K

99Percent:

Where does this idea of certain knowledge of consequences come in? I've never said anything about certainty. Only that some outcomes are perceived as likely. If you can't accept that, why do you eat food? You don't know with CERTAINTY that eating the food will keep you alive. You don't know with certainty that it won't kill you. Deciding to eat food would then be an irrational decision.

My wife is certainly not stupid, but I don't think she finds it worthwhile to try to determine if I'm telling a "white lie" in cases like this. You asked how I know how she feels. After 15 years, I think we have developed a very strong sense of what the other is feeling. It seems odd that a couple that didn't develop this could even be considered to be in a relationship. If absolute honesty in trivial matters were always more important than consideration of feelings, I'm afraid that very few relationships would ever work. There is a reason for the term "brutal honesty". Do you believe that eulogizers should tell the loved ones of deceased that their dearly departed is currently suffering unspeakable agony in Hell if that's what they believe?

You also stated that it is "bizzarre rationalization" to make decisions on perceived feelings of others. Are you really listening to what you're saying? How in the world could humans behave socially without such "bizarre rationalizations"? I'd have no idea that others don't like to be tortured, mutilated, stolen from, etc.

As for the Nazi example, I think you're trying to dismiss the issue without good reason. I can understand you arguing that giving up the people in the attic is not immoral because of the threat of death. But, to say choosing to continue harboring the Jews in the attic when the threat could have been eliminated is an amoral decision - I just don't understand your logic. Are you saying that there is no moral decision because the threat of death means that you have no choice but to lead the Nazis to the attic?

You still insist that a decision based on subjective values can never be rational. I don't think you've really given any evidence as to why this might be true. I'll give you an example that has nothing to due with morality.

There's a radio station out here called WXRT. I really enjoy the range of music they play. I don't like country-western at all. These are obviously subjective values. Is it irrational that I listen to WXRT instead of a country-western station?

99Percent

K: Where does this idea of certain knowledge of consequences come in? I've never said anything about certainty. Only that some outcomes are perceived as likely. If you can't accept that, why do you eat food? You don't know with CERTAINTY that eating the food will keep you alive. You don't know with certainty that it won't kill you. Deciding to eat food would then be an irrational decision.

Its curious how you twist your examples around to fit your argument. We are talking about lying and the consequences of lying. When you lie to achieve a certain result the result is not valid, it is not truthful and can fall flat in the light of truthness. Sure you can lie, and get away with it, and in fact in many situations it would be very likely that you will get away with it. But the result of lying is not true, it is not based on factual reality. It could collapse at any time. What you gained with lying is not true. This is what I mean by being irrational when you lie. It has nothing to do with perceived risks.

My wife is certainly not stupid, but I don't think she finds it worthwhile to try to determine if I'm telling a "white lie" in cases like this. You asked how I know how she feels. After 15 years, I think we have developed a very strong sense of what the other is feeling. It seems odd that a couple that didn't develop this could even be considered to be in a relationship. If absolute honesty in trivial matters were always more important than consideration of feelings, I'm afraid that very few relationships would ever work. There is a reason for the term "brutal honesty". Do you believe that eulogizers should tell the loved ones of deceased that their dearly departed is currently suffering unspeakable agony in Hell if that's what they believe?

I am also married and for 21 years, so I know exactly what you are talking about but you are wrong. A relationship between two human beings must be based on honesty more than on "consideration for feelings" because even if you have lived with someone for all your life you will never know and understand completely what that person feels or thinks (which is a good thing IMO). I think it is far more insulting to assume what your wife feels, than what you call "brutal" honesty. And besides there many loving ways to say the truth. You don't have say for example that "it is the worst lasagna I have ever tasted" or exagerate your negative feelings to make a point. You can say "Honey, I really appreciate all the effort and energy on your part to put this surprise, and I am enjoying the surprise, but honestly your dish did not really come out good, but I do enjoy the glass of water" with a big loving smile. I think everyone appreciates honesty far more than anything else. Atleast its a healthier attitude to adopt towards others.

Are you really listening to what you're saying? How in the world could humans behave socially without such "bizarre rationalizations"? I'd have no idea that others don't like to be tortured, mutilated, stolen from, etc.

Are we humans, or are we animals? We can speak, and voice our desires and feelings. We can arrive at mutually beneficial arrangements without any need of perceived feeling of others.

Are you saying that there is no moral decision because the threat of death means that you have no choice but to lead the Nazis to the attic?

Yes. The immorality comes from the Nazi's initiating the violence against the Jews, not you who leads them to the Jews with a Nazi gun pointing at your head.

You still insist that a decision based on subjective values can never be rational.

Based on your perceived subjective value of others, yes.

There's a radio station out here called WXRT. I really enjoy the range of music they play. I don't like country-western at all. These are obviously subjective values. Is it irrational that I listen to WXRT instead of a country-western station?

You are twisting around objective facts to make them look like it is subjective matter. You know for a fact you like the range of music of WXRT and you know you don't like country-western at all. There is no subjectivity involved. You are making your decision based on these known facts about yourself.

K

At first you argued that lying was irrational because the lie could be discovered resulting in a bad outcome for the liar. Now you are saying that although lying may work in a perceived risk/benefit analysis, it's not rational because what is gained is "not true". What does this mean? If you are insisting that there is some entity that objectively measures the true-ness of gains, I'm afraid we'll just have to agree to disagree. I still maintain that acting on the result of the risk/benefit analysis is precisely what is meant by rational.

I for one appreciate descretion as much as honesty. I find deceit (lying to gain an advantage) reprehensible. But I certainly don't want to hear somebody pointing out uncorrectable faults of my kids simply for the sake of honesty.

We certainly can speak about our desires, but if I don't assume anything about others' feelings, then each individual has to tell me exactly what he/she likes and doesn't like. The funny thing about this is that it is the common feelings and experiences among the human race that makes language even possible.

It's interesting that you feel that there is no decision to be make. When the Nazis point the gun to your head, you have to lead them to the attic. If that's true, how do you explain the fact that there were people who did lie and continue to keep those in the attic hidden? I certainly would like to believe that I'd be in that group. While not doing so may not be immoral, I think that risking one's own skin to save an innocent would be an exemplary moral act. Even though the gain would be "not true".

The point about the radio stations was aimed at the true-ness value element you've assigned to gains. If an individual doesn't value "true-ness", the gains can be rational based only on the risk/reward analysis.

K

[accidental repost deleted]

[ August 28, 2002: Message edited by: 99Percent ]</p>

99Percent

K, is there a reason why you posted double? I will answer your post shortly. Sometimes I delay my answers a bit to see if someone jumps into the discussion.

99Percent

K: Notice that I never said that it was irrational to lie because the outcome could be bad for the liar. I said that it is irrational because the outcome is not true. The reality of the gain obtained by the liar could crumble at any moment. And there is an entity that objectively measures the true-ness of gains and that is your mind itself. We all have a truth detector and that is why we can reason and have morals. You make rational decisions on the risk benefits analysis, but if the wanted benefits are not going to be true then there is no rationality at all to begin with.

Those pointing out uncorrectable faults of your kids are not doing it for the sake of honesty, but I would suppose for the sake of contempt or ridicule. But if you asked the parents of your boy's best friend how your kid behaved during a sleep over I bet you would want to hear an honest opinion.

Of course we continously assume what others feel, but if someone explicitly asks me how I feel about a particular thing I should tell the truth because that someone is being uncertain about my feelings. Its not that I have to always state what I feel, or that what others feel, but if someone is asking what you feel then you say the truth. You can't answer according to what you think he/she wants to hear going against your own feelings, because you are assuming what the other wants to hear, something you can't know at all, since you are not the one actually feeling or wanting.

You think you are making a point that the lie to the Nazis obtained a gain, a gain I would label "not true" when it is obviously true. But if you think more carefully you will realize that the situation is not true to begin with. It is not true because the Nazis are making a forcing the false (and therefore immoral) assumption that all Jews must be exterminated. In effect its an irrational situation to begin with.

K

99Percent:

Sorry about that double post. I sent the last message off last night and left it at that. When I went clicked my browser's back button this morning, it apparently posted again. It might have something to do with the fact that I'm logged on at two different machines at the same time. I've never had a problem with that before.

I can appreciate the fact that you prize honesty above other aspects in your social interactions. I feel an approach that takes into consideration the probable effect on the feelings of the person involved works better socially. I think we're starting from different basic assumptions and we probably aren't going to make any headway in convincing each other to abandon those assumptions.

I do agree with you that the mind oftentimes evaluates things that have been obtained through deceitful means as tainted. However, I don't believe that is universally true. If the gain obtained is more important to an individual than having personal integrity in obtaining it, then the lie is perfectly rational - assuming again that the perceived reward to perceived risk ratio is high enough.

I think we may be coming closer to agreement on the Nazi issue. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it sounds to me like you are saying that a lie is ok (or at least rational) if you are forced to make a decision in an atmosphere where another party has made what you believe to be an immoral decision. That would be a little open for me. I would prefer to weigh the evidence in each case individually. But, it does sound like we may agree that there are situations where a "greater good" can result result from telling a lie. Again, I don't want to put words into your mouth, so correct me if I'm wrong.

Just to let you know, while it seems that there are many points on which we disagree, I have found this discussion to be very interesting. If I've gained nothing else, at least I've had the opportunity to more closely examine the things I believe. I just thought I'd mention this because I know that accidental repost may have looked like a hostile move. It wasn't.

99Percent

I like the conciliatory way you are exiting the discusion. I also enjoyed debating with you. Hope to see you around. And you can be sure I am honest about it

Scorpion

Duh, away for two days and the thread has exploded... had I more time I'd read through all that has been said and perhaps learn something, but I don't, so I just pick my quote and run:

...Key word being "establishing". If something is established by a society to be wrong, even objectively wrong, it's still only an intersubjective agreement between the powers-that-be. I don't know if anything as complex as a society does things "at whim", but it certainly can decide that drug use or prostitution isn't immoral - and if that happens, in that society they no longer are immoral. I'm not sure if understood you right?

I'll try to get back to the other thread some day, but don't hold your breath - I'd have to write an essay on the concept of rationality (for which I don't have time these days)... If I haven't answered in a week, you can score a point for yourself

-S-

Scorpion

BTW, just a thought that crossed my mind this morning: Would you say the existence of moral values is of the same kind as existence of the shares values in stock market? I.e. do shares have objective values?

-S-