rainbow walking

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Darwin's Finch:
[QB]Rainbow Walking: "Is it morally wrong to deceive someone intellectually if it benefits them emotionally?"

IMO, not always. We often find ourselves in situations where the truth would be gratuitously hurtful (I'm reminded of the hideous baby episode on Seinfeld), and a white lie is the kind way out.

rw: I agree.

DF: However, when we are talking about some slimeball huckster like Edwards, who is making big money pandering to the emotional "needs" of grieving people, exposure and denunciation cannot come too soon or be too shrill.

rw: Again, we agree.


DF: Of course, I don't expect that you and I will see eye-to-eye on this since you believe in an afterlife. An atheist's response to your question is less interesting than what your response would be. After all, Edwards is peddling the same snake oil that religions have been selling (at a considerable markup) for centuries. Do you, for instance, place a higher value on comfort than on truth?

rw: Sadly, I must confess that even while compiling this post this very thought occurred to me also. The only thing I am left with as consolation of sorts is the hope that ministers really believe what they are preaching and are not, as Edwards must be, intentionally and knowingly decieving people.

Bookman

Always? That's strong stuff. The example you give after (internalizing anger at your boy-friend) is a non-starter -- I haven't advocated sacrificing one persons happyness for anothers, I've advocated seeking the greatest happyness for everyone. Let me give you another example, to see if I can nudge you from always to most of the time.

In our household, I do all the cooking, and I cook every day. For my birthday, my wife surprises me by fixing me a meal. I don't particularly care for the food. She asks me if I liked it.

I can do the following:

a) Say "No. It wasn't very good but I appreciate the effort."
b) Say "Yes, I really enjoyed it."

If I say a, neither of us feels good. For arguments sake, lets say that both of our reactions to a are neutral. If I say b, we both feel good. The only non-happyness that I risk is that she'll cook for me again and I won't like it then either.

Now, I know (for purposes of this argument) that I'll get more positive feelings for myself from making my wife feel good if I lie than negative feelings for myself if I have to eat another meal like this one. Therefore, I conclude that our collective happyness is served by choosing action a.

Bookman

rainbow walking

I would choose "b" unless her cooking was so bad that I might get sick. Would you risk a stomach ache to preserve your wifes illusion that her cooking is desirable?

But this doesn't really address the dilemma of the placebo. What if you are faced with a person who is emotionally troubled by something that just can't be emprically resolved? Do you:

A. Let them continue in their pain?

B. Tell them something that will cause them more immediate intense pain but probably hasten the healing process over the long haul?

C. Tell them something that you know isn't true but brings them emotional release?

ChurchOfBruce

See, to an atheist, that is splitting hairs.

I say this not to be critical of you, RW, because it looks like the whole issue has given you some thought (which is always a good thing). But, you have to admit, that his audience truly believes that he is speaking to their dead loved ones. I see your point about the different motivations between Edwards and a minister, but the *effect* on their "congregations", to me, is the same.

Also, the way I see it is that his brand of hucksterism is *dependent* on religious teaching. If we hadn't been so preprogrammed with the idea of an afterlife in the first place, there would be no Edwards. And, if an afterlife exists, why wouldn't some type of communication with those in it also exist? Neither notion is more fantastical and unreal than the other.

--Frank

Bookman

Fair enough. It was meant to address the dilemma of deception as a rebut to scigirl.

In your scenario, I'd probably always choose b.

Bookman

Jamie_L

I've read a lot on the internet about cold reading and psychics. John Edwards and his ilk just infuriate me. They sell lies for money and try to say it's alright because it helps people. Well, it certainly has helped John Edwards.

Here's a good, skeptical critique of John Edwards:

<a href="http://www.skeptic.com/newsworthy13.html" target="_blank">http://www.skeptic.com/newsworthy13.html</a>

Jamie

Bookman

Not to all of us. I think RW's point is well taken - I see a huge difference between a charlatan like Edwards and a preacher who is a "true believer". The "true believer", independent of the actual outcome, believes that what he is doing is good and right.

Bookman

Darwin's Finch

The kicker is that, as cold readers go, Edwards isn't even that good. I'd love to see an unedited taping.

99Percent

Is it morally wrong to deceive someone intellectually if it benefits them emotionally?

To an objectivist, it is morally wrong. Why? Because we cannot actually know what another person feels emotionally because emotions are subjective. I can imagine that telling the hard truth would hurt someone, but I cannot know whether that person wants to know the truth or not. The key word is "want" as it involves free will.

Going against the truth is always going against individual free will and that is why it is immoral.

Bookman

That seems a little silly to me.

This saturday morning, I'll get up around seven and cook breakfast. My wife will still be sleeping. I can choose what to cook for breakfast and let her sleep or wake her and ask her what she wants.

If I let her sleep in am I robbing her of free will? Is this immoral to an objectivist? I fail to see the difference between this and a white lie -- in both cases I'm making a judgment about what will make her happy and making a decision on her behalf.

Is it immoral of me to let my wife sleep in on the weekends?

Bookman