Why should they? Applying your ration-al it woud be in their best interests not to . In fact to avoid panic, globally it would probably be better not to tell any one.
Because I have elected them to tell me the truth. Why would it be in their best interest not to do so? Why would it be better globally not to tell any one? Even if not telling the population was in their best interest, I would accept their decision. I would never know they lied to me.
You can not know what the consequencess of your telling the truth are any more than what you speculate them to be. All good questions and worth finding answers to before you decide to tell the truth in the future.
But the condequences of telling the truth remain the responsibility of the recipient and not you. Afer all all you did was tell the truth. What they do with it is their business. The personal cost of lying is actually quite high especially if you have to remember all the lies all the time and maintain consitancy...However the truth is the truth and is always easier to be consistant.
When someone lies to you and that lie causes you harm in some way, who is "responsible" in that? And what of the consequences? If you get both legs broken because of that person's lies, .....? Baron Max
So if you lie to a woman and tell her your single, but really married and your wife finds out. Do you take full responsibility when they both beat the shit out of you with a baseball bat? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
“ Originally Posted by StrangerInAStrangeLa When I lie it is my responsibility. When I tell the truth it is my responsibility. ” When someone tells the truth to you and that causes you harm in some way, who is "responsible" in that? And what of the consequences? If you get both legs broken because of that person's truthtelling, .....?
“ Originally Posted by StrangerInAStrangeLa When I lie it is my responsibility. When I tell the truth it is my responsibility. ” Huh???
Well, if you don't see the difference, then there's not much to say. But I would suggest you think of lies in terms of, say, government officials and CIA and Pentagon officials, etc. Perhaps lies will take on a little more meaning for you? Baron Max
When discussing lying or telling the truth, I think of all the angles I can, of course. The above seems as if you think I approve of any & all lies, which I gave no indication of, which I obviously indicated otherwise. Sometimes lies cause harm & sometimes they prevent harm. Sometimes the truth causes harm & sometimes it prevents harm. Lies mean to me exactly what they are, no more, no less.
I think your position on lying yourself simply opens up that same position for anyone else - politicians and bankers and loan agents included. Surely you don't hold others to a higher standard than you do for yourself, do you??? Again, are you sure that you can't tell the difference? Please think about those two statements a little bit, then tell me if you see any differences. Lies are willful and intentional attempts to decieve others. And you see no difference between the harm that might cause as opposed to the harm caused by telling the truth? Baron Max
From a purely teleological standpoint, there is no difference. If you are in a situation where telling the truth could cause harm and silence or a lie would not, any consequentialist morality would demand that you not tell the truth. What is the sense in a moral theory that says it's okay to cause harm to someone by wielding the truth like a sword? Why is that superior to a moral system that permits causing the same pain though a lie? Who should a harmful truth be preferred to a harmful lie? What's the exchange rate between the two? Is voicing a very harmful truth the rough equivalent of telling a slightly harmful lie? It seems to me that what matters is the good or the harm you do. The only real distinction is that, disproportionately, a truth that is painful in the present will be beneficial in the longer term than a given lie. In those cases to tell the truth can still be moral so long as the long run effect balances out to be a net positive for the reciepient.
Self interest in abusing others is usually on the side of the lie, not the truth. Thus abstract arguments about evaluating consequences fail to allow for the liar's perspective, in which the evaluations of the consequences are false weighted in favor of the lie. That is partly because the costs of lying are distributed - a general mistrust creates many expenses and inefficiencies - and the benefits particular, mostly accruing to the liar or perhaps one other specific beneficiary. One reason to tell the truth whenever you can make yourself do so, is that when it comes time to lie legitimately - when you do have a necessary lie to tell - you will be believed. You create the capability of lying by telling the truth. One reason to avoid telling lies is that you may lose the ability to lie to people - they may no longer believe what you say. Overall, a culture of lying all the time ruins its members' ability to lie - no one believes what is said. Telling the truth reinforces, rather than erodes, the capability of truthtelling. Lying is self-destructive, truthtelling is not.
By how I would feel if I fail them. There is another issue with trust and loyalty, my folks would trust me not to tell them where they were. Even if it counts as a lie, it was a necessity in order to keep the trust and loyalty. Failing the trust of another person can be just as bad as lying, it depends on the situation and about what is being trusted. Also, one needs to think about the outcome of an action, if I told them where they were, possibly killing them, then that is worse than telling a lie. In some situations telling a lie might be worse than telling them were they are though, as it might anger them and making them find an excuse to kill them or torture them. The difference is of course if they are going to find them anyway and one would have to trust that they have hidden themselves in such a way that they aren't found by default. In some situations that is the only way out of a lie, but in most cases tells about the truth anyway, as the person would know why you wouldn't say, and subsequently why you would say if it were so. However if executed correctly may avoid them from asking at all.
But first, the teller of the lie can't possibly know the future that could or might be caused by his lie. He can guess, but that's all it will be ...a guess. Second, telling the truth, in any civilized society, can't ever be held against you for any subsequent action. That's decidedly not true if you tell a lie and cause great harm. Third, I would think that, placing the burden of that moral decision strictly on the teller puts a very slanted viewpoint to the moral decision. And last but not least, if you or anyone holds the telling of lies as no big deal, then you should never complain when a politician tells a lie and is caught. Afterall, he's only doing what you, yourself, have been advising! Otherwise, you're a ... hippo-critter, and no one likes a hippo-critter. Baron Max
This is as if we're discussing whether H2O is water & you & I each have explained that it is yet you insist & persist in saying it is not. Tho I explained it better, you did also. Yours tho is inconsistent & includes strawmen. I indicated that sometimes lying is the best thing to do. I did not advocate habitual or careless lying or lying by government. The fact that lying can be abusive does not mean it is never good.
