Poll
3 votes (10.34%) | |||
3 votes (10.34%) | |||
10 votes (34.48%) | |||
3 votes (10.34%) | |||
2 votes (6.89%) | |||
8 votes (27.58%) |
29 members have voted
So, the question for the forum is at what point does lying become morally justifiable.
For the second option, consider the situation in the movie Inglourious Basterds, where a farmer is hiding a Jewish family in a secret room under his house. The German police ask if you know where the particular family is. Do you lie?
For the third option, consdier embelishing a resume falsely, or in trying to charm somebody you are attracted to by overstating your wealth, or understating your age. In other words, a situation where lying is frequently done.
For the fourth option, consider a game situation, like Golden Balls, where money is involved, and lying is specifically allowed.
For the fifth option, consider a game like Risk or Diplomacy. You make a truce, and then break it.
In games where lying is part of the game, how do you expect to win if you aren't willing to lie. Poker players make a living off of lying and playing a deceptive game, and if everyone in Risk held true to their truces, the game would never end or would end in a tie. Who the hell wants to play for a tie?
Quote: Wizard
So, the question for the forum is at what point does lying become morally justifiable.
This statement implies that lying is generally not morally justifiable / immoral. While I can respect that as a personal truth, I think that the reason behind this thinking is a very important factor for each individual to make a decision about when the "point" of moral justifiability is reached.
There might be social, philosophical, spiritual, religious, etc. considerations behind the opinion that lying is immoral. Or it might just be so common as a belief that it is never even questioned. I think the latter is true for many people, and while they may support the statement that lying is immoral, this will not affect their everyday decisions to lie.
From a social and philosphical point of view, I would argue that a generalization about the morality or immorality of the conecpt "lie" is very hard to support. In other words, a lie in and of itself is neither moral nor immoral.
What do people think about sales situations. For example, everyone knows car salesmen are lying. Is it immoral when they do? Or because we all know the "game" do sales negotiations fall within the "game with money" scenario?
and they are incapable of being immoral. Some creatures
use deception to lure their innocent prey into thinking
everything is fine. But when humans do that, its considered
immoral because we planned it and can control it.
Morality is a slippery slope. We throw it overboard in
times of war and act like it doesn't exist. Sociopaths have
no morals and seem fine with it. And people lie about
small things all day long, we even lie to ourselves.
If it gets you what you want and doesn't outright injure
someone else, most people are fine with lying. Morality
is just social structure that lets us all get along without
killing each other. Its a human construct, it doesn't really
exist except as an abstract idea.
However, there is a line where deception to win a game crosses into, "not in the best interest of the game". An example of this would be two or more players soft playing each other at a poker table in order to take out a third party. So, as long as it is in the rules, and in the spirit of the competition, (note that this is different than, "not specifically prohibited"), I don't think there is a problem.
As for Golden Balls, I requested that the PM privacy ban be lifted for the purposes of the game, but only final selections were allowed to be shared. If all communiction was going to be made public, I wonder if it would have made a difference in player's strategies, and ultimately, the outcome?
Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.
someone else, most people are fine with lying."
Works for me !
However, to help us decipher how to respond to the often complex moral scenarios the Wizard posed we have to make sure we understand what a lie is. "To lie is to speak or act against the truth in order to lead into error someone who has the right to know the truth." Catechism #2483 (First edition) This definition along with the paragraph right before it, which says, "A lie consists in speaking a falsehood with the intention of deceiving" helps us to see more precisely what is a lie and what is not.
Not only could one speak a falsehood if they mentally did not have the intention of deceiving, in Catholic Moral Theology this is often called mental reservation, but one could also speak against the truth to someone who had no right to know the truth. For example, if evil men come seeking the death of someone hidden in our home and ask, "Is he here?" One could mentally complete their question by adding in their minds, "Is he here, so that I can kill him?" The truthful response is, "No, he is not here." again adding as an unsaid mental reservation, "No, he is not here so you can kill him." You could also speak untruth to a thug who does not have the right to know if said person is in your home or not.
In a card game or a game of Golden Balls, part of the game is to not let other know your strategy or your cards, meaning they do not have a right to know the truth about your bluff, so you can act or speak against the truth in this matter.
Remember there is a reason why the devil is called the father of lies, dishonesty and lying properly understood is serious stuff.
Question: "Honey, does this dress make me look fat?"
Answer: "Not at all..."
Unsaid mental reservation: "its not the dress making you look fat" or a more positive reservation, "nothing could ever make you look less beautiful in my eyes"
Quote: FrGamble
However, to help us decipher how to respond to the often complex moral scenarios the Wizard posed we have to make sure we understand what a lie is. "To lie is to speak or act against the truth in order to lead into error someone who has the right to know the truth." Catechism #2483 (First edition) This definition along with the paragraph right before it, which says, "A lie consists in speaking a falsehood with the intention of deceiving" helps us to see more precisely what is a lie and what is not.
Not only could one speak a falsehood if they mentally did not have the intention of deceiving, in Catholic Moral Theology this is often called mental reservation, but one could also speak against the truth to someone who had no right to know the truth. For example, if evil men come seeking the death of someone hidden in our home and ask, "Is he here?" One could mentally complete their question by adding in their minds, "Is he here, so that I can kill him?" The truthful response is, "No, he is not here." again adding as an unsaid mental reservation, "No, he is not here so you can kill him." You could also speak untruth to a thug who does not have the right to know if said person is in your home or not.
I like the Father's way of thinking.
I also like that this thread is here, and not on DT.
Further, I never specifically said I would share in the final round, and specifically did deny having control over whether or not we would share!!
Quote: FrGamble"To lie is to speak or act against the truth in order to lead into error someone who has the right to know the truth."
I thought that Christians were not supposed to be judgmental. However, this policy invites judging whether or not somebody else has the right to know the truth. It would be easy to think of everybody else is a simpleton who "can't handle the truth" and must be lied to for their own protection. I find this doctrine condescending.
Quote: FrGambleQuestion: "Honey, does this dress make me look fat?"
Answer: "Not at all..."
No wonder I have so few husbanding points. If I think the dress makes her look fat, I'll say so, but only if asked. If you don't want my opinion, don't ask for it.
Quote:... could mentally complete their question by adding in their minds, "Is he here, so that I can kill him?"
This also strikes me as elitism -- answering a different question than was asked, because you are allowed to twist the rules about what is a truthful response. I would have more respect for the answer "no," if it was justified as the lesser of two evils.
Try to go a day without lying.. how funny would that be catching yourselve. A must see movie is 'The invention of lying' with Ricky Gervais. Very funny!
As part of the human race, we have the ability to communicate like no other species...thus allowing us the option to lie. I believe that we are the superior race and part of living in a civilized society mandates social morality. We have feelings , emotions, intelligence, and choice. Wtih this comes a responsibility to do the right thing. 'Do unto others as you wish to have done unto you'.... just sayin. If its not harming anyone and its being done for the greater purpose , then I say, If you aint lyin then you aint tryin!
Example:
1) Wizard meets me at a bar where he proceeds to get wasted. I steal Wizard's keys enlight of his intoxication. The end of the night comes and wizard asks me if I have seen his keys, And I say nope. Wizard calls a cab. The intent was good the result was good.
2 )Wizard meets me at a bar where he proceeds to get wasted. I steal Wizard's keys enlight of his intoxication. The end of the night comes and wizard asks me if I have seen his keys, And I say nope. Wizard calls a cab. The cab arrives extremely late and Wizard misses meeting up with his wife due to the cab being late. The Wizard's wife gets pissed and divorces him. The intent was good the result was not so good. In both examples the lie is justifiable even though example 2 has a negative outcome.
3 )Wizard meets me at a bar where he proceeds to get wasted. Wizard in his intoxicated state drops his wallet on the floor which is packed full of cash meant for the sports book, and I pick it up. The end of the nite arrives and wizard asks me if I know where his wallet is? I say nope. Clearly this is not a justifiable lie.
The wizards above post about not being able to handle the truth Reminds me of one of my favorite things to say. (Don't ask me questions you might not want to know the answer to.) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UXoNE14U_zM
Edit: I almost forgot. When people enter into a game/contest where it's understood there will be deception, lying is always justified.
"
I have mellowed in my old age. In younger days my reply to such a question was usually " Is the circus in town ? "
The essence of morality is judgement. Making use of our God given intellect and a properly formed conscience to make a judgement as to how you should act. Yes you could very well abuse the idea of mental reservation or you could try to convince yourself that nobody can handle the truth except for yourself, but then it seems like you would fall victim to the sin of pride and be acting immoral in another way. The moral life all hangs together and you can't just tease out a formal definition of lying and forget about all the other moral principles that support and undergird the responsibility to be honest.
Quote: FrGambleFirst of all it is obvious that morality is not a subjective social construct invented to keep us from killing one another.
Is the universe a moral place? Is there morality
in nature? Morality is like good manners, its
the grease that keeps society running smoothly and stops
us from killing each other.
Its obviously a man made invention, and you can't
prove otherwise. You can't prove morality exists
except as an abstract idea.
Quote: AlanMendelsonSo is the Wizard really a wizard?
Based on his .700+ ATS NFL picks this season, yes.
Quote: AyecarumbaBased on his .700+ ATS NFL picks this season, yes.
I Have been doing some investigation into the true identity of this Wizard character. And after seeing his NFL stats I believe his true identity to be Billy Walters.
Quote: rainmanI Have been doing some investigation into the true identity of this Wizard character. And after seeing his NFL stats I believe his true identity to be Billy Walters.
It was mostly luck. I'll explain my strategy, which is quite simple, once the contest is over, it is mathematically impossible to lose, or all those who still have a chance concede.
Quote: WizardIt was mostly luck. I'll explain my strategy, which is quite simple, once the contest is over, it is mathematically impossible to lose, or all those who still have a chance concede.
I will be waiting and looking forward to it
In other cases it's immoral, even if others do it too. Of course it's up to everyone to decide for themselves how immoral they allow their actions to get.
Quote: P90Lying is not immoral 1) to hostiles, 2) in games that explicitly make lies an element of the game
In other cases it's immoral, even if others do it too.
Do you consider that an axiom you chose for yourself, or can you elaborate why it is immoral?
Quote: CanyoneroDo you consider that an axiom you chose for yourself, or can you elaborate why it is immoral?
To act morally is to act in accordance with the interests and policies of the sets, up to the broadest ones, that you reasonably identify with. Family, community, nation, humanity, the biosphere, the universe; a simpler term is "the common good".
The widespread ethical policies against lying stem from the fact that lies degrade the signal:noise ratio of communications. Thus, insofar as we consider communications between non-hostiles to contribute to the common good, degrading them acts against the common interest or policy, and thus does not constitute moral behavior.
Quote: P90Quote: CanyoneroDo you consider that an axiom you chose for yourself, or can you elaborate why it is immoral?
To act morally is to act in accordance with the interests and policies of the sets, up to the broadest ones, that you reasonably identify with. Family, community, nation, humanity, the biosphere, the universe; a simpler term is "the common good".
The widespread ethical policies against lying stem from the fact that lies degrade the signal:noise ratio of communications. Thus, insofar as we consider communications between non-hostiles to contribute to the common good, degrading them acts against the common interest or policy, and thus does not constitute moral behavior.
Interesting point. I am not convinced however that the labels "truth" or "lie" necessarily change the quality of communication in any way. Also, I fail to see how any "non-hostile" communication inherently contributes to the common good. Still, thanks for your reply, gives me somehting to think about.
Acceptable answers that do not include a lie would be 'no I won't answer that question'. If we grew up with this answer on a continuous basis it would not illicit any worse response than a lie.
The problem is that once we start to lie than every person and culture makes their own rules about when it is acceptable. This means that every response we receive must be run through our own personal 'is it a lie filter'. Since this filter is far from perfect the world is a much poorer place because of the lie.
Quote: AlanMendelsonSo is the Wizard really a wizard?
Here is your answer : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Angelini
In a game, it is ok if it is part of the rules. Generally, lies are probably never moral because they are like energy feeding other human weakness for all such as stealing, murder, sexual affairs, more lies. You can't get everyone to stop, so it just continues feeding. In cases where people are expected to tell the truth, there always should be consequences for lying.
Quote: EvenBobIs the universe a moral place? Is there morality
in nature? Morality is like good manners, its
the grease that keeps society running smoothly and stops
us from killing each other.
Its obviously a man made invention, and you can't
prove otherwise. You can't prove morality exists
except as an abstract idea.
Pretty sure you will find it in a bee colony. Different species have been known to help each other when help is needed.
You wouldn't be much of hero for not lying.
An Apache would not lie. He might stake you out on an anthill, but he would not lie.
> The German police ask if you know where the particular family is. Do you lie?
A body of armed soldiers has an effect all its own.
>consdier embelishing a resume falsely, or in trying to charm somebody you are attracted to by overstating your wealth,
Frequently done, yes, but an American wound up in a Saudi Arabian prison for lying on his resume. Though often omitting a day but stating the month of employment can be an embellishment by omission. Its almost as if not embellishing a resume would be absurd. Perhaps it would be even more absurd to enter a singles bar and tell the truth.
>For the fourth option, consider a game situation, like Golden Balls, where money is involved, and lying is specifically allowed.
Versus poker where it is optional? I recall one game wherein a player was very loose: he announced he was betting in the dark, not having looked at his cards and then after he looked he saw he had been dealt aces and there were two aces on the flop. So he told the truth when he was expected to lie and one player actually complained to the dealer as if it were against the rules to be truthful.
>For the fifth option, consider a game like Risk or Diplomacy. You make a truce, and then break it.
Heck, two barely literate longshoremen predicted during world war two that the US and Russia would soon be mortal enemies, one philosopher challenged them since he could see no reason at all why this would be. The barely literate longshoremen simply replied "Did you ever watch little boys play King of the Hill"? Games and the real world? Lying and the real world? Not always so separate.
Quote: onenickelmiraclePretty sure you will find it in a bee colony..
Morality is a conscious decision, not an instinct. If it
was an instinct, whats there to applaud about it.
Nobody applauds a mother for feeding her baby,
its her instinct to do that.
Quote: onenickelmiracleYou might also want to look into elephants EB. They are pretty amazing creatures.
Women are like elephants. I like to look at 'em, but I wouldn't want to own one.
W. C. Fields
Quote: WizardAt what point does lying become morally justifiable.
Only after you have figured out the truth, which isn't likely to happen with a bunch of games. Plain silly to bother with lying otherwise.
Quote: BuzzardWomen are like elephants. I like to look at 'em, but I wouldn't want to own one. W. C. Fields
Fields' problem... he wouldn't want to OWN one.
So, generally, lying is not less justifiable than any behaviour. Morals is just a convenient behaviour control exerted by the group/the powerful/the manipulators (pick your choice). In the end, it is always a means to an end. And that determines what is justifiable.
Yeah, I know, it sounds like Trotsky. But, hey, the guy was brilliant!