Yes you can find it on Ceasar's FaceBook page.AverageBozo wrote: ↑November 24th, 2021, 7:53 pmDid you know that the idea for PayPal came from William Shakespeare’s “Julius Caesar” in the original Latin?LuckyR wrote: ↑November 24th, 2021, 2:35 pmReally? So here's my question to you, what is your PayPal username and password?AverageBozo wrote: ↑November 24th, 2021, 9:03 amYea, if asked a direct question I withhold information that would directly answer the question, that is usually intentional. However, there are some who unintentionally are not intelligent enough to properly answer a question. I would call that ignorance rather than deceit.
Lying for Altruism
- Sculptor1
- Posts: 7096
- Joined: May 16th, 2019, 5:35 am
Re: Lying for Altruism
-
- Posts: 502
- Joined: May 11th, 2021, 11:20 am
Re: Lying for Altruism
Yea, there is a difference in the means of lying, however the intent to deceive would be present in either case.Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑November 24th, 2021, 10:17 amYes ... but perhaps not in all circumstances. In general, yes. All IMO, of course.
-
- Posts: 502
- Joined: May 11th, 2021, 11:20 am
Re: Lying for Altruism
I only meant to reference those places where you suggested a response, e.g. by the parent or by the friend, that you characterized as not being untruthful. I took these as suggestions for responding.Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑November 24th, 2021, 10:20 amI don't recognise that in my memory of what I wrote. Can you give an example of an untruth I wrote, or of something I wrote that is intended to mislead?AverageBozo wrote: ↑November 22nd, 2021, 2:31 pm PC’s various suggested replies, while practical, are actually untruths in the sense that they are intended to deflect for the sake of misleading someone.
I did not mean to put words in your mouth. I apologize for doing so.
- LuckyR
- Moderator
- Posts: 7940
- Joined: January 18th, 2015, 1:16 am
Re: Lying for Altruism
I do agree with you that the intent is much more important than the transcript of the conversation.AverageBozo wrote: ↑November 27th, 2021, 4:58 pmYea, there is a difference in the means of lying, however the intent to deceive would be present in either case.Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑November 24th, 2021, 10:17 amYes ... but perhaps not in all circumstances. In general, yes. All IMO, of course.
- Leontiskos
- Posts: 695
- Joined: July 20th, 2021, 11:27 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Aristotle and Aquinas
Re: Lying for Altruism
I think Kant was basically right. Communication itself is for the purpose of telling what one believes to be true. Violate that and you've undermined the very essence of communication.Steve3007 wrote: ↑November 23rd, 2021, 6:47 am I we were to regard communication in a purely functional way then we'd judge our communications purely in terms of the extent to which they're likely to further our goals. In that case, the question of whether the communication contained factually true or false statements would be a secondary consideration. If the goal was to impart factual information, then the secondary consideration would always coincide with the primary one. But if the goal was, for example, to make someone happy, then it wouldn't necessarily coincide.
With regard to your first point, communication itself is the primary goal. "Function" must always be secondary. Any function that you dream up presupposes the goal of communication, including things like language conventions and objective lexicons. If you turn to a function that is parasitic on communication itself, you are engaged in a form of self-contradiction.
Similarly, people aren't made happy by being lied to. If they ask a question, they are expecting an honest answer (true communication). If the wife asks about how a dress looks, she is at least to some extent wondering about the objective reality of the appearance of the dress. If you lie to her and provide her with delusional happiness, it will come back to haunt you when she walks out in front of thousands of people with a large hole in the backside of her dress.
Socrates: He's like that, Hippias, not refined. He's garbage, he cares about nothing but the truth.
-
- Posts: 2138
- Joined: May 9th, 2012, 3:13 pm
Re: Lying for Altruism
I hate to argue with Kant, but since he isn't around any more perhaps I stand a better chance in the debate. Communication often serves purposes other than telling what one believes to be true. I doubt that Shelley ever met "A traveller from an antique land, who said, 'two vast and trunkless legs of stone stand in the desert...." But what poetry lover would wish that he had never written "Ozymandias"? Herodotus, the father of history, is also called "the father of lies", because, along with other Greek historians, he invented speeches that famous people might have made and inserted them into his histories. I often wish modern historians would do the same, if they could write speeches as well as Herodotus.Leontiskos wrote: ↑December 24th, 2021, 2:27 am
I think Kant was basically right. Communication itself is for the purpose of telling what one believes to be true. Violate that and you've undermined the very essence of communication.
Mark Twain (well, that's a lie, I mean Samuel Clemens) supposedly said, "Show me a man who don't lie, and I'll show you a man who ain't got much to say." I have no idea if he REALLY ever said that -- but who cares? It's something he could have said, it's illustrative of his wit and character, and it shows some wisdom about the value of lying and fiction. The quote is a good one, whether or not Clemens said it.
- Leontiskos
- Posts: 695
- Joined: July 20th, 2021, 11:27 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Aristotle and Aquinas
Re: Lying for Altruism
Poetry is just a different form of communication. It isn't non-communication and it isn't a form of lying.Ecurb wrote: ↑December 24th, 2021, 10:45 am I hate to argue with Kant, but since he isn't around any more perhaps I stand a better chance in the debate. Communication often serves purposes other than telling what one believes to be true. I doubt that Shelley ever met "A traveller from an antique land, who said, 'two vast and trunkless legs of stone stand in the desert...." But what poetry lover would wish that he had never written "Ozymandias"? Herodotus, the father of history, is also called "the father of lies", because, along with other Greek historians, he invented speeches that famous people might have made and inserted them into his histories. I often wish modern historians would do the same, if they could write speeches as well as Herodotus.
Yes, most people lie. Humans are pretty crappy.Mark Twain (well, that's a lie, I mean Samuel Clemens) supposedly said, "Show me a man who don't lie, and I'll show you a man who ain't got much to say." I have no idea if he REALLY ever said that -- but who cares? It's something he could have said, it's illustrative of his wit and character, and it shows some wisdom about the value of lying and fiction. The quote is a good one, whether or not Clemens said it.
Socrates: He's like that, Hippias, not refined. He's garbage, he cares about nothing but the truth.
-
- Posts: 2138
- Joined: May 9th, 2012, 3:13 pm
Re: Lying for Altruism
Humans may be pretty crappy, but not because they occasionally stretch the truth in search of a good yarn to make the lives of their companions a little more fun. Would we prefer it if Shakespeare had refrained from making up Marc Anthony's "Friends, Romans, Countrymen" speech? I mean, Anthony didn't even speak English, so it's all a lie.
No stories are the whole truth. All offer only one perspective. All mention some things and delete others. If the search for the truth is in vain anyway, why not spice things up a bit?
-
- Posts: 2138
- Joined: May 9th, 2012, 3:13 pm
Re: Lying for Altruism
When you begin to justify some forms of lying, you cannot make blanket condemnations of lying in general.
- Leontiskos
- Posts: 695
- Joined: July 20th, 2021, 11:27 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Aristotle and Aquinas
Re: Lying for Altruism
A lie is an assertion contra mentem. It is when you assert something as true which you believe to be false.Ecurb wrote: ↑December 24th, 2021, 12:54 pm One more thing: if you write, "I met a traveler from an antique land who said....." and you never met such a traveler, how is that not a lie? YOu say, "poetry is a different form of communication". But what does that mean? Does it suggest that lies are justified if they are made more entertaining by rhymes and rhythms? If so, what about "tall tales", or embellished stories? Do they qualify as a "different form of communication"?
When you begin to justify some forms of lying, you cannot make blanket condemnations of lying in general.
A work of fiction is not something asserted as true. Nor is a joke. Nor is a tall tale.
So yes, not all forms of communication are assertive, but moralists like Kant are primarily concerned with those acts which directly impugn truthfulness, i.e. lies.
Socrates: He's like that, Hippias, not refined. He's garbage, he cares about nothing but the truth.
-
- Posts: 2138
- Joined: May 9th, 2012, 3:13 pm
Re: Lying for Altruism
- Leontiskos
- Posts: 695
- Joined: July 20th, 2021, 11:27 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Aristotle and Aquinas
Re: Lying for Altruism
Yeah, it is a blurry line in some cases. Kant would say that you can't lie to the Gestapo, but that you should do something other than tell them where the Jews are. This is where things like "mental reservations" come into play (although a large portion of mental reservations would be considered inadmissible by stricter moralists like Kant).Ecurb wrote: ↑December 24th, 2021, 2:00 pm I get it, but the line is blurry. Tall tales are often assertive -- they are first person stories about adventures that may be half true, but exaggerated for effect. I'm not aware of Kant's position -- but what about the Gestapo example? The person being questioned can either lie ("I don't know"), rat out the Jews, or refuse to tell (in which case he will be tortured). Surely you don't advocate that he tell the truth, do you?
Socrates: He's like that, Hippias, not refined. He's garbage, he cares about nothing but the truth.
-
- Posts: 2138
- Joined: May 9th, 2012, 3:13 pm
Re: Lying for Altruism
I (like many others) disagree in the case of the Gestapo -- but I also disagree in the case of the fabulist, the story-teller, and the entertainer. Let's take as an example a memoir writer. Which is more important to the reader -- an entertaining, enlightening memoir, or a factually acurate one? The memoir (unlike the novel) is supposedly non-fiction, but if the memoirist alters the story for dramatic effect, isn't he doing a favor to the reader? The reader doesn't care if the memoir is "true" -- the reader cares if it is enlightening, or entertaining, or enjoyable. Whom has the memoirist harmed by making up a few scenes for dramatic effect? And if he hasn't harmed anyone, in what way is the lie immoral?
In addition, the promise to "tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth" is impossible. The "whole truth" is not available from any one point of view. So the memoirist is always picking and choosing based on the story he wants to tell, and the story he thinks his readers want to hear.
Kant would probably claim that the memoirist who twists the fact has harmed hiself, by failing to fulfill a duty of honesty. But whence the duty? Kant might think it a duty, but other people might not. Obviously, some lies are clearly iimmoral. Bearing false witness is proscribed by the Ten Commandments, and is a sin against honor (if someone swears to tell the truth). Kant (it seems) thinks that any lie is a sin against honor -- and that may be true for him, but not for me, not for Mark Twain, and not for those others who reject the universal prohibition against lying.
- LuckyR
- Moderator
- Posts: 7940
- Joined: January 18th, 2015, 1:16 am
Re: Lying for Altruism
I agree completely. There is no "duty" to tell the truth to those who have not earned that right (such as the Gestapo).Ecurb wrote: ↑December 24th, 2021, 4:43 pm A quick glance through the internets shows that Kant's universal distaste for lying is highly controversial. Most philosophers think it does not derive from the categorical imperative, and that lying is morally acceptable in many circumstances. Utilitarians, for example, think that the morality of lying can be judged by the result of the lie. Kant seems to think (I know nothing about this except a ten minute search) that lying is a "duty" because lying corrupts the liar, and because it corrupts the dignity of others to make choices based on true information.
I (like many others) disagree in the case of the Gestapo -- but I also disagree in the case of the fabulist, the story-teller, and the entertainer. Let's take as an example a memoir writer. Which is more important to the reader -- an entertaining, enlightening memoir, or a factually acurate one? The memoir (unlike the novel) is supposedly non-fiction, but if the memoirist alters the story for dramatic effect, isn't he doing a favor to the reader? The reader doesn't care if the memoir is "true" -- the reader cares if it is enlightening, or entertaining, or enjoyable. Whom has the memoirist harmed by making up a few scenes for dramatic effect? And if he hasn't harmed anyone, in what way is the lie immoral?
In addition, the promise to "tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth" is impossible. The "whole truth" is not available from any one point of view. So the memoirist is always picking and choosing based on the story he wants to tell, and the story he thinks his readers want to hear.
Kant would probably claim that the memoirist who twists the fact has harmed hiself, by failing to fulfill a duty of honesty. But whence the duty? Kant might think it a duty, but other people might not. Obviously, some lies are clearly iimmoral. Bearing false witness is proscribed by the Ten Commandments, and is a sin against honor (if someone swears to tell the truth). Kant (it seems) thinks that any lie is a sin against honor -- and that may be true for him, but not for me, not for Mark Twain, and not for those others who reject the universal prohibition against lying.
- Terrapin Station
- Posts: 6227
- Joined: August 23rd, 2016, 3:00 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Bertrand Russell and WVO Quine
- Location: NYC Man
Re: Lying for Altruism
2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month
Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023
Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023