandkids do. He was two at the time, but almost three. I saw what he did, and it wasn't nice. I was a witness, not involved so I did nothing, said nothing, but he saw the disapproval on my face. He turned to face me from about eight feet away and yelled, "No!" then he ran out of the room. After that he had his eye on me for awhile, until he forgot. Bold little fella.

No is the first word they use to control their world. They need develop a bit more to control with yes.

IC, is not a human in any stage of development subject to acts of future sin? Any manifesting egg in the dualistic world of change is subject to worldly corruption leading to decay, and the forgiveness of future sin for that egg's future form, a form which will always be changing in this realm but will always be human as long as the entropy-antidote of life animates the form, is possible because Divinity is not bound to the three times of human perception.

[Walker]

Why aren't toddlers perfectly behaved and why don't they share everything. The unadulterated force of ego and will without anything more in mind than taking possession of the world of objects and satisfying appetites and desires.

Re: the toddler, almost three.

In our next interaction, maybe a week later as I recall, I was sitting in a chair and he walked right up to me. Stared into my face for about five close seconds, smiled, then patted me like I was a dog. Extraordinary behavior for a toddler. I said nothing and smiled back. Most intelligent this child. He knew how to say yes in that way, and produce a smile which posed no threat. Since then I've witnessed other wrongs, little mean things that somehow he knows aren't right, but he hasn't noticed me noticing, or if he has he probably figures I can only make faces, and that's no real threat.

[Walker]

Have you ever had one? The rage, entitlement and self-will of a two-year-old is truly something to behold.

I have. My son was, like God's, practically perfect at every age. At least, I've always thought so.

So are my sons and daughters, still. They have a great, innate compassion. The stories I could tell of what I've seen.

They say that characteristics skip generations. Some do.

[Will Bouwman]

...what sin is a fertilised egg guilty of?

An in utero human being. We don't agree on how the person in question should be characterized. We're certainly not going to agree, then, on the moral status of that person.

Why should potential disagreement prevent you from making your case?

[Walker]

...what sin is a fertilised egg guilty of?

An in utero human being. We don't agree on how the person in question should be characterized. We're certainly not going to agree, then, on the moral status of that person.

Why should potential disagreement prevent you from making your case?

Does not transgressing God’s forgiveness, that exists outside of time and is not subject to the three times of human perception, subject one to the judgement of God and man? Yes, as I understand Christianity.

God’s judgement results in one of two things. Heaven or hell. Man’s judgement is relevant to the realm of Caesar.

IC's case is perpetually made, I would say. It's just not always heard.

[Walker]

But lying is not acceptable when the Truth can be used. The Truth can ALWAYS be used, if 'It' had been, then there would NOT 'now' be human beings wanting to hurt, harm, nor damage "other" human beings.

WOW.

That is brilliant. The first half is God-like perspective. The second half is duality as intended by design, by design because love is the meaning and purpose of duality*, and duality is our best mode of survival for the form. If the little foetuses lived in duality, they would be fighting like hell to survive and would probably have designed a form of biological blackmail just to keep developing**.

However, to behave Godlike and speak the truth that will kill your loved ones? The implications of such God-like judgement may just hush you up if you have an ounce of foresight.


* For species propagation.
** Many saints whose duty to God is evangelical move through the world with security, in order to keep moving through the world, as many can understand in light of recent events.

[Sculptor]

...the Capitalists....

There is no such thing.

I think it's the way he tells 'em