sweep

there is the truth, and then there is the truth: if someone is physically disabled or has a face like an arse then perhaps it's not too good to go 'god you're ugly' or 'hey, wheelie boy! bet you wish you could run?'

so, while the opinion of the observer counts, their interpretation of an event reflects more upon their self. While I recognise both the shit and the good in all people I tend to concentrate on the good points. That's what we have to put up with in a relationship; It takes two to tango. Nobody is perfect so, yes, why tell a truth that hurts if nothing can be done? And, why be ashamed of something, when we can't help it? It isn't a sin to have an awkward face, or fart in bed or to screw up once in a while, but when it affects other people, we have to question the behaviour, and attribute responsibility.

Yes. the truth hurts, but when we lie to ourself, we do so to prevent harm or exposure. But, in some cases constructive intervention helps.

...

Here's my motto. It works very nicely:

OPTIMAS EST VERITAS.

Always and inevitably.

beastmaster

Morality is bullshit unless we can apply it in our everyday lives. Saying you cannot lie except when lives are at stake is setting a moral principle that is bound to fail in practice. People lie all the time, often for trivial reasons, and no harm done by it.

As a matter of fact, I do deny my existence. I think the notion of an ego or soul or mind apart from brain chemistry, is the biggest lie and self-deception of all time.

Solipsists think that I am a brain in a jar and reality is me dreaming.

I think the opposite: I am reality dreaming.

In general, maybe, but not in every situation.

beastmaster

Sorry, that's not practical. There are plenty of situations where saying nothing is the functional equivalent of a lie.

Always best? What about bluffing? What about advocacy? What about puffing? Aren't these legitimate?

Often white lies are for the best because of positive reinforcement. Telling a kid he or she is smart helps make him or her smarter. Tell a marginally attractive woman she is lovely and she will become more attractive with a smile and self-confidence. Sometimes an untruth *becomes* true.

Then there are self-fulfilling prophesies. Telling minorities they have less of a chance to succeed may discourage them from trying. Labelling someone a criminal often makes him or her more likely to re-offend. Calling North Korea "evil" apparently made them even more evil.

I didn't explain myself properly. My point is that *everybody* lies, every day that they talk. Not everybody murders. But everybody lies. Everybody everybody everybody. It's as inevitable as breathing.

Advocating universal honesty is as pie-in-the-sky as advocating that cows stop mooing.

Instead, a more useful inquiry is to ask when is it appropriate to lie and when it isn't.

Sarcasm, irony, hyperbole, understatement. It appears are brains are hardwired to enjoy dishonesty.

Lying sometimes is far more effective. If lying wasn't a best strategy, then why do so many people do it?

beastmaster

anotherfailure,

At bottom, your argument is not that people should be honest.

Your argument is that people should be more thick-skinned.

When you say, "you're a dickhead," you think the addressee should wonder, "gee, am I dickhead? How can I learn from this experience?"

The reality is that most people walk away instead with the implied message that you don't care about their feelings.

anotherfailure

And if that were true of a situation, it would imply that something could be gleaned from saying something.
What about it? These are games that we play with ourselves and other people, and I assert that they cause nothing but more problems. Prove me wrong.
No, telling a kid he or she is smart causes the kid to believe he has achived something that he has not. He then stops trying to achieve it, believing it is in the past. The superificial beauty of someone is not applicable, as it is not a functional characteristic. If someone were to ask you how you think they look, you could respectfully decline to offer your opinion. This is not dishonest but is in fact the simple process of determining the utility of saying something.This is all good and well, but there is no way to substantiate it. Letting someone know exactly where they stand, as in the minority example, allows them to ascertain just how hard they should work. Nevermind fairness. If that's how it is, they should know it so that they can prepare themselves. The criminal and evil ones are sketchy, as those are relative characteristics. If someone has broken the law, it is their duty to accept the position they have put themselves in. And to try to make others understand this position.
And it is inevitable to have murders. So why try to stop them?
That doesn't make it any less desirable. And as I have demonstrated, lying is never appropriate.

I don't understand how these things are dishonest in the utilitarian perspective, which is the one I represent.

Oh, please. Is eating McDonald's everyday the best strategy? If it wasn't, how come so many people do it?

anotherfailure

The reality of it is that people allow their feelings to get in the way of what they should really be thinking about. If the comment was made by someone whom the addressee does not even know, then it follows that the addresser probably could not have a personal qualm with the addressee, and if they are an unknown person, then it probably does not even matter if they do. If it is serious enough, the issue will be pursued. If the comment is made by someone the addressee is not on good terms with, then it is then up to the addressee to decide whether to pursue the process of figuring out what the problem is or to simply decide that the person does not mean enough to them to spend time pursuing their friendship. If the comment is made by someone close to the addressee, then of course it is important to pursue understanding in order to keep the relationship sound. All of these are perfectly honest ways of approaching the situation. When you simply walk away without trying to understand what was really being communicated, you cause the potential rift between personalities to widen. This tears the fabric of society. And therefore it should be avoided.

avalanche:ix

this is all nice and well, but one look at modern western society completely invalidates it. the individual has become more and more important while groups have become less so. are you blind?



cute, but bricks aren't sentient and thus aren't governed by the same laws.

beastmaster

Let's take some fer-instances.

Police all around the country are trained to lie to a suspect under interrogation. For example, the officer will tell the suspect "We know you killed your wife. Your fingerprints were on the gun. Why did you do it?"

Truth is they are *not* certain that he killed his wife, and no fingerprints were found in the gun.

Let's assume that the suspect does not confess (to avoid the problem of false confessions), but rather reveals information because of this technique that leads to the discovery of physical evidence clearly linking the suspect to the crime. This happens.

Lying as an interrogation technique is perfectly legal and has helped solve many murder cases.

Immoral? Does this "cause nothing but more problems"?

How about this one: "Your Honor, my client is not guilty." The lawyer actually knows of evidence that implicates his client for the crime, but the client would not have told the attorney of that evidence except for the fact that the lawyer is under a professional obligation not to disclose such attorney-client communications. The lawyer could not adequately defend his client without knowing this inculpatory evidence.

Immoral? Does this "cause nothing but more problems"?

How about "I will accept no less than $500,000 for the house." In fact, the seller knows he will accept $400,000 for it, but is hoping to get the buyer to pay the full $500,000. The buyer says okay because the buyer thinks the house is worth $500,000.

Immoral? Does this "cause nothing but more problems"?

How about strategic ambiguity, like "Coke is it!" What the hell does that mean? It must be meaningful or they wouldn't say it. Most people don't worry about whether or not this kind of puffing is "true" because it really causes no harm.

But these half-truths or strategic ambiguities like "Coke is it!" are the most common lies of all, and your theory is hopelessly incomplete because it does nothing to account for them.

What do you think? Does this "cause nothing but more problems"?

I think none of these lies are immoral. I don't know how to "prove" that to you because I think morality is subjective. Nevertheless, all of these are perfectly legal and I think it is fair to say that society tacitly approves of each of these behaviors.

Ok, what if the kid *is* smart? Should we say so, or will he "stop trying to achieve it" and then become lazy and stupid? Should we lie to the smart kid and say he is stupid so he will keep striving? :banghead: However you decide, you will find a circumstance in which a white lie will be for the better.

As for the "not-so-pretty woman" example, you suggested one could refuse to offer an opinion. That's true, but you could also politely lie. Why not? It doesn't hurt anybody and it only makes people happy.

This is why I say your radical honesty is condescending: who are you to dictate how people should react to what you say?! You say: suck it up and take it like a man. Well, not everybody is as perfectly logical as you.

I thought I was clear but your capacity for self-deception is strong.

One more time:

It is possible to live up to the moral principle of never murdering anybody.

In contrast, nobody can live up to the principle of never lying. You just cannot do it.

The best we can do is determine when it is appropriate to lie and when it isn't.

Morality is bullshit if it cannot be applied to ordinary everyday life.

Well, it suggests that McDonald's is popularly perceived as a positive good. Maybe people should limit how often they go to McDonald's. Nevertheless, it appears that McDonald's is not inherently bad.

Likewise, lying is a positive good. People should do it less often, and I agree with you (at least) that honesty should be the default rule. But lying is not inherently bad.

Edited to add: sorry about the references to morality. I think my post still makes sense as written under your pure utility standard

beastmaster

Wow, what an is/ought switcheroo! First you say what the reality *is*, and I agree with you: people do often let their feelings get in the way.

Then you say that people *shouldn't* do that. Bullshit! I think people are perfectly reasonable in interpreting the statement "You are a dickhead" as being an offensive insult rather than constructive criticism.

In any event, how can I start being honest until other people change and stop letting their feelings get in the way? You are describing an ethics that I could apply only in an alternate universe.