The AntiChris

I think you're agreeing with me.

All I'm saying is, in the absence of known intentions and consequences, lying in itself is morally neutral. It's the intentions of the liar and the consequences of the lie which provide the moral dimension to lying.

Chris

The AntiChris

I'm not sure precisely what you mean here. In order to tease out what you're saying, let's try another example.

Because I hate my brother and wish to ruin his life, I decide that I'm going give him a severe beating. Late at night I lay in wait with a baseball bat in woodland where my brother walks his dog. As my brother approaches I take an almighty swing with the bat but at the last moment a shadowy figure steps between me and my brother and my bat hits the stranger knocking him unconscious. It emerges that the stranger is a serial killer who attacks and robs people late at night in woodland areas. I've in fact saved my brother's life.

Now if "I have done exactly the same thing that a person with good intentions would have done, even though my intentions were not good.", is the act "considered right"?

Chris

long winded fool

Couldn't one say that the intention of all lies is to deceive another person, and the consequences are that said person is prevented by another from knowing the truth about a given thing? Would this still be a morally neutral act? I think the word "lie" in this sense carries a moral dimension in itself, that is, it describes an immoral act. While there may be other intentions down the line designed to produce desirable consequences, the fundamental intention and consequence of a lie is always to mask the truth from another person, an act which I would consider immoral.

Why not? Praising the act is not praising the person or the motive. If I accidentally save a life while trying to kill someone else, this is a good thing. This act deserves to be praised. My motives ought to be shunned, but the act itself is intrinsically good, I would think. This doesn't prevent me from going to jail for attempted murder due to my wrong motives, but the fact remains that an action I took saved the life of another, and this is a good thing. I think motive can be analyzed separately from the act. Motives and actions are related in a given situation in time and space, but not in purely abstract, critical analysis of their respective natures. Motives can be bad and actions good and vice versa. While motives are easy to judge, pure actions are far more difficult since no one knows exactly what the consequences may be. Since the root motive of all lies is to hide a truth which another person desires, or at least deserves, it seems to me that whatever the consequences, lies are, on a fundamental level, immoral.

The AntiChris

Yes, of course.

It depends on whether you start from the presupposition that deceit is of itself 'wrong'. Unless you're using a specific definition of lying which sets it aside from benign or beneficial untruths, this seems like a kind of mindless absolutism to me.
I understand the distinction but why would one ascribe moral value, in the form of "praise", to a happy coincidence?

If the 'purpose' of moral language (expressions of praise/approval and condemnation/disapproval) is to shape or influence moral behaviour, it seems absolutely pointless to separate the act and the motive when making moral judgements.

Chris

excreationist

long winded fool:
What do you think about my earlier post?

DRFseven

It seems obvious that deceit will be considered wrong or not according to various mitigating factors, such as other moral opinions. Lying is a social tactic, among many others, used to manipulate a social situation. Affecting a friendly demeanor is also a social tactic, but since it is not seen as hurting people, it carries no immoral implications. Lying is often seen as hurting others because we have all borne the brunt of being lied to on occasion, and not hurting others is a common moral injunction. Yet we all recognize relative mitigating factors. And some just don't feel anything wrong about lying.

long winded fool

I agree. Since lying is always fundamentally intended to deceive (primary motive,) and since deceit fundamentally benefits the deceiver at the expense of the deceived, and since undermining the knowledge of another for one's own benefit is immoral (I'm assuming,) and since, as you point out, separating the act itself from other motives doesn't change the morality of an action on the whole (i.e. if either any of one's secondary motives or the primary motive of the act is immoral, then the action is altogether viewed as immoral,) then the action of lying is always immoral regardless of mitigating motives which may make it seem moral. (Imagine Hitler was doing what he thought was best for his country and his people. Despite this seemingly praiseworthy notion, his actions were still immoral.)

I'm not necessarily placing a value judgment on immoral actions as far as society is concerned, I'm just identifying said actions as immoral. You are absolutely right. In a largely immoral society where immediate threat to human life is far more important than worrying about whether or not an action with dire consequences is or is not immoral, strictly moral behavior is not required. We as a society are trying our best, and I commend Schindler for putting the safety of human beings before his desire to tell the truth, since human lives mean much more to me than nitpicking moral issues. I'm not trying to change anyone's behavior, I'm trying to logically identify an action for what it seems to be.

Knowing (or thinking I know) that lying is immoral does not prevent me from lying in all cases. When I do lie, I know that I have failed to resolve the situation without resorting to immoral behavior, and I try to learn from this. I personally would rather behave immorally and prevent others from getting hurt than behave morally allow it. I do not try to convince myself that this is good, however. Behaving morally and preventing others from getting hurt would be my only definition of good in this scenario. It is important (to me) not to confuse immoral actions leading to some very desirable consequences with moral actions. I don't know of any "absolutely" moral actions since I can never possess all the variables, but I can identify contradictions in behavior and goal and I label these behaviors immoral.

excreationist

long winded fool:
In a largely immoral society where immediate threat to human life is far more important than worrying about whether or not an action with dire consequences is or is not immoral, strictly moral behavior is not required.
I thought moral behaviour is what people *ought* do to - so people *should* tell the Nazi's the truth about any Jews they know of. You said that strictly moral behaviour isn't required, but isn't it at least *preferred*?

long winded fool

No. I know lots of people who prefer immoral behavior. Because they prefer it does not make it moral. (Unless of course morality is entirely subjective to the individual, in which case discussing morality becomes nothing but a euphemism for war.)

excreationist

I mean, don't *you* prefer people to behave morally? e.g. tell the Nazi's the truth about Jews rather than lie?

I'm talking about what *you* prefer them to do... i.e. what you think they should (or ought to) do. I thought that was the definition of moral behaviour.