robh
|
|
The Ethics of Lying
| 
Jun 3 04:50 UTC 1996 |
brighn asked me to link over item 15 from Sexuality. After
looking it over, I decided to edit it down to the relevant
(IMHO) responses, and enter them as a seperate item here.
(I dunno, Scruples might be the better conference, on the
other hand we need more activity here.) So here we go:
#380 Nightengale(arianna) on Sat Apr 13 19:08:49 1996:
I just got mail from him...it's still a probelm guys, my mother and I are not
on the best of terms right now...so like I told him, if anyone has anything,
any typoe of arguement, that I can arm myself with when I talk to her, *TELL*
me!
#386 apprentice flirtist(matthew) on Sun Apr 14 03:50:36 1996:
Erinn, what are your mothers arguments your mother uses regarding this
situation ?
#388 Nightengale(arianna) on Sun Apr 14 14:51:24 1996:
re 386- "You're too young," "You're irresponsible," "NO." That's it. She
had other arguements for the Gordon situation, but they wouldn't apply here.
She'd just say that it's unsasfe for me to be with ppl I'v enever met IRL
before. Soemone told me that I should just lie and say that I'd be going
with a friend from school, but then I'd have to get someone to vouch for me,
but if I did that their parents would have to talk to my mother....*sigh*
I'm working on it....
#389 And now, it's all that ...(jazz) on Sun Apr 21 12:09:01 1996:
It's in most people's natures to try and prevent those they care about
from making the same mistakes they've made ... so most parents just love to
enforce those laws-with-certain-exceptions as Gospel upon their children.
#390 Nightengale(arianna) on Sun Apr 21 14:55:17 1996:
My only comfort now is that I'm one year away from 18....
#395 Prehensile Tongue(otter) on Wed May 8 08:22:27 1996:
ref #388: Lying to your parents is absoultely *stupid* and it is my fervent
hope that you will ignore that bit of advice. (no offense to the advisor)
Such an action would only serve to prove your mother's point about
immaturity. <set soapbox=off>
#396 the few, the proud, the....(phenix) on Wed May 8 09:33:13 1996:
<chuckle>
why lie? just fail to mention it
#397 Love me, I'm adorable(brighn) on Wed May 8 12:18:01 1996:
what if the parents in question request the child to lie?
#398 N.S. Morgan(shade) on Wed May 8 16:09:02 1996:
My parents sometimes *tell* me to lie to them. They
even give example lies and tell me to use those. I told
them i wasn't going to lie to them, and they'd
just have to deal with my activities honestly.
Or maybe I just got sick ;} that's possible too...
Anyway, it's a mute issue now. They gave up
and told me they didn't care
#399 apprentice flirtist(matthew) on Fri May 10 02:03:24 1996:
Getting caught in a lie destroys your credability with other people.
Not getting caught in a lie, and doing it again (and again, and again...) can
destroy your credability with yourself.
#400 Valerie Hartzer(blondval) on Fri May 10 11:21:57 1996:
Good point , matthew, but sometimes it's necessary to protect yourself to not
tell certain things about yourself, which mmight be construed as lying...
#401 Lexi C(sweetbrd) on Fri May 10 23:43:57 1996:
When you get started in a lie, and it continues for a while, you just have
to tell more lies to cover up the first one, and then you get confused as to
what you told people in the first place...chances are, they won't believe you
too...
#402 apprentice flirtist(matthew) on Sat May 11 04:20:44 1996:
re: 400
Lie by omission, yes that's true to an extent. It can still harm your
credibility though, but this then leads into the circumstances surounding
why.
#403 Jessica Moore(cornflk) on Sat May 11 14:23:42 1996:
The easiest lie to keep straight is one that so nearly resembles the truth
that the differences are in the ommisions. however, I do tend to agree with
Lexi.
#404 N.S. Morgan(shade) on Sat May 11 14:41:55 1996:
At leats when you lie by ommission, if you ccidentaly fill in
thedetails later, no one can accuse you of having told them something
different.
#405 Nightengale(arianna) on Sat May 11 18:24:36 1996:
<Erinn, slightly amazed that she started this conversation, sits back and
absorbs it all...>
#406 Prehensile Tongue(otter) on Sat May 18 22:57:48 1996:
So many carefully thought-out methods for lying...
Can someone please give some solid *reasons* for lying in the first place?
#407 N.S. Morgan(shade) on Sun May 19 11:41:38 1996:
Sure...there's lots of them. ;} My favorite, of course,
is that your mother told you to.
#408 And now, it's all that ...(jazz) on Sat May 25 19:41:11 1996:
The bitch of it is that the truisms just don't hold. If you tell the
truth in the wrong way or at the wrong time, you can pay very heavily for
your ingerity, and if you lie correctly, you can suffer no ill consequences
when the lie is discovered. In fact, lying doesn't seem to have a whole lot
to do with how people are treated outside of their credibility *in the area*
in which they've been caught lying.
#409 Prehensile Tongue(otter) on Thu May 30 20:56:06 1996:
Jazz, I understand your point, but I believe that holds true only in the
short term. I tend to see everything in black and white, with very sharp
lines, and to me, lying is just plain wrong. Besides, I believe that karma
works (akin to the three-fold law) and that in the long term, intergity is
best. 8^}
#410 And now, it's all that ...(jazz) on Sun Jun 2 11:07:18 1996:
I can see a lot of situations where lying, plain outright lying, isn't
something that I would consider the worst moral choice, and I do believe that
sometimes life only offers us a choice of evils. Lying to the 1940's German
authorities, to take an extreme example, about the people hiding in your
attic, is certainly much more moral than being honest and giving the
Schustaffen directions.
For Karma to exist or function, by definition, there has to be a
universal, objective morality. I think experience has borne out for all of
us that people also have their own subjective moralities. If you accept the
existence of both an objective morality and individual subjective moralities,
a natural correlation is that good intentions and personal morality is not
necessarily moral in the objective sense. Codependency, as understood by
Melody Beattie, is an excellent example of personal morality that is at odds
with practical (though not necessarily objective) morality.
I'm very concerned with that objective or practical morality, since
I've seen great atrocities committed in the name of "good" in subjective
moralities.
#411 Love me, I'm adorable(brighn) on Sun Jun 2 13:18:07 1996:
Why does Karma rely on universal, objective morality?
It could function subjectively, if its meted out
by a semi-conscious force which increses negative Karma
points (to put it grossly) when somebody feels like they've done
something wrong and positive Karma points when somebody
feels like they've done something right. Even non-conscious
models of Karma would work subjectively, though it's too
complicated to discuss here.
At any rate, this is off-topic, kids, so I'll be
asking Rob Henderson to link it to the right conference.
#412 the few, the proud, the....(phenix) on Sun Jun 2 13:51:27 1996:
actually, karma is just doing one's duty.
in the strictist sense of the word
so if you are a citizen it's giving people over no matter what,
doing one's dharma.
|
jazz
|
|
response 1 of 4:
|
Jul 4 16:06 UTC 1996 |
Since no one's responded, here's a few thoughts:
An old friend and I have been discussing the differences between the
archetypes of flighty-appearances and serious-depth, going round-robin over
the years. Two years ago I was the champion of seriousness and virtue, and
she the defender of the average man, and now I the defender of life and
extenuating circumstance and she the champion of calm logic and control. I've
learned a lot from our discussions over the years - not to judge others who
seem unwilling or unable to comprehend the world around them, since they (and
all of us) are welled in various degrees of self-deception; to make sure one
has a back-up plan; to always have twizzlers. But I cannot help but wonder
if all this time she and I were missing a crucial understanding of the issue,
a third solution that evades easy interpretation.
The gist of things is that both of us as people are drawn to be real;
if we wish to know something, it is for the knowing, and the pride from really
knowing, not the pride that comes from seeming to know. If we make a promise,
it is for the end goal of the promise, not the appearances it creates. This
is a formula for bitterness; both because humanity is frail, and never
completely pure in it's motives, and because appearances show such an
immediate and strong result whereas real hidden truths grow only upon a
selected few, and only in the course of years. Little is more frustrating
than to be a true friend to someone, or try to be, and to see that friendship
eclipsed by a hypocrite who slams that friend behind their back, or betrays
that friendship, but keeps it nonetheless.
I think I've found something of the third solution, though, and it ties
in very strongly with what I believe of behavioural engineering - that any
system which fails to take into account the "shadow", "evil", or
"self-interest", whatever the bogeyman of morality may be called, is doomed
to failure - and tied in with Thomas Moore's concept of spiritual polytheism
(viz. "Care of the Soul", Thomas Moore). Consequently, any attitude which
is based on the denial of the very frailties of human nature or on pure virtue
is doomed to a bitter failure - while attitudes which too strongly embrace
human failures, such as deliberate deception and acting less intelligent than
one is, because one is expected to, can meet with a modicum of succes.
Any thoughts out there?
|
font
|
|
response 2 of 4:
|
Jan 15 15:11 UTC 1998 |
Well, I have to say that carelessness, selfishness, and maliciousness are
all different. The thing that unites them is that they can all be harmful,
but never the less,they all have different underlying motives and reasons
for being. Carelessness is almost by defintion untentional. There is no ego
involved. However, if one is being careless *on purpose*, then selfishness
and maliciousness are more the blame in the situation. Maliciousness and
Selfishness are often found hand in hand, though there are people who are
Malicious for Maliciousness sake, but that is more rare. Selfishness can
emerge as being something that is not purposefully Malicious, and if it does
happen,then carelessness is probably invovled.
You also can find people who are "completely rational" who perform Malicious
Selfish acts, and that generally stems from the "wist" that happens due to
the *fact* that all humans have some irrationality lurking in there somewhere,
and it's gotta come out somewhere, which is usually in that person's "blind
spot". However, with this whole bit, one should stamp IMHO every time I open
my mouth. :-) x 1/2
oh, on *fact* substatute "" for **, please.
|