Sulphur on 27/9/2011 at 18:10
Sure, I lie when necessary, when it'll smoothen out the creases or when it just plain makes sense from a Darwinian perspective applied to any/all contexts. Who wouldn't, unless they were stoopid?
When it comes to normal situations though, I'm pretty much the guy who tells it to your face, and bluntly. I don't believe in making nice and agreeing with something because it's the easiest thing for you or me to do, and I don't believe in painting pretty pictures only to have them shatter later when the truth hits you like a baseball crashing through stained glass.
Aerothorn on 27/9/2011 at 20:15
Man, I hate get down and dirty with this, but I think your "it's obvious innit" argument needs a LOT of expansion, Sulphur.
Basically:
1. "I lie when necessary." When is it necessary? This is one of those really, really big questions (that the aformentioned book spends a ridiculous amount of time on) that is far from cut and dry. Just for kicks I may drag in some quotes later, but only once we get deeper.
2. "When it makes sense from a Darwinian perspective." So (sorry for any heteronormalcy here) you'll lie to any and all women if it will increase your chances of impregnating them? This seems like a pretty weak explanation. Social darwinism is, as we all know, a slippery slope.
3. "Who wouldn't, unless they were stupid?" I don't know quite how to explain this, but ethics isn't about intelligence. It's not about the most effective, pragmatic way to maximize your advantage relative to your peers. It's about ideals. Dismiss them if you will, but let's not drag irrelevant areas into the discussion.
Also, food for though: a favorite passage of the book (though realize that some helpful context is missing here). Keep in mind that his is very much "generally speaking," so let's not try to argue it with anecdotes.
"Liars share with those they deceive the desire to desire not to be deceived. As a result, their choice to lie is one which they would like to reserve for themselves while insisting that others be honest. They would prefer, in other words, a "free-rider" status, giving them the benefits of lying without the risk of being lied to....All want to avoid being deceived by others as much as possible. But many would like to be able to weigh the advantages and disadvantages in a more nuanced way when they are themselves in the position of choosing whether or not to deceive. They may invoke special reasons to lie - such as the need to protect confidentiality or to spare someone's feelings. They are then more willing, in particular, to exonerate a well-intentioned lie on their own part; dupes tend to be less sanguine about the good of those who deceive them."
Syndy/3 on 27/9/2011 at 20:42
Quote Posted by Sulphur
When it comes to normal situations though, I'm pretty much the guy who tells it to your face, and bluntly.
Normal situations, like talking to your boss? Or anyone who you are dependent on in some small way, even if only for a short time?
Not saying something that you should have said can be worse than outright lying, ie not standing up to injustice. And a smile can be a terrible lie because it misuses the trust that had been placed in you.
Since we all lie all the time the question "Are you a liar?" seems naive and useless. And whether one lies with words or by keeping silent is equally pointless to discuss. These question cannot measure the morality of a person, which I think is what this discussion is all about.
And since morality only exists as a relation to some standard which is largely subjective as Scots pointed out, you never have to ask yourself "Did I lie?" but always: "Is this who I want to be?"
Sulphur on 27/9/2011 at 20:56
Quote Posted by Aerothorn
Man, I hate get down and dirty with this, but I think your "it's obvious innit" argument needs a LOT of expansion, Sulphur.
Sure, I had the feeling this would be a question. Of course I might be lying here depending on how Darwinian this conversation gets. No, don't worry, I don't intend to impregnate you. :)
(Or maybe I'm lying right now. :))
Quote:
Basically:
1. "I lie when necessary." When is it necessary? This is one of those really, really big questions (that the aformentioned book spends a ridiculous amount of time on) that is far from cut and dry. Just for kicks I may drag in some quotes later, but only once we get deeper.
As I said, if it smoothens creases out/Darwinian perspectives: for instance, if I know someone fucked up something at work and everybody's ass is on the line because of it, I wouldn't mind lying to save face and potentially more important things.
Quote:
2. "When it makes sense from a Darwinian perspective." So (sorry for any heteronormalcy here) you'll lie to any and all women if it will increase your chances of impregnating them? This seems like a pretty weak explanation. Social darwinism is, as we all know, a slippery slope.
No, no. It's not a completely inclusionist standpoint with the Darwininan thing: I meant it in terms of 'survival of the fittest', not in terms of finding a mate or perpetuating my attributes in the gene pool. Think the bottom rung of Maslow's hierarchy, not social Darwinism.
So - lie to save your life? Your livelihood? Sure. Common sense, ethics be damned at the moment of greatest urgency when it's your head on the chopping block. Yes, I know the next question is but WHAT IF IT'S YOUR LOVED ONES OR YOU - see below.
Quote:
3. "Who wouldn't, unless they were stupid?" I don't know quite how to explain this, but ethics isn't about intelligence. It's not about the most effective, pragmatic way to maximize your advantage relative to your peers. It's about ideals. Dismiss them if you will, but let's not drag irrelevant areas into the discussion.
Ethics and morality and ideals are a debate around subjective contexts from person to person. That might be the topic at hand, but looking at it realistically from my point of view (lol, subjectivity), when it's down to morals and ethics, they are, in the final analysis, relative.
Understand we could argue over who's got finer moral fibre until we turn blue in the face, but that's not the context I'm talking about: maximising my advantages over my peers isn't my greatest priority in life. I'm not overly concerned about gaining more benefits over my peers, and I'm not even talking about ideals; I'm talking about situations that call plain old survival into question.
The cold truth is having morals and ideals to fall back on in that situation don't always ensure your chromosomes get to swim around in the gene pool. Maybe you can live with it... though really, you probably won't.
Perhaps if the complicating factor is love or family, I'd weigh the consequences and err on the side of the greater good; but slicing Occam's razor through this, removing any such complicating factors, and all things being equal, I'd lie to save my skin (and by extension things that threaten it in the long- or short-term), other people be damned.
Quote:
Also, food for though: a favorite passage of the book (though realize that some helpful context is missing here). Keep in mind that his is very much "generally speaking," so let's not try to argue it with anecdotes.
"Liars share with those they deceive the desire to desire not to
be deceived. As a result, their choice to lie is one which they would like to reserve for themselves while insisting that others be honest. They would prefer, in other words, a "free-rider" status, giving them the benefits of lying without the risk of being lied to....All want to avoid being deceived by
others as much as possible. But many would like to be able to weigh the advantages and disadvantages in a more nuanced way when they are themselves in the position of choosing whether or not to deceive. They may invoke special reasons to lie - such as the need to protect confidentiality or to spare someone's feelings. They are then more willing, in particular, to exonerate a well-intentioned lie on their own part; dupes tend to be less sanguine about the good of those who deceive them."
Yes yes, I want to stab you in the back but I expect you not to do it to me, because I've got better reasons for doing it. These are the types that eventually become MDs and CEOs.
I get all that, and cold pragmatism winning out over morality does lead to this, but I'm not really interested in debating the finer points of who's the biggest brown-nosing manipulative opportunist because I get to deal with and am forced to outwit those shits on a regular basis, so just thinking about it exhausts me.
Aerothorn on 27/9/2011 at 20:57
Edit: Response to Syndy's post, not the one above.
The thing that really irks me about this particular discussion topic (and why I have never made one myself) is the frequent and fragrant dismissiveness: "Everybody lies, who cares, let's move on."
Syndy: We DON'T all lie all the time. I mean, I don't know what you mean by "lying" - but by my own understanding/definition of the word, I lie about once a year. I don't know how you can speak for humanity. It's totally cool if, in your personal moral code, there is no difference between telling a lie and not saying anything; but the language does not reflect this. "Lying" implies speech. Wikipedia: "A lie (also called prevarication, falsehood) is a type of deception in the form of an untruthful statement." Outside of some extreme hypothetical in which silence is an agreed-upon form of signaling something, silence cannot be a lie.
The notion that morality is subjective is also irrelevant to the discussion (unless I'm just missing something you were implying). I'm not sure who said this discussion was about "measuring the morality of a person" by some objective standard. Certainly wasn't my impression. Certainly not what the title book is about. Just because we have personal, subjective moral codes does not mean we cannot discuss them with others, or that there is no failing them; there is such a thing as internal consistency.
Sulphur on 27/9/2011 at 21:06
Quote Posted by Syndy/3
Normal situations, like talking to your boss? Or anyone who you are dependent on in some small way, even if only for a short time?
Talking to my boss, my friends, my family when things are at a calm, reasonable level. Most everyone, really. Those are normal situations. I'm pretty outspoken when I hear what I think is a shit idea - here on the forums too, and that's the way I am in real life. I don't dress up my opinion in cloying speech, I might be a tad less rude when it's my boss, but I just tell 'em in so many words that the idea won't work because of X, Y, and Z.
It doesn't make you the most popular person ever (promotion? what promotion?), but at least they know you're the one who tells it to them straight.
Quote:
Not saying something that you should have said can be worse than outright lying, ie not standing up to injustice. And a smile can be a terrible lie because it misuses the trust that had been placed in you.
All too true, of course, nothing I disagree with.
Quote:
Since we all lie all the time the question "Are you a liar?" seems naive and useless. And whether one lies with words or by keeping silent is equally pointless to discuss. These question cannot measure the morality of a person, which I think is what this discussion is all about.
And since morality only exists as a relation to some standard which is largely subjective as Scots pointed out, you never have to ask yourself "Did I lie?" but always: "Is this who I want to be?"
Exactamundo.
Xorak on 27/9/2011 at 21:10
Personally, I don't really think it's a lie in those spots when someone asks you a question with the sole intention of holding/gaining power over you. For example, a nagging girlfriend who has to question everything you did the night before when you went out with friends. If you did nothing wrong, it's fair to lie to her simply as one way not be dominated by her going forward. It's not her god-given right to know every little detail that happened.
Or how do you deal with a passive/aggressive person who is going to dominate you regardless of what you say, and will always set themselves up to ‘win'? A lie in that spot is not the fault of the liar, the fault is with the passive/aggressive person themselves. Any normal, happy person, who doesn't want to be dragged into a meaningless, passive/aggressive confrontation, will lie and should lie. And maybe they should. The onus is not on the liar. It's about saving yourself from a pointless situation which would otherwise drag you down into it's meaninglessness.
If you ask me if I'm hungry and I say 'no', but I really am, I might be lying, but I'm under no ethical obligation to tell you the truth in that spot.
Obviously, the above only relates to meaningless or ‘little white' lies. If you're purposely hiding something immoral, deceitful or treacherous then you cross the line where the liar is the one at fault.
Syndy/3 on 27/9/2011 at 21:14
Quote Posted by Aerothorn
We DON'T all lie all the time.
The seemingly objective criteria by which you differentiate your once-a-year-real-bad-lie vs. all the times you're not saying the truth don't exist. Your use of the word "lie" is a moral evaluation, which is subjective. And that's why this discussion is about morality.
By any objective criteria, we do lie all the fucking time. Trust me.
Aerothorn on 27/9/2011 at 21:16
I have to disagree, Xorak: of COURSE it's a lie.
What's bizarre about our society is the amount of stigma attached to lying, despite how ubiquitous it is. But instead of justifying lying as a practice (what Sulphur is doing, sorta) people tend to either dismiss the issue (everybody lies therefore it's not an issue, Syndy's argument) or tries to escape the stigma through the act of renaming ("not really lies.")
In short: there's no need to defend your lies to us :). This is a bit off topic, but since it's been breached: I'll say that I'm much more concerned about people thinking critically about these issues, coming up with a set of personal moral guidelines, and doing their best to follow them than I am with whether or not I actually like said moral guidelines.
Aerothorn on 27/9/2011 at 21:21
Quote Posted by Syndy/3
The seemingly objective criteria by which you differentiate your once-a-year-real-bad-lie vs. all the times you're not saying the truth don't exist. Your use of the word "lie" is a moral evaluation, which is subjective. And that's why this discussion is about morality.
By any objective criteria, we do lie all the fucking time. Trust me.
If I just "trusted you," what would be the point of airing our thoughts in a discussion? C'mon.
This is getting into the sticky morass of "objective vs. subjective" and what those terms mean. Obviously, the definition of a lie is not objective in that there is not a singular, universally agreed upon definition (and never will be). But to brush it off as "subjective" is to make it sound like it's some gooey, indefinable mess. I have a pretty straightforward definition of a lie; I can explain it to you; you can evaluate my performance based on this public metric (or you could, if you were always around me. You know what I mean).
So the question is: when you say "everybody lies all the time,"
A. Are you saying that everybody lies according to YOUR DEFINITION of "lying, or
B. Everybody lies according to their own definition of lying?
I'm assuming the former, given that you don't seem to believe a "lie" is a communicable concept.
And how often is "all the time?"
