Freethought & Rationalism Archive

99Percent · 08-24-2002, 08:21 PM

From <a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=52&t=000161&p=" target="_blank">this thread.</a> Paragraphs in italics are tronvillain's responses to mine in quote blocks.

Quote:

Tron, you have some weird concept of what rationality is. Lying is not rational, no matter how you look at it. Irrational beliefs is very different from objectively knowing what is false.

I am afraid I am going to have to say that your grasp of the concept of rationality is quite weak. Lying can be rational (though it will often not be), in that it can yield an outcome superior to that resulting from telling the truth.

But would that outcome produced by telling lies be a true outcome? Is it a valid outcome?

Quote:

How can you have any morality if you can justify any "moral" decision by covering up the truth? Its like justifying cheating as long as you don't get caught.

As far as I know, that is how most people justify cheating. You have morality because cheating is countered by emotions like fear (of being caught), empathy (for those who lose unfairly), guilt (from conflicting with learned rules), and pride (in winning without cheating). In the absence of those and similar factors, people would cheat constantly.

I don't deny that many people follow their moral codes out of feelings and therefore their morality is subjective. But objective morality arises out of reason, independently of feelings.

Quote:

An alcoholic justifies his first drink by saying to himself "it will be my only drink, I promise" which is a lie, and he knows it.

A husband cheats his wife by saying to himself "I am going to divorce soon anyway" which is a lie and he knows it.

A murderer kills for pleasure by saying to himself "I won't get caught" which is a lie and he knows it.

All of those are examples of self deception, and as defined appear to be irrational. Still, these few examples you cannot even conclude that self deception is always irrational, let alone the deception of others.

A few examples of my own:

A job applicant lies on his resume, which results in him getting an interview.

Of which if the employer finds out he lied he would not get the job.

A job applicant lies during an interview, which result in him getting a job.

Of which if the employer finds out later he lied he could very be fired. In fact many companies adopt the policy that if a job applicant did not state the truth he must be fired.

A worker lies about his project, which results in him getting a promotion.

Of which if the employer finds out he lied about his project he is very likely to be fired.

Where exactly is the irrationality in these cases?

The irrationality lies in that the worker has placed himself in an untruthful position. His job status can crumble in any moment if the truth gets out

Quote:

A marathoner makes a huge shortcut and wins the marathon. His medal is a lie and he knows it.

Yes, he does, but it does not follow from his medal being a lie that he has done anything irrational. Apparently he cares more about having the medal than earning it honestly. Where is the irrationality?

Again, the irrationality lies in that the medal is not earned through merit. At any moment he could lose the medal if the cheat is discovered.

Quote:

All of the above are objectively immoral acts because they are based on intentional lies, they are so because the truth can be objectively determined.

Yes, they are intentional lies (you have specified that they are), but you have not demonstrated that intentional lies are necessarily immoral. This is just an unsupported assertion.

I have repeatedly, you just refuse to accept it.

Quote:

When you initiate violence by murdering someone you enter into a state of violence, for the rest of your life. That is not rational, no matter how you look at it. Violence is always irrational.

Yet another unsupported assertion from 99Percent. Initiating violence by murdering someone does not necessarily cause you to enter into a state of violence for the rest of your life.

It does if it is known by all (and you don't live in an island) that you murdered someone for lets say money. People will be wary of your presence, they will arm themselves against you, and you are game for getting murdered for money yourself. It is a natural consequence.

Quote:

But the supposedly superior outcome is based on a lie. It is false. It is therefore an invalid outcome.

It does not seem to follow the superior outcome being caused on a lie that it is "false" or if it does (depending on what you mean by "false") it is not apparent that people should care. If I can get a million dollars for telling a lie, why should I necessarily care that the million dollars is "false"?

Because you could lose your million dollars at any moment. It is unreal capital.

Quote:

If you refuse to answer you are admitting guilt. Would you refuse to answer if your girlfriend asks you if you have been sleeping around? If you answer affirmatively but refuse to provide any details you are begging the question. That you can probably live the rest of your life without having to respond to such a question is irrelevant. The fact remains that you will have to be untruthful if the question ever arises, you are in an untruthful state and therefore in an immoral state. This is not the same as a trivial lie, because a trivial lie can always be uncovered without any bad consequences, but uncovering the lie of a murder does have a negative consequence.

Do you listen to yourself? If you asked me "Have you ever killed someone for pleasure or money" and I refused to answer would you conclude that I had killed someone? If I replied in the affirmative but declined to provide any details, would it really worry you?

It would really worry me. If a cop asked you seriously "did killed person X for money or pleasure, would you still answer affirmatively?

Quote:

I have if you accept the premise that lying and violence is irrational.

I think that few people would consider that premise self evident, and I certainly don't. It is in fact fairly easy to construct cases in which they appear rational, unless one simply asserts that they are not.

Its up to a rational person to realize that lying is irrational of course.

[ August 24, 2002: Message edited by: 99Percent ]</p>

K · 08-25-2002, 07:59 AM

99Percent:

I'm sorry, but I have to agree with Tronvillian.

First, with respect to lying. Lying is perfectly rational in many situations. I think it's trivial to imagine cases where the consequence of getting caught telling a lie is far less than the gain from telling it. It may not be "moral" to tell the lie, but it's clearly rational.

There are also other cases where I (and probably most others) would consider lying moral even though it wouldn't be obviously rational. For an extreme example, consider the German citizens that lied to hide Jews from the Nazis. Was that objectively immoral because they could always be discovered resulting in the death of everyone involved?

I believe that morals are human names given to the instincts we have that allow us to live together in societies. I don't think they can be said to have objective values.

pug846 · 08-25-2002, 10:46 AM

99percent, I haven�t read the previous thread, but I�ll try to go on what has been posted here. If I make a point that has been dealt with previously, let me know.

I agree with Tron that lying isn�t necessarily irrational, although it can be. I�ll set apart self-deception as a special case of lying that is nearly always irrational. (I�d probably be willing to concede that it�s always irrational, but that�s a side issue.) I do believe that deceiving others is often rational (and by rational, I assume you mean, all things taken into consideration, it�s in your own self interest). From here on out, when I say, �lying,� I mean deceiving others.

I�ll assume you agree with the fact that if you could tell the future, lying would often time be in your own self-interest if you knew for certain that you wouldn�t get caught. Correct me if I�m wrong, but your argument seems to boil down to: if you deceive another person, you could get caught and the negative consequences of getting caught would far outweigh the positive consequences so it would be irrational to lie. But I�m not sure how you come out on top there in every single potential situation. There are a lot of cases under which the chances of getting caught are so minimal, as to not to be taken seriously. There are other cases which even if you are caught lying, you won�t be punished or you have a convenient excuse to get out of the situation. A couple of real life examples:

At the cash register at the local grocery store, the clerk gives you a $100 bill instead of a $10 bill. You happen to glance down and notice that as you put it in your wallet. By not telling the clerk the truth and asking for the correct change, you�re lying. It�s obviously trivially true that having $100 bill instead of $10 bill is more in your own self-interest. However, the odds of the clerk realizing her mistake are exceptionally small. Further, even if she did realize her mistake, she has no way of knowing that you knew the change was incorrect. Even if she suspects that you did know, she has no way of proving it and you know you will probably never see her again.

You show up to class (10 minutes late if you�re like me and have time issues). You notice on the board that your homework is due. You haven�t done it, but you know it would only take 5 minutes to complete. You tell the teacher that you left it in your dorm room and you�d like to go back and get it. She agrees. You run back to your dorm room, sit down at your desk, and complete the assignment. You then bring it to class and turn it in on time. You didn�t lose the letter grade that you normally would have lost. The professor has no way of knowing that you just completed the assignment and would have no way of finding that out.

Both of these cases it�s clearly in your own rational self-interest to lie. Is there a .00000001% chance that something might go wrong? Of course. But anything you do has a small chance of ending horribly for you. There is often a connection between lying and hurting your own self interest, but there is no necessary logical connection. Let�s face it�as we all get older we get wiser and we know when we can in fact lie and get away with it. I consider myself exceptionally honest, but there are definitely times where I might tell a fib�or something bigger�now and again and know that rationally speak, nothing is going to happen to me. I don�t know of any kid in college who is completely honest with there parents (I rarely do lie to them though�).

I�m setting up my new apartment today (yeah! finally have my own place) and I start school Monday morning, so I don�t know if I will be able to respond to anything else. Tron will be able to make a better case than I anyways.

tronvillain · 08-25-2002, 12:56 PM

99Percent:

Responding point by point would simply make this thread unreadable and as a result I have decided not to do so, unless you insist. As far as I can tell, you are asserting that the mere possibility of an intentional lie being discovered is enough to make it irrational (assuming that discovery has a negative outcome). Perhaps you have never heard of the concept of "acceptable risk"? Quite frequently, the chance for a positive outcome outweighs the risk of a negative outcome, whether we are getting into a car or telling a lie.

Now, having dealt with virtually your entire post in a single paragraph, I will use an example from K's post: Is it wrong to lie to the Nazis about the Jews hiding in your attic? Let us assume that the Nazis simply demand a yes or no answer to the question "Are there Jews in your attic?" Now, there are four possible outcomes: Answer Yes/Believed - Jews taken by Nazis, Answer Yes/Not Believed - Jews not taken by Nazis, Answer No/Believed - Jews not taken by Nazis, Answer No/Not Believed - Jews taken by Nazis.

So, should you lie and say "No" or tell the truth and say "Yes"? I see three likely responses:

1)You should tell the truth and say "Yes", because the truth is more important than human life and there is a chance (though tiny) that the truth will not be believed.

2)You should lie and say "No", in which case it is not necessarily wrong or irrational to lie, which is the position I take.

3)You should say "No", but it is not a lie because the judgement of "wrongness" is imbedded in the word "lying." If this is the case then we have only discovered something only about 99Percent's definition, not about objective reality.

I will end with a quote:

"Lying is so obviously rational in so many cases that the Randite dogma that it is not is as ludicrous as scientific creationism."

- Larry Hamelin

excreationist · 08-25-2002, 08:46 PM

99Percent:
Could you define what murder is?

Is it the killing of people in general? If so, then executions, suicide and defending invading armies involves murder...

Or is it the unlawful killing of someone? i.e. killing someone for whatever reason (including a justifiable one) and being convicted in court of murder?

Or is it the immoral killing of someone? Then that means it has been defined as being immoral...

Do you have a definition that makes it easy to tell if something definitely is or definitely isn't murder?

Scorpion · 08-25-2002, 08:53 PM

Furthermore, all potential or actual negative consequences in 99Percent's examples are brought about by other human beings, whose actions are determined by their moral values. The society must condemn murder or there will be no negative consequences whatsoever.
I can see how we can get to intersubjective morality from here, but I don't see objective morality coming up anywhere in this discussion even if the points made by 99Percent were agreed upon?

-S-

99Percent · 08-26-2002, 07:03 PM

K: First, with respect to lying. Lying is perfectly rational in many situations. I think it's trivial to imagine cases where the consequence of getting caught telling a lie is far less than the gain from telling it. It may not be "moral" to tell the lie, but it's clearly rational.

Consequentialism. If you knew what the consequences of your actions would be with certainty you would not need to have any morals to begin with.

There are also other cases where I (and probably most others) would consider lying moral even though it wouldn't be obviously rational. For an extreme example, consider the German citizens that lied to hide Jews from the Nazis. Was that objectively immoral because they could always be discovered resulting in the death of everyone involved?

The-Jews-in-the-attic argument again. We are talking about free will. If you are faced with immediate death or physical harm caused by the initiating of violence of someone else (in this case the Nazis) you don't have the free will and therefore no morality involved. You have to lie. Much like a person pointing a gun at me, I don't have much choice on what I do or say.

I believe that morals are human names given to the instincts we have that allow us to live together in societies. I don't think they can be said to have objective values.

Then according to you, there is no moral responsibility at all.

pug846: There are a lot of cases under which the chances of getting caught are so minimal, as to not to be taken seriously. There are other cases which even if you are caught lying, you won�t be punished or you have a convenient excuse to get out of the situation.

Again consequentialism. If you knew the consequences of your actions there would be no need for morals. You are assuming that you know off hand the full consequences of lying which is impossible. That is why we adopt morals, because we cannot predict the future.

At the cash register at the local grocery store, the clerk gives you a $100 bill instead of a $10 bill. You happen to glance down and notice that as you put it in your wallet. By not telling the clerk the truth and asking for the correct change, you�re lying. It�s obviously trivially true that having $100 bill instead of $10 bill is more in your own self-interest. However, the odds of the clerk realizing her mistake are exceptionally small. Further, even if she did realize her mistake, she has no way of knowing that you knew the change was incorrect. Even if she suspects that you did know, she has no way of proving it and you know you will probably never see her again.

This not really lying. What is happening here is that I would be assuming that the clerk is a stupid person. In effect she is commiting a stupid mistake and I am taking advantage of it here. The clerk will realize her mistake at the end of the day and will have to pay from her own pocket the difference. But if a clerk commits those kinds of mistakes should she be still working as a clerk? Granted I am admitting there is could be nothing morally wrong here except that you might think you can gain more from everybody else's stupidity, which is dangerous thinking IMO.

You show up to class (10 minutes late if you�re like me and have time issues). You notice on the board that your homework is due. You haven�t done it, but you know it would only take 5 minutes to complete. You tell the teacher that you left it in your dorm room and you�d like to go back and get it. She agrees. You run back to your dorm room, sit down at your desk, and complete the assignment. You then bring it to class and turn it in on time. You didn�t lose the letter grade that you normally would have lost. The professor has no way of knowing that you just completed the assignment and would have no way of finding that out.

The teacher could still find out multiple ways. But the one who is lied to is yourself. You feel you got away with it easily, and you will not pay attention to the due dates of homework as much. Sooner or later you will miss not doing a more time consuming homework and you will lose.

Both of these cases it�s clearly in your own rational self-interest to lie. Is there a .00000001% chance that something might go wrong? Of course. But anything you do has a small chance of ending horribly for you.

And how can you objectively quantify what the chances are of something going wrong? Again that is why we need morals.

tronvillain: Perhaps you have never heard of the concept of "acceptable risk"? Quite frequently, the chance for a positive outcome outweighs the risk of a negative outcome, whether we are getting into a car or telling a lie.

There is a big difference between the risk of say getting into a car and telling a lie. Getting into a car is an action that involves just yourself. Telling a lie involves more than yourself. It is going against the truth of another moral being.

Is it wrong to lie to the Nazis about the Jews hiding in your attic?

I dealt with this scenario several times before already. Please see my response to K.

excreationist: Could you define what murder is?

We are discussing murder done by the initiation of violence by someone who has intent. ie, unprovoked murder.

Do you have a definition that makes it easy to tell if something definitely is or definitely isn't murder?

It isn't murder in cases of self-defense. Or in cases where one didn't have a choice in the matter - say if you point a gun at me and tell me I have to kill person X. Or a soldier who is forced to fight the unseen enemy or face martial court.

Scorpion: Furthermore, all potential or actual negative consequences in 99Percent's examples are brought about by other human beings, whose actions are determined by their moral values.

Well yeah, other human beings that are being affected directly by the lies commited.

The society must condemn murder or there will be no negative consequences whatsoever.

Society can (and must condemn murder) much like you do so yourself. The question is how does society reach the conclusion that it is wrong? Through religious moral code? (Then other religious commandments should be followed too and who dictates them?), Through consensus? Then society could impose moral codes at whim - say prostitution, drug use, etc. Or through reason - establishing it as objectively wrong.

excreationist · 08-27-2002, 02:51 AM

99Percent:
I think the word "murder" is used by a society to describe killings that are crimes. i.e. the word is always used by societies to describe things that are wrong.
If the society used the word murder to describe killings that it did approve of, then it would seem arbitrary for it to punish some who commit murders while approving of others - while calling both acts "murder".

BTW, is aborting a foetus that was conceived a week ago murder?
Is aborting a week old foetus against the mother's will murder?
What about if it was conceived 95 days ago?
Is killing a smart chimp murder?
Is there a definition that can distinguish between "manslaughter" and "murder"?

[ August 27, 2002: Message edited by: excreationist ]</p>

K · 08-27-2002, 05:53 AM

99Percent:

I never said that the consequences of the action were known with certainty. I talked about the RISK of being caught. There is no risk if the outcome is certain. Humans evaluate the likely consequences of their actions all the time. Maybe my point could be illustrated more clearly with an example.

Neither my wife nor myself do a lot of cooking. Occasionally though, she likes to surprise me by making a big dinner. It's almost always very good. But, every once in a while it won't turn out right. Now I know that she's put a lot of effort into making it and that she's done it only to surprise me. The way I see it, I've got two choices.

Truth:
"Thanks for dinner, but this is the worst tasting thing I've eaten since you accidentally burned the lasagna two years ago."

Lie:
"Thanks for dinner, this is really great. I think I'll have seconds."

Now in this situation, I would subconsciously make the following evaluation.

Likely benefit of lying - I would spare my wife's feelings.

Likely benefit of telling the truth - I wouldn't have to eat something I don't like.

Odds of getting caught lying - very slim

Likely outcome if I am caught - my wife's feelings would still be hurt, but PROBABLY less than if I'd told the truth.

Since I value my wife's feeling much more than not eating something I dislike, I would say that lying in this case is perfectly rational.

As for the Jews-in-the-attic argument, I don't believe you have really addressed the point. Certainly the personal threat from the Nazis is there. But that threat disappears if you tell the TRUTH and lead them to the attic. You may argue that it is irrational to lie and put yourself in danger. I would counter that if you value protecting the innocent more than your own life, you've made a perfectly rational decision to lie.

You're right that I don't believe in moral responsibility in an objective sense. I do believe that we have evolved the instinct to hold people morally responsible in a practical sense in order for society to function.

99Percent · 08-27-2002, 09:39 AM

excreationist: I think the word "murder" is used by a society to describe killings that are crimes. i.e. the word is always used by societies to describe things that are wrong. If the society used the word murder to describe killings that it did approve of, then it would seem arbitrary for it to punish some who commit murders while approving of others - while calling both acts "murder".

Agreed, but the question arises - how does society adopt when a killing is a murder or not. Does it arrive through consensus, or through reason? or both?

BTW, is aborting a foetus that was conceived a week ago murder?

No.

Is aborting a week old foetus against the mother's will murder?

No. But it is still morally reprehensible since you are transgressing the body of another human being against her wishes.

What about if it was conceived 95 days ago?

Still no, but as the pregnancy advances you have to ask yourself if the woman is being responsible about it if she decides to abort after all. Once pregnancy is visible and the baby is born, it becomes an issue of parental responsibility more than about murder I think.

Is killing a smart chimp murder?

No, because a chimp is an animal.

Is there a definition that can distinguish between "manslaughter" and "murder"?

Manslaughter is a lack of acting responsibly without any actual intent to murder. A person who commits manslaughter is put to jail not so much because of the murder but because he is a menace to society due to his negligence.

K: I never said that the consequences of the action were known with certainty. I talked about the RISK of being caught. There is no risk if the outcome is certain.

So you do know the consequence of your action (lying) if the outcome is "certain". But do you realize you aren't making sense? You can never be certain of any outcome - and that is why you need morals.

Humans evaluate the likely consequences of their actions all the time. Maybe my point could be illustrated more clearly with an example.

True, but no human knows what the consequences of his actions are.

Your opinion on your wife's cooking example is typical of a white lie. Lies that appear to be harmless and trivial, but are they really? Lets look at it carefully. What you love about your wife is not her cooking but the fact that she surprised you and that she put a lot of effort in the surprise. You can still state that the cooking is awful but that you love her anyway for the surprise.

Likely benefit of lying - I would spare my wife's feelings.

Of which you don't really know what they are. You can only feel your own feelings.

Likely benefit of telling the truth - I wouldn't have to eat something I don't like.

And maintain an honest relationship.

Odds of getting caught lying - very slim

Assuming that your wife is very stupid.

Likely outcome if I am caught - my wife's feelings would still be hurt, but PROBABLY less than if I'd told the truth

Again you are still assuming she is stupid. She could get even more hurt because she realizes that you thought she was stupid with the first lie.

Since I value my wife's feeling much more than not eating something I dislike, I would say that lying in this case is perfectly rational.

I have to say it is bizarre "rationalization" based on the perceived feelings of others, of which you cannot feel yourself.

As for the Jews-in-the-attic argument, I don't believe you have really addressed the point. Certainly the personal threat from the Nazis is there. But that threat disappears if you tell the TRUTH and lead them to the attic.

You could tell the truth or tell a lie, it doesn't matter. The point is that it is no longer a moral issue because of the threat of death involved, there is no free will.

You may argue that it is irrational to lie and put yourself in danger. I would counter that if you value protecting the innocent more than your own life, you've made a perfectly rational decision to lie.

Like the wife cooking example, you a decision based on subjective values can never be rational.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

08-25-2002, 07:59 AM	#2
K Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: Chicago Posts: 1,485	99Percent: I'm sorry, but I have to agree with Tronvillian. First, with respect to lying. Lying is perfectly rational in many situations. I think it's trivial to imagine cases where the consequence of getting caught telling a lie is far less than the gain from telling it. It may not be "moral" to tell the lie, but it's clearly rational. There are also other cases where I (and probably most others) would consider lying moral even though it wouldn't be obviously rational. For an extreme example, consider the German citizens that lied to hide Jews from the Nazis. Was that objectively immoral because they could always be discovered resulting in the death of everyone involved? I believe that morals are human names given to the instincts we have that allow us to live together in societies. I don't think they can be said to have objective values.

08-25-2002, 10:46 AM	#3
pug846 Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2001 Location: Somewhere Posts: 1,587	99percent, I haven�t read the previous thread, but I�ll try to go on what has been posted here. If I make a point that has been dealt with previously, let me know. I agree with Tron that lying isn�t necessarily irrational, although it can be. I�ll set apart self-deception as a special case of lying that is nearly always irrational. (I�d probably be willing to concede that it�s always irrational, but that�s a side issue.) I do believe that deceiving others is often rational (and by rational, I assume you mean, all things taken into consideration, it�s in your own self interest). From here on out, when I say, �lying,� I mean deceiving others. I�ll assume you agree with the fact that if you could tell the future, lying would often time be in your own self-interest if you knew for certain that you wouldn�t get caught. Correct me if I�m wrong, but your argument seems to boil down to: if you deceive another person, you could get caught and the negative consequences of getting caught would far outweigh the positive consequences so it would be irrational to lie. But I�m not sure how you come out on top there in every single potential situation. There are a lot of cases under which the chances of getting caught are so minimal, as to not to be taken seriously. There are other cases which even if you are caught lying, you won�t be punished or you have a convenient excuse to get out of the situation. A couple of real life examples: At the cash register at the local grocery store, the clerk gives you a $100 bill instead of a $10 bill. You happen to glance down and notice that as you put it in your wallet. By not telling the clerk the truth and asking for the correct change, you�re lying. It�s obviously trivially true that having $100 bill instead of $10 bill is more in your own self-interest. However, the odds of the clerk realizing her mistake are exceptionally small. Further, even if she did realize her mistake, she has no way of knowing that you knew the change was incorrect. Even if she suspects that you did know, she has no way of proving it and you know you will probably never see her again. You show up to class (10 minutes late if you�re like me and have time issues). You notice on the board that your homework is due. You haven�t done it, but you know it would only take 5 minutes to complete. You tell the teacher that you left it in your dorm room and you�d like to go back and get it. She agrees. You run back to your dorm room, sit down at your desk, and complete the assignment. You then bring it to class and turn it in on time. You didn�t lose the letter grade that you normally would have lost. The professor has no way of knowing that you just completed the assignment and would have no way of finding that out. Both of these cases it�s clearly in your own rational self-interest to lie. Is there a .00000001% chance that something might go wrong? Of course. But anything you do has a small chance of ending horribly for you. There is often a connection between lying and hurting your own self interest, but there is no necessary logical connection. Let�s face it�as we all get older we get wiser and we know when we can in fact lie and get away with it. I consider myself exceptionally honest, but there are definitely times where I might tell a fib�or something bigger�now and again and know that rationally speak, nothing is going to happen to me. I don�t know of any kid in college who is completely honest with there parents (I rarely do lie to them though�). I�m setting up my new apartment today (yeah! finally have my own place) and I start school Monday morning, so I don�t know if I will be able to respond to anything else. Tron will be able to make a better case than I anyways.

08-25-2002, 12:56 PM	#4
tronvillain Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: Alberta, Canada Posts: 5,658	99Percent: Responding point by point would simply make this thread unreadable and as a result I have decided not to do so, unless you insist. As far as I can tell, you are asserting that the mere possibility of an intentional lie being discovered is enough to make it irrational (assuming that discovery has a negative outcome). Perhaps you have never heard of the concept of "acceptable risk"? Quite frequently, the chance for a positive outcome outweighs the risk of a negative outcome, whether we are getting into a car or telling a lie. Now, having dealt with virtually your entire post in a single paragraph, I will use an example from K's post: Is it wrong to lie to the Nazis about the Jews hiding in your attic? Let us assume that the Nazis simply demand a yes or no answer to the question "Are there Jews in your attic?" Now, there are four possible outcomes: Answer Yes/Believed - Jews taken by Nazis, Answer Yes/Not Believed - Jews not taken by Nazis, Answer No/Believed - Jews not taken by Nazis, Answer No/Not Believed - Jews taken by Nazis. So, should you lie and say "No" or tell the truth and say "Yes"? I see three likely responses: 1)You should tell the truth and say "Yes", because the truth is more important than human life and there is a chance (though tiny) that the truth will not be believed. 2)You should lie and say "No", in which case it is not necessarily wrong or irrational to lie, which is the position I take. 3)You should say "No", but it is not a lie because the judgement of "wrongness" is imbedded in the word "lying." If this is the case then we have only discovered something only about 99Percent's definition, not about objective reality. I will end with a quote: "Lying is so obviously rational in so many cases that the Randite dogma that it is not is as ludicrous as scientific creationism." - Larry Hamelin

08-25-2002, 08:46 PM	#5
excreationist Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2000 Location: Australia Posts: 4,886	99Percent: Could you define what murder is? Is it the killing of people in general? If so, then executions, suicide and defending invading armies involves murder... Or is it the unlawful killing of someone? i.e. killing someone for whatever reason (including a justifiable one) and being convicted in court of murder? Or is it the immoral killing of someone? Then that means it has been defined as being immoral... Do you have a definition that makes it easy to tell if something definitely is or definitely isn't murder?

08-25-2002, 08:53 PM	#6
Scorpion Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Finland Posts: 915	Furthermore, all potential or actual negative consequences in 99Percent's examples are brought about by other human beings, whose actions are determined by their moral values. The society must condemn murder or there will be no negative consequences whatsoever. I can see how we can get to intersubjective morality from here, but I don't see objective morality coming up anywhere in this discussion even if the points made by 99Percent were agreed upon? -S-

08-26-2002, 07:03 PM	#7
99Percent Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2001 Location: my mind Posts: 5,996	K: First, with respect to lying. Lying is perfectly rational in many situations. I think it's trivial to imagine cases where the consequence of getting caught telling a lie is far less than the gain from telling it. It may not be "moral" to tell the lie, but it's clearly rational. Consequentialism. If you knew what the consequences of your actions would be with certainty you would not need to have any morals to begin with. There are also other cases where I (and probably most others) would consider lying moral even though it wouldn't be obviously rational. For an extreme example, consider the German citizens that lied to hide Jews from the Nazis. Was that objectively immoral because they could always be discovered resulting in the death of everyone involved? The-Jews-in-the-attic argument again. We are talking about free will. If you are faced with immediate death or physical harm caused by the initiating of violence of someone else (in this case the Nazis) you don't have the free will and therefore no morality involved. You have to lie. Much like a person pointing a gun at me, I don't have much choice on what I do or say. I believe that morals are human names given to the instincts we have that allow us to live together in societies. I don't think they can be said to have objective values. Then according to you, there is no moral responsibility at all. pug846: There are a lot of cases under which the chances of getting caught are so minimal, as to not to be taken seriously. There are other cases which even if you are caught lying, you won�t be punished or you have a convenient excuse to get out of the situation. Again consequentialism. If you knew the consequences of your actions there would be no need for morals. You are assuming that you know off hand the full consequences of lying which is impossible. That is why we adopt morals, because we cannot predict the future. At the cash register at the local grocery store, the clerk gives you a $100 bill instead of a $10 bill. You happen to glance down and notice that as you put it in your wallet. By not telling the clerk the truth and asking for the correct change, you�re lying. It�s obviously trivially true that having $100 bill instead of $10 bill is more in your own self-interest. However, the odds of the clerk realizing her mistake are exceptionally small. Further, even if she did realize her mistake, she has no way of knowing that you knew the change was incorrect. Even if she suspects that you did know, she has no way of proving it and you know you will probably never see her again. This not really lying. What is happening here is that I would be assuming that the clerk is a stupid person. In effect she is commiting a stupid mistake and I am taking advantage of it here. The clerk will realize her mistake at the end of the day and will have to pay from her own pocket the difference. But if a clerk commits those kinds of mistakes should she be still working as a clerk? Granted I am admitting there is could be nothing morally wrong here except that you might think you can gain more from everybody else's stupidity, which is dangerous thinking IMO. You show up to class (10 minutes late if you�re like me and have time issues). You notice on the board that your homework is due. You haven�t done it, but you know it would only take 5 minutes to complete. You tell the teacher that you left it in your dorm room and you�d like to go back and get it. She agrees. You run back to your dorm room, sit down at your desk, and complete the assignment. You then bring it to class and turn it in on time. You didn�t lose the letter grade that you normally would have lost. The professor has no way of knowing that you just completed the assignment and would have no way of finding that out. The teacher could still find out multiple ways. But the one who is lied to is yourself. You feel you got away with it easily, and you will not pay attention to the due dates of homework as much. Sooner or later you will miss not doing a more time consuming homework and you will lose. Both of these cases it�s clearly in your own rational self-interest to lie. Is there a .00000001% chance that something might go wrong? Of course. But anything you do has a small chance of ending horribly for you. And how can you objectively quantify what the chances are of something going wrong? Again that is why we need morals. tronvillain: Perhaps you have never heard of the concept of "acceptable risk"? Quite frequently, the chance for a positive outcome outweighs the risk of a negative outcome, whether we are getting into a car or telling a lie. There is a big difference between the risk of say getting into a car and telling a lie. Getting into a car is an action that involves just yourself. Telling a lie involves more than yourself. It is going against the truth of another moral being. Is it wrong to lie to the Nazis about the Jews hiding in your attic? I dealt with this scenario several times before already. Please see my response to K. excreationist: Could you define what murder is? We are discussing murder done by the initiation of violence by someone who has intent. ie, unprovoked murder. Do you have a definition that makes it easy to tell if something definitely is or definitely isn't murder? It isn't murder in cases of self-defense. Or in cases where one didn't have a choice in the matter - say if you point a gun at me and tell me I have to kill person X. Or a soldier who is forced to fight the unseen enemy or face martial court. Scorpion: Furthermore, all potential or actual negative consequences in 99Percent's examples are brought about by other human beings, whose actions are determined by their moral values. Well yeah, other human beings that are being affected directly by the lies commited. The society must condemn murder or there will be no negative consequences whatsoever. Society can (and must condemn murder) much like you do so yourself. The question is how does society reach the conclusion that it is wrong? Through religious moral code? (Then other religious commandments should be followed too and who dictates them?), Through consensus? Then society could impose moral codes at whim - say prostitution, drug use, etc. Or through reason - establishing it as objectively wrong.

08-27-2002, 02:51 AM	#8
excreationist Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2000 Location: Australia Posts: 4,886	99Percent: I think the word "murder" is used by a society to describe killings that are crimes. i.e. the word is always used by societies to describe things that are wrong. If the society used the word murder to describe killings that it did approve of, then it would seem arbitrary for it to punish some who commit murders while approving of others - while calling both acts "murder". BTW, is aborting a foetus that was conceived a week ago murder? Is aborting a week old foetus against the mother's will murder? What about if it was conceived 95 days ago? Is killing a smart chimp murder? Is there a definition that can distinguish between "manslaughter" and "murder"? [ August 27, 2002: Message edited by: excreationist ]</p>

08-27-2002, 05:53 AM	#9
K Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: Chicago Posts: 1,485	99Percent: I never said that the consequences of the action were known with certainty. I talked about the RISK of being caught. There is no risk if the outcome is certain. Humans evaluate the likely consequences of their actions all the time. Maybe my point could be illustrated more clearly with an example. Neither my wife nor myself do a lot of cooking. Occasionally though, she likes to surprise me by making a big dinner. It's almost always very good. But, every once in a while it won't turn out right. Now I know that she's put a lot of effort into making it and that she's done it only to surprise me. The way I see it, I've got two choices. Truth: "Thanks for dinner, but this is the worst tasting thing I've eaten since you accidentally burned the lasagna two years ago." Lie: "Thanks for dinner, this is really great. I think I'll have seconds." Now in this situation, I would subconsciously make the following evaluation. Likely benefit of lying - I would spare my wife's feelings. Likely benefit of telling the truth - I wouldn't have to eat something I don't like. Odds of getting caught lying - very slim Likely outcome if I am caught - my wife's feelings would still be hurt, but PROBABLY less than if I'd told the truth. Since I value my wife's feeling much more than not eating something I dislike, I would say that lying in this case is perfectly rational. As for the Jews-in-the-attic argument, I don't believe you have really addressed the point. Certainly the personal threat from the Nazis is there. But that threat disappears if you tell the TRUTH and lead them to the attic. You may argue that it is irrational to lie and put yourself in danger. I would counter that if you value protecting the innocent more than your own life, you've made a perfectly rational decision to lie. You're right that I don't believe in moral responsibility in an objective sense. I do believe that we have evolved the instinct to hold people morally responsible in a practical sense in order for society to function.

08-27-2002, 09:39 AM	#10
99Percent Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2001 Location: my mind Posts: 5,996	excreationist: I think the word "murder" is used by a society to describe killings that are crimes. i.e. the word is always used by societies to describe things that are wrong. If the society used the word murder to describe killings that it did approve of, then it would seem arbitrary for it to punish some who commit murders while approving of others - while calling both acts "murder". Agreed, but the question arises - how does society adopt when a killing is a murder or not. Does it arrive through consensus, or through reason? or both? BTW, is aborting a foetus that was conceived a week ago murder? No. Is aborting a week old foetus against the mother's will murder? No. But it is still morally reprehensible since you are transgressing the body of another human being against her wishes. What about if it was conceived 95 days ago? Still no, but as the pregnancy advances you have to ask yourself if the woman is being responsible about it if she decides to abort after all. Once pregnancy is visible and the baby is born, it becomes an issue of parental responsibility more than about murder I think. Is killing a smart chimp murder? No, because a chimp is an animal. Is there a definition that can distinguish between "manslaughter" and "murder"? Manslaughter is a lack of acting responsibly without any actual intent to murder. A person who commits manslaughter is put to jail not so much because of the murder but because he is a menace to society due to his negligence. K: I never said that the consequences of the action were known with certainty. I talked about the RISK of being caught. There is no risk if the outcome is certain. So you do know the consequence of your action (lying) if the outcome is "certain". But do you realize you aren't making sense? You can never be certain of any outcome - and that is why you need morals. Humans evaluate the likely consequences of their actions all the time. Maybe my point could be illustrated more clearly with an example. True, but no human knows what the consequences of his actions are. Your opinion on your wife's cooking example is typical of a white lie. Lies that appear to be harmless and trivial, but are they really? Lets look at it carefully. What you love about your wife is not her cooking but the fact that she surprised you and that she put a lot of effort in the surprise. You can still state that the cooking is awful but that you love her anyway for the surprise. Likely benefit of lying - I would spare my wife's feelings. Of which you don't really know what they are. You can only feel your own feelings. Likely benefit of telling the truth - I wouldn't have to eat something I don't like. And maintain an honest relationship. Odds of getting caught lying - very slim Assuming that your wife is very stupid. Likely outcome if I am caught - my wife's feelings would still be hurt, but PROBABLY less than if I'd told the truth Again you are still assuming she is stupid. She could get even more hurt because she realizes that you thought she was stupid with the first lie. Since I value my wife's feeling much more than not eating something I dislike, I would say that lying in this case is perfectly rational. I have to say it is bizarre "rationalization" based on the perceived feelings of others, of which you cannot feel yourself. As for the Jews-in-the-attic argument, I don't believe you have really addressed the point. Certainly the personal threat from the Nazis is there. But that threat disappears if you tell the TRUTH and lead them to the attic. You could tell the truth or tell a lie, it doesn't matter. The point is that it is no longer a moral issue because of the threat of death involved, there is no free will. You may argue that it is irrational to lie and put yourself in danger. I would counter that if you value protecting the innocent more than your own life, you've made a perfectly rational decision to lie. Like the wife cooking example, you a decision based on subjective values can never be rational.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.