What is morality?

[Immanuel Can]

How does a person lie to themselves? And what counts as a "lie" to oneself or is an example of it?

Let's say I know that smoking cigarettes will cause cancer. But I like to smoke. So instead of paying any attention to the averages or the scientific evidence, I point to my Aunt Mathilde, who smoked constantly and died at age 101. And I insist that whatever may be true for others, it's not going to be a threat to me, because I have good genes.

Now I'm lying to myself. Very easy to do.

How do you know you are lying to yourself? If your Aunt Methilde smoked constantly and lived to be 101, then how do you know that wouldn't also be true of you?

Oh, that's easy: because Aunt Mathilde is one case, not a set of data. There are often exceptions to any rule; but it never invalidates the rule. It's still not prudent to ignore the scientific data and the millions who have been afflicted with smoking-caused cancers, merely because you hope -- and have no way of knowing -- that Aunt Mathilde's DNA is the reason she's an exception, and that you have inherited the right Aunt Mathilde DNA alliles to make you impervious to cancer.

And you know you don't really know these things: but you want to smoke. So you weight the slim chance that Aunt Mathilde is a DNA superwoman and has passed her superness on to you, on the one hand, against all the scientific data and contrary cases, on the other hand, and still claim to be behaving rationally.

We've got questions.

[Gary Childress]

Let's say I know that smoking cigarettes will cause cancer. But I like to smoke. So instead of paying any attention to the averages or the scientific evidence, I point to my Aunt Mathilde, who smoked constantly and died at age 101. And I insist that whatever may be true for others, it's not going to be a threat to me, because I have good genes.

Now I'm lying to myself. Very easy to do.

How do you know you are lying to yourself? If your Aunt Methilde smoked constantly and lived to be 101, then how do you know that wouldn't also be true of you?

Oh, that's easy: because Aunt Mathilde is one case, not a set of data. There are often exceptions to any rule; but it never invalidates the rule. It's still not prudent to ignore the scientific data and the millions who have been afflicted with smoking-caused cancers, merely because you hope -- and have no way of knowing -- that Aunt Mathilde's DNA is the reason she's an exception, and that you have inherited the right Aunt Mathilde DNA alliles to make you impervious to cancer.

And you know you don't really know these things: but you want to smoke. So you weight the slim chance that Aunt Mathilde is a DNA superwoman and has passed her superness on to you, on the one hand, against all the scientific data and contrary cases, on the other hand, and still claim to be behaving rationally.

We've got questions.

So, not paying attention to scientific data and smoking because you immensely enjoy it and think, to the best of your reckoning based on your limited knowledge, that there is a chance that it won't kill you at an early age (as happened with Aunt Mathilde) is "lying to yourself"?

So, since all the scientific data points to global climate change being the result of human-made carbon emissions, is Trump "lying to himself" by suggesting in a UN speech that any country that pays attention to climate scientists is "foolish" for doing so? Is Trump therefore being immoral, then?

Or is Trump simply ignorant and unaware of the evidence, and perhaps therefore deluded about what is best? Would that be the same thing as "lying"? Is someone who is experiencing a psychosis and says there is an invisible elephant in the closet (and truly believes it) "lying"? Is lying by definition saying something that isn't true whether purposefully or accidentally, or does lying require knowledge by the one who is lying that they are saying something that isn't true?

Or what if someone believes that God will watch over him and prevent some particular bad thing from happening? Is that a "lie" if it is not true? Was the person "lying" because he believed it to be the truth, when in fact it later clearly turns out to be false?

[Immanuel Can]

How do you know you are lying to yourself? If your Aunt Methilde smoked constantly and lived to be 101, then how do you know that wouldn't also be true of you?

Oh, that's easy: because Aunt Mathilde is one case, not a set of data. There are often exceptions to any rule; but it never invalidates the rule. It's still not prudent to ignore the scientific data and the millions who have been afflicted with smoking-caused cancers, merely because you hope -- and have no way of knowing -- that Aunt Mathilde's DNA is the reason she's an exception, and that you have inherited the right Aunt Mathilde DNA alliles to make you impervious to cancer.

And you know you don't really know these things: but you want to smoke. So you weight the slim chance that Aunt Mathilde is a DNA superwoman and has passed her superness on to you, on the one hand, against all the scientific data and contrary cases, on the other hand, and still claim to be behaving rationally.

We've got questions.

So, not paying attention to scientific data and smoking because you immensely enjoy it and think, to the best of your reckoning based on your limited knowledge, that there is a chance that it won't kill you at an early age (as happened with Aunt Mathilde) is "lying to yourself"?

If he sincerely believes that Aunt Mathilde's one case will deliver him from cancer...you can't argue with such stupidity. For all the statistical evidence, all the science, and all the contrary cases are against him; and if he has even a smidgen of awareness of that, he knows he's taking a very, very bad gamble, and that he has no real evidence at all that he possesses Aunt Mathilde's DNA features or her good luck.

So he can be lying to himself, or else not very bright. Pick your poison, I guess.

[Gary Childress]

Oh, that's easy: because Aunt Mathilde is one case, not a set of data. There are often exceptions to any rule; but it never invalidates the rule. It's still not prudent to ignore the scientific data and the millions who have been afflicted with smoking-caused cancers, merely because you hope -- and have no way of knowing -- that Aunt Mathilde's DNA is the reason she's an exception, and that you have inherited the right Aunt Mathilde DNA alliles to make you impervious to cancer.

And you know you don't really know these things: but you want to smoke. So you weight the slim chance that Aunt Mathilde is a DNA superwoman and has passed her superness on to you, on the one hand, against all the scientific data and contrary cases, on the other hand, and still claim to be behaving rationally.

We've got questions.

So, not paying attention to scientific data and smoking because you immensely enjoy it and think, to the best of your reckoning based on your limited knowledge, that there is a chance that it won't kill you at an early age (as happened with Aunt Mathilde) is "lying to yourself"?

If he sincerely believes that Aunt Mathilde's one case will deliver him from cancer...you can't argue with such stupidity. For all the statistical evidence, all the science, and all the contrary cases are against him; and if he has even a smidgen of awareness of that, he knows he's taking a very, very bad gamble, and that he has no real evidence at all that he possesses Aunt Mathilde's DNA features or her good luck.

So he can be lying to himself, or else not very bright. Pick your poison, I guess.

If he is not very bright, then it doesn't follow that your example is an example of "lying" to oneself. It would negate the example you used and you would need to come up with another example since I asked you for one. So it's not really "take your pick" with the argument I was challenging.

[Immanuel Can]

So, not paying attention to scientific data and smoking because you immensely enjoy it and think, to the best of your reckoning based on your limited knowledge, that there is a chance that it won't kill you at an early age (as happened with Aunt Mathilde) is "lying to yourself"?

If he sincerely believes that Aunt Mathilde's one case will deliver him from cancer...you can't argue with such stupidity. For all the statistical evidence, all the science, and all the contrary cases are against him; and if he has even a smidgen of awareness of that, he knows he's taking a very, very bad gamble, and that he has no real evidence at all that he possesses Aunt Mathilde's DNA features or her good luck.

So he can be lying to himself, or else not very bright. Pick your poison, I guess.

If he is not very bright, then it doesn't follow that your example is an example of "lying" to oneself.

Correct. But I don't think most people are actually that stupid. Do you?

[Janoah]

How does a person lie to themselves? And what counts as a "lie" to oneself or is an example of it?

to act against one's conscience is self-deception.
Try to give an example of this self-deception from your own experience. Everyone deceives themselves, so you should be able to come up with an example.

If one is on an island without other living beings on it, then there is no such thing as "conscience". There's nothing to harm. There would be no such thing as deceiving yourself, only doing whatever you wanted to do because you'll die anyway without other living beings in your world. So "all bets are off" under those circumstances. Morality is pointless in a world without living beings. It doesn't exist.

***There's nothing to harm. ***
Lying to oneself harms one's own soul, and this is the greatest harm.
And vice versa, being honest with yourself brings the greatest gladness, true gladness.
as we say,
"and gladness for the upright in the heart" (Psalm 97)


***, then there is no such thing as "conscience"***
Naturally, conscience exists in everyone and everywhere when a person is conscious.
Conscience is the moral compass.
Immorality in relation to oneself, of course, exists, for example, debauchery.

By the way, here is the AI's answer to the question, Does conscience exist on a desert island?
"Yes, conscience exists on a desert island because it is an internal, psychological mechanism rather than a strictly social one. While society shapes how we apply our morals, conscience—the innate sense of right and wrong, and the capacity to evaluate your own actions—travels with you wherever you go."

[Immanuel Can]

to act against one's conscience is self-deception.
Try to give an example of this self-deception from your own experience. Everyone deceives themselves, so you should be able to come up with an example.

If one is on an island without other living beings on it, then there is no such thing as "conscience". There's nothing to harm. There would be no such thing as deceiving yourself, only doing whatever you wanted to do because you'll die anyway without other living beings in your world. So "all bets are off" under those circumstances. Morality is pointless in a world without living beings. It doesn't exist.

***There's nothing to harm. ***
Lying to oneself harms one's own soul, and this is the greatest harm.
And vice versa, being honest with yourself brings the greatest gladness, true gladness.
as we say,
"and gladness for the upright in the heart" (Psalm 97)


***, then there is no such thing as "conscience"***
Naturally, conscience exists in everyone and everywhere when a person is conscious.
Conscience is the moral compass.
Immorality in relation to oneself, of course, exists, for example, debauchery.

By the way, here is the AI's answer to the question, Does conscience exist on a desert island?
"Yes, conscience exists on a desert island because it is an internal, psychological mechanism rather than a strictly social one. While society shapes how we apply our morals, conscience—the innate sense of right and wrong, and the capacity to evaluate your own actions—travels with you wherever you go."

Well said.