Philosophy Now Forum

Hi all,

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.

It depends how you qualify "harm" and "consequence".

If you mean by "harm" just the physical damage to an organism and are limiting impact of lying to just immediate and direct consequences then your proposition is probably true, but I personally would not interpret harm or consequence in this way.

MGL wrote:It depends how you qualify "harm" and "consequence".

If you mean by "harm" just the physical damage to an organism and are limiting impact of lying to just immediate and direct consequences then your proposition is probably true, but I personally would not interpret harm or consequence in this way.

Who give a shit about silly questions about humans lying.
I mean where have you been.
The entire world is based on a god damn lie.
Politicians ,salesmen and bitches.
People lie - get over it.

a Shark wrote:
Who give a shit about silly questions about humans lying.
I mean where have you been.
The entire world is based on a god damn lie.
Politicians ,salesmen and bitches.
People lie - get over it.

I guess you must be lying then.

MGL wrote:It depends how you qualify "harm" and "consequence".

If you mean by "harm" just the physical damage to an organism and are limiting impact of lying to just immediate and direct consequences then your proposition is probably true, but I personally would not interpret harm or consequence in this way.

Great - what is your definition?

I understand harm to be pain & suffering or the reduction of an organism's ability or opportunity to thrive and an action ( such as lying ) causes harm if any of its ultimate consequences do.

.


Human beings are lying animals.

We cannot tell the truth.

All thoughts, all words. are an estrangement of reality. A lie.




Could you tell me about the no harm principle?


Are you actually referring to the harm principle?



Can you understand that something that is not a lie can be completely harmful?




.

MGL wrote:

a Shark wrote:
Who give a shit about silly questions about humans lying.
I mean where have you been.
The entire world is based on a god damn lie.
Politicians ,salesmen and bitches.
People lie - get over it.

I guess you must be lying then.

You really want to get a life mate because that question is pathetic .

a Shark wrote:
You really want to get a life mate because that question is pathetic .

To get a life, I suppose I should troll through a philosophy website, insult people for considering philosophical questions, then use patronising, abusive language that has the level of articulation commensurable with an outraged baboon. This, presumably, is not pathetic.

.




.....................................................





.......................................Well done...






...no harm.




.

MGL wrote:

a Shark wrote:
You really want to get a life mate because that question is pathetic .

To get a life, I suppose I should troll through a philosophy website, insult people for considering philosophical questions, then use patronising, abusive language that has the level of articulation commensurable with an outraged baboon. This, presumably, is not pathetic.

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.

.








................................................................................................




Point well taken.



I think both of you defended your positions in a philosophical and courteous way. Well done.


That type of dignified discussion has been uncharacteristically rare here of late.



Thank you for renewing my faith in the Philosophy Now Forum memberships' abilities.





.

Thank you for renewing my faith[/b] in the Philosophy Now Forum memberships' abilities.

To be honest, who is the most BANAL poster, on this forum ?
Yes ,it is one Bill Wiltrack with his asinine puerile videos .

.








.............................................................










Thank you for renewing my faith in the Philosophy Now Forum memberships' abilities.








...yeah, you just stand there... I'll do the heavy lifting.




.

Wootah wrote:Hi all,

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.

OK, you ask me, is there a man eating shark at the PNF and I say no, then no problem, as it's actually a minnow, but if you ask me if there are man eating sharks in the pacific ocean, not to far off the coast, well now if you jump in because of what I said (can you say Great White), well I see harm a plenty. A lie can lead to harm, here if you don't believe me, take this gun and put it to your head, and then pull the trigger, don't worry it's not loaded....

Can one then say that one has done harm in the above cases? I think so. One could also harm one mentally, with a lie.

I for one agree with the following definition of harm.

harm [hahrm] noun
1. physical injury or mental damage; hurt: to do him bodily harm.
2. moral injury; evil; wrong.

As long as the lie is intended to do harm, then I see that it is definitely harm. Of course if the lie harms unintentionally, well I guess it can be considered a gray area. But I see that caution must be observed if one cares and sees potential for harm to be done as a result of a lie.