Morality and Ethics

[pixelero]

I suggest that there is no "objective morality", by definition. The word "morality" is cognate with the Latin mores (customs: singular mos.) What is moral in one culture can be immoral in another.

Ethics, in contrast, is cognate with Greek ethos (which can also denote customary behavior, but has a further denotation of character.) In precise modern usage, "morality" denotes what a particular culture considers right behavior while "ethics" denotes a branch of philosophy in which logic is used to determine what is right behavior based on a set of accepted premises. For example: "life is preferable to death" - "happiness is preferable to suffering" - "truth is preferable to falsehood" and so on. (One premise that was only formally adopted by most thinkers fairly recently, historically speaking, is "freedom is preferable to bondage." Hence the persistence of slavery as an institution well into the Enlightenment.)

I would like to know: are there any believers who accept this distinction between morality and ethics, or any non-believers who reject it? Why?

[Darias]

No, it's not the standard, it's the way things get implemented.

Well I can agree with you that people certainly do implement their values at the expense of others, but a consensus is not a standard whereby human beings formulate rational, consistent ethics.

Since you agree with me now, can you explain what you were saying to Overcomer?

There are the 'rights of society', and there are the 'rights of the individual'

Not to be fastidious, but like the ignostic in reference to 'god,' I don't know what you mean when you mention 'society' or 'rights.'

If the word 'society' is to mean anything, it can only refer to the sum total of individuals within a given area. Since 'society' is not an agent, but an impersonal label used to denote a swath of the human population, it cannot be said to possess 'rights,' because it doesn't exist as a possessive agent. There is no hive mind, only individuals with minds of their own.

Similarly, if the term 'rights' is to mean anything, it must only refer to freedom of voluntary, non-violent action. Theft and assault are crimes by default, and crime isn't a right. Privileges are not rights, as they are special exceptions or benefits granted to certain groups of individuals and not others (usually at the expense of others) -- all of this without rational justification. Privileges cannot be rights by definition, if rights are to be enjoyed and exercised by all peaceful people.

.. and there is a constant struggle to find a balance.... not consciously, but that is the way it happens

I know that people doing battle against each other via the ballot is what happens today, but I also understand that ethics is not a Yinyang.

And no, it is not an 'appeal to popularity'. That is a misuse of the fallacy.

If you claim, as it appears you have, to say that morality can be achieved via consensus, then you most certainly are guilty of committing a fallacy. Saying that if most people think so, it must be true is a fallacy. Ethics are rational and true, therefore, you cannot derive ethics from a straw poll. You can chant "we" all you want, but that doesn't make collectivism a foundation for ethics.

Sometimes, the 'society' gets too much say, and individual rights get trampled on.

Only sometimes?! A majority of people regularly restrict the freedom of a minority of people. It occurs every time there is an election, anywhere around the world. The freedom of individuals is constantly being eroded away.

Sometimes, society gets too weak. . . .

I find this particular phrase just plain disturbing.

and you get chaos,and the development of fractured groups

We all know that there can be no chaos, divisions, or death when you champion national unity and national strength through a strong central power -- unless you count inconvenient realities like the Civil War or the Third Reich, etc.

or you get the development of corporationism.

I believe the word you're looking for is corporatism.

That is the problem with libertarianism.. it allows the corporations to get too much power, and it is purpose is self defeating. You can see what happens when the rich folk who push free market get too much power.. you find environmental disasters, poor working conditions, and pollution.

1. China is the most polluting nation on earth. The Chinese government owns half of its industrial sector, which it poorly regulates -- for good reason! Why would they waste tax revenue, only to cut into their bottom line (which enriches the ruling families)? Unlike corporations, they don't even have the incentive to worry about defective products or getting sued -- because they own it all and make it all and they'll throw anyone who disagrees in jail. The Chinese government is not a democracy, so politicians do not have to worry about complaints as much. The Chinese government makes unionizing punishable by imprisonment, and China, as well as North Korea, are both well known for deplorable working conditions.

And to think this would not be possible without libertarians.


2. According to Professor Lane Kenworthy, most rich states vote Democrat and most poor states vote Republican, because the right puts social issues first.

I know this is a personal anecdote, but I have about $70 in my checking account (no thanks to Uncle Sam who demands I repay my student loans --which I had to take on if I wanted a degree and a job-- and who now demands I subsidize you for your medical needs). I don't think it would be too far fetched for me to assume you have quite a bit more in yours, would it?

But no, you see, the only reason people are libertarian is because they are greedy and rich.


3. The United States is one of the most powerful, 'big governments' on the planet, and it is also the number one corporatocracy. Corporations wouldn't even exist without the state, because corporations are legal fictions created to protect the business owner from competition and risk, as well as for the benefit of the state -- so that it can collect more taxes, which can't be done without corporate personhood.

I don't think this is a logical solution to the problem:

[center][/center]

I thought you said you opposed the idea of corporations policing themselves.

[Goat]

No, it's not the standard, it's the way things get implemented.

Well I can agree with you that people certainly do implement their values at the expense of others, but a consensus is not a standard whereby human beings formulate rational, consistent ethics.

Since you agree with me now, can you explain what you were saying to Overcomer?

There are the 'rights of society', and there are the 'rights of the individual'

Not to be fastidious, but like the ignostic in reference to 'god,' I don't know what you mean when you mention 'society' or 'rights.'

If the word 'society' is to mean anything, it can only refer to the sum total of individuals within a given area. Since 'society' is not an agent, but an impersonal label used to denote a swath of the human population, it cannot be said to possess 'rights,' because it doesn't exist as a possessive agent. There is no hive mind, only individuals with minds of their own.

Similarly, if the term 'rights' is to mean anything, it must only refer to freedom of voluntary, non-violent action. Theft and assault are crimes by default, and crime isn't a right. Privileges are not rights, as they are special exceptions or benefits granted to certain groups of individuals and not others (usually at the expense of others) -- all of this without rational justification. Privileges cannot be rights by definition, if rights are to be enjoyed and exercised by all peaceful people.

.. and there is a constant struggle to find a balance.... not consciously, but that is the way it happens

I know that people doing battle against each other via the ballot is what happens today, but I also understand that ethics is not a Yinyang.

And no, it is not an 'appeal to popularity'. That is a misuse of the fallacy.

If you claim, as it appears you have, to say that morality can be achieved via consensus, then you most certainly are guilty of committing a fallacy. Saying that if most people think so, it must be true is a fallacy. Ethics are rational and true, therefore, you cannot derive ethics from a straw poll. You can chant "we" all you want, but that doesn't make collectivism a foundation for ethics.

Sometimes, the 'society' gets too much say, and individual rights get trampled on.

Only sometimes?! A majority of people regularly restrict the freedom of a minority of people. It occurs every time there is an election, anywhere around the world. The freedom of individuals is constantly being eroded away.

Sometimes, society gets too weak. . . .

I find this particular phrase just plain disturbing.

and you get chaos,and the development of fractured groups

We all know that there can be no chaos, divisions, or death when you champion national unity and national strength through a strong central power -- unless you count inconvenient realities like the Civil War or the Third Reich, etc.

or you get the development of corporationism.

I believe the word you're looking for is corporatism.

That is the problem with libertarianism.. it allows the corporations to get too much power, and it is purpose is self defeating. You can see what happens when the rich folk who push free market get too much power.. you find environmental disasters, poor working conditions, and pollution.

1. China is the most polluting nation on earth. The Chinese government owns half of its industrial sector, which it poorly regulates -- for good reason! Why would they waste tax revenue, only to cut into their bottom line (which enriches the ruling families)? Unlike corporations, they don't even have the incentive to worry about defective products or getting sued -- because they own it all and make it all and they'll throw anyone who disagrees in jail. The Chinese government is not a democracy, so politicians do not have to worry about complaints as much. The Chinese government makes unionizing punishable by imprisonment, and China, as well as North Korea, are both well known for deplorable working conditions.

And to think this would not be possible without libertarians.


2. According to Professor Lane Kenworthy, most rich states vote Democrat and most poor states vote Republican, because the right puts social issues first.

I know this is a personal anecdote, but I have about $70 in my checking account (no thanks to Uncle Sam who demands I repay my student loans --which I had to take on if I wanted a degree and a job-- and who now demands I subsidize you for your medical needs). I don't think it would be too far fetched for me to assume you have quite a bit more in yours, would it?

But no, you see, the only reason people are libertarian is because they are greedy and rich.


3. The United States is one of the most powerful, 'big governments' on the planet, and it is also the number one corporatocracy. Corporations wouldn't even exist without the state, because corporations are legal fictions created to protect the business owner from competition and risk, as well as for the benefit of the state -- so that it can collect more taxes, which can't be done without corporate personhood.

I don't think this is a logical solution to the problem:

[center][/center]

I thought you said you opposed the idea of corporations policing themselves.

Society is the group of people that live to gather and have to interact on a day to day living.

'Rights' a moral or legal entitlement to have or obtain something or to act in a certain way.

Corporations owning the government is a result of the free market economy, and
an unfortunate side effect of libertarianism

Do you have any other questions?

"

[Darias]

Society is the group of people that live to gather and have to interact on a day to day living.

So when you say society has rights, you are saying people have rights -- which is the same thing as saying individuals have rights. This is why it makes absolutely no sense to claim that society has rights unless this is just another way of saying that all people have rights. I don't think that's what you're saying because you pitted the idea of society's rights against the rights of the individual.

'Rights' a moral or legal entitlement to have or obtain something or to act in a certain way.

Rights are not positive obligations or legal entitlements. Rights are freedoms, not crimes, nor gifts dished out from Heaven or Capitol Hill. If you think rights mean privileges, they do not.

According to Google, a privilege, or entitlement, is "a special right, advantage, or immunity granted or available only to a particular person or group of people." If rights are not applicable to all peaceful people, then you cannot call them rights by definition.

Corporations owning the government is a result of the free market economy, and
an unfortunate side effect of libertarianism

Do you have any other questions?

Yes, how did you manage to cram so many falsehoods in the last paragraph of your previous post?

There isn't a free market, neither here nor there (China).

Corporations, legal entities, have the incentive to influence politics precisely because those in power have an enormous amount of influence, enough to make or break those companies. This is why corporatism exists. There is a mutually beneficial relationship between politicians and corporations. Politicians vote in favor of the companies that throw money at them.

The funny thing is, the people who rail about crony capitalism and corporatism -- they tend not to get elected.

If I can recall specifically, only less than 1% of people voted for third party candidates, libertarian and progressive alike (none of which really fancied corporate power). Most people voted for corporatist candidates like Obama and Romney. Anarcho-capitalists didn't bother voting at all.

So it is really hard for me to wrap my head around this idea you keep repeating, that 'libertarianism is responsible' for what we have right now.

I mean the only way that makes any sense is if you think the Tea Party and the GOP are champions of free market ideals; I don't know what would really lead you to believe that, unless you think that rhetoric is reality.

You don't see me claiming that this administration is the most open, honest, and accountable, even though Obama claims it is. Why would you think a successful politician would support the "free market" just because he pays homage to it in his speeches. I trust you don't actually think that Obama cares about human rights when he greenlights the assassination of American citizens, right? So it would be kind of stupid to claim that the Democrats care about Constitutional Rights. In the same sense, it would be insane to think Republicans want a free market, just because their speechwriters spam the word a lot on a teleprompter.

I for one think that what is unfortunate is when progressives favor a government monopoly on regulation, when this government is bought. Standing for this ultimately supports the continuation of corporatism in America. When progressives blame libertarians for corporatism, I can only see projection.

I agree with you that self-policing isn't enough, and there is always an incentive to cut corners to save money (even when there are incentives to avoid public backlash, etc.). This is why I support a free safety inspection industry, not monopolized by a corporatist government that serves corporate interest over public health and safety.

A powerful government "of the people, by the people, for the people" that is untouched by corporate interests is the same thing as the concept of an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenelovent deity -- it is just something that cannot logically exist. It is a nice thought, really, but concepts like voluntary taxation and accountable governments are ultimately progressive and minarchist fantasies, which can neither be achieved nor maintained.

Now, I'll agree with you that a voluntary society is a ways off, but it's not utopia; it's not an impossible fantasy. Much like abolition, it's actually achievable. It's just the enlightened self-interest you talked about without the gun in the room called government. It's not chaos, and it's not a blanket of yellow haze; it's just freedom and self-interest policed by monetary incentive, economic reputation, and voluntary association.

But just because we don't have that today, doesn't mean I'll go vote for the next Romney in the mean time; that's not a lesser evil, it's just evil. Most people who understand what a free market is don't vote either, so don't blame us for what is only a natural consequence of state growth. Libertarians don't even make a quarter of the American population. That is a pretty wide tent ranging from Bill Maher to Glenn Beck. Only 7 percent of Americans are relatively consistent libertarians (8% are party members), and I'd venture to say that about 1 percent of libertarians are anarcho-capitalists. We exist. In our defense, there weren't very many abolitionists either before it caught on.

In any case, even if we are to include parts of the Tea Party and Democrats and libertarian socialists and the number of libertarians who are card carrying members of the GOP, that's still not even half of the requirement to sway a national election. If you're going to blame this government's current state on all kinds of libertarians, there's got to be something wrong with your math. Tride and true libertarians are a minority and ancaps are a minority within a minority. So you can't really blame this crap on us.

I assume non-libertarian leaning Democrats, Republicans, and progressives vote, do they not? Did you take the majority of voters into your consideration when coming up with this hypothesis of yours?

[pixelero]

[Replying to post 17 by Darias]

my point was that it's wrong for the collective to tyrannize the individual

I quite agree. Of course it's wrong. Unfortunately, however, that tends to be the way "morality," (in it's etymological sense, as the "customs" of a society,) works. If an individual behaves in a manner that violates the customs of the society, as in my original example of an Irish catholic school girl wearing her uniform in Saudia Arabia, she's liable to be punished for immoral behavior. To recognize this is not to condone it.

you cannot claim, as Goat has, that this is the standard by which society determines right from wrong

To a large extent it is how societies determine right from wrong, unfortunately.

It is not a standard for ethics

Of course it isn't. That's why I am all in favor of doing away with "morality" of that sort: it's arbitrarily based on customs, often primitive and barbaric customs. As I've said, right and wrong should be determined by ethical standards. (All we need to do then is to determine the premises on which to base our ethics.)

that this is how humans are to determine right from wrong is either dishonest or ignorant.

Right. There is, however, a difference between "how societies determine right from wrong" and "how humans are to determine right from wrong." The former refers to the way things are, the latter to how they ought to be.

[pixelero]

[Replying to post 15 by Artie]

Please link to a page explaining this in detail.

The obvious would be:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethics

Also:

http://www.iep.utm.edu/ethics/

No, you said "the branch of philosophy in which logic is used to determine right and wrong." I would like a link to a page explaining this branch of philosophy you speak of. The articles you linked to above don't even contain the word logic.

I'm sorry. You are quite correct. The pages I linked did not contain mention of the word "logic." They did, however, mention things like determining right from wrong, or "philosophical ethics—a project that attempts to use reason in order to answer various kinds of ethical questions," fallacies, and so on, all of which imply logic.

I suggest that the reason that the Wikipedia article on Ethics, for example, didn't specifically mention the term "logic" is the same reason that the Wikipedia article on Accounting, for example, doesn't specifically mention the term "arithmetic." The conceptual tools are so fundamental that they, literally, go without saying.

If you search the terms "ethics and logic" you'll find plenty of articles, (many of them pdf files, because they are specialist articles that deal with specific problems rather than basic introductions,) that address particular issues in logic and ethics.

[Artie]

If you search the terms "ethics and logic" you'll find plenty of articles, (many of them pdf files, because they are specialist articles that deal with specific problems rather than basic introductions,) that address particular issues in logic and ethics.

But where can I find some articles specifically saying ""ethics" denotes a branch of philosophy in which logic is used to determine what is right behavior based on a set of accepted premises. For example: "life is preferable to death" - "happiness is preferable to suffering" - "truth is preferable to falsehood" and so on."

We have a survival instinct. So one premise is "survival is good". So behaviour that helps us survive is "right" behaviour. So it is simply logical that we behave in a manner that helps us survive so we call this behaviour "ethical" and the opposite "unethical". Is that what you mean?

[Goat]

Society is the group of people that live to gather and have to interact on a day to day living.

So when you say society has rights, you are saying people have rights -- which is the same thing as saying individuals have rights. This is why it makes absolutely no sense to claim that society has rights unless this is just another way of saying that all people have rights. I don't think that's what you're saying because you pitted the idea of society's rights against the rights of the individual.

'Rights' a moral or legal entitlement to have or obtain something or to act in a certain way.

Rights are not positive obligations or legal entitlements. Rights are freedoms, not crimes, nor gifts dished out from Heaven or Capitol Hill. If you think rights mean privileges, they do not.

According to Google, a privilege, or entitlement, is "a special right, advantage, or immunity granted or available only to a particular person or group of people." If rights are not applicable to all peaceful people, then you cannot call them rights by definition.

Corporations owning the government is a result of the free market economy, and
an unfortunate side effect of libertarianism

Do you have any other questions?

Yes, how did you manage to cram so many falsehoods in the last paragraph of your previous post?

There isn't a free market, neither here nor there (China).

Corporations, legal entities, have the incentive to influence politics precisely because those in power have an enormous amount of influence, enough to make or break those companies. This is why corporatism exists. There is a mutually beneficial relationship between politicians and corporations. Politicians vote in favor of the companies that throw money at them.

The funny thing is, the people who rail about crony capitalism and corporatism -- they tend not to get elected.

If I can recall specifically, only less than 1% of people voted for third party candidates, libertarian and progressive alike (none of which really fancied corporate power). Most people voted for corporatist candidates like Obama and Romney. Anarcho-capitalists didn't bother voting at all.

So it is really hard for me to wrap my head around this idea you keep repeating, that 'libertarianism is responsible' for what we have right now.

I mean the only way that makes any sense is if you think the Tea Party and the GOP are champions of free market ideals; I don't know what would really lead you to believe that, unless you think that rhetoric is reality.

You don't see me claiming that this administration is the most open, honest, and accountable, even though Obama claims it is. Why would you think a successful politician would support the "free market" just because he pays homage to it in his speeches. I trust you don't actually think that Obama cares about human rights when he greenlights the assassination of American citizens, right? So it would be kind of stupid to claim that the Democrats care about Constitutional Rights. In the same sense, it would be insane to think Republicans want a free market, just because their speechwriters spam the word a lot on a teleprompter.

I for one think that what is unfortunate is when progressives favor a government monopoly on regulation, when this government is bought. Standing for this ultimately supports the continuation of corporatism in America. When progressives blame libertarians for corporatism, I can only see projection.

I agree with you that self-policing isn't enough, and there is always an incentive to cut corners to save money (even when there are incentives to avoid public backlash, etc.). This is why I support a free safety inspection industry, not monopolized by a corporatist government that serves corporate interest over public health and safety.

A powerful government "of the people, by the people, for the people" that is untouched by corporate interests is the same thing as the concept of an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenelovent deity -- it is just something that cannot logically exist. It is a nice thought, really, but concepts like voluntary taxation and accountable governments are ultimately progressive and minarchist fantasies, which can neither be achieved nor maintained.

Now, I'll agree with you that a voluntary society is a ways off, but it's not utopia; it's not an impossible fantasy. Much like abolition, it's actually achievable. It's just the enlightened self-interest you talked about without the gun in the room called government. It's not chaos, and it's not a blanket of yellow haze; it's just freedom and self-interest policed by monetary incentive, economic reputation, and voluntary association.

But just because we don't have that today, doesn't mean I'll go vote for the next Romney in the mean time; that's not a lesser evil, it's just evil. Most people who understand what a free market is don't vote either, so don't blame us for what is only a natural consequence of state growth. Libertarians don't even make a quarter of the American population. That is a pretty wide tent ranging from Bill Maher to Glenn Beck. Only 7 percent of Americans are relatively consistent libertarians (8% are party members), and I'd venture to say that about 1 percent of libertarians are anarcho-capitalists. We exist. In our defense, there weren't very many abolitionists either before it caught on.

In any case, even if we are to include parts of the Tea Party and Democrats and libertarian socialists and the number of libertarians who are card carrying members of the GOP, that's still not even half of the requirement to sway a national election. If you're going to blame this government's current state on all kinds of libertarians, there's got to be something wrong with your math. Tride and true libertarians are a minority and ancaps are a minority within a minority. So you can't really blame this crap on us.

I assume non-libertarian leaning Democrats, Republicans, and progressives vote, do they not? Did you take the majority of voters into your consideration when coming up with this hypothesis of yours?

Yet, the key point that is causing the problem is the key point that the free market economy is pushing, and that is the 'lack of regulation by government'.

That is the whole point, and I don't think you will ever get it.

Nor, can you ever provide any evidence at any time that I am wrong.

[pixelero]

If you search the terms "ethics and logic" you'll find plenty of articles, (many of them pdf files, because they are specialist articles that deal with specific problems rather than basic introductions,) that address particular issues in logic and ethics.

But where can I find some articles specifically saying ""ethics" denotes a branch of philosophy in which logic is used to determine what is right behavior based on a set of accepted premises. For example: "life is preferable to death" - "happiness is preferable to suffering" - "truth is preferable to falsehood" and so on."

I'm sorry, I don't have a link to such an article. Those ideas were gleaned from university courses and books: Plato and Aristotle. The latter are, I'm sure, available online from the Gutenberg Project.

We have a survival instinct. So one premise is "survival is good". So behaviour that helps us survive is "right" behaviour. So it is simply logical that we behave in a manner that helps us survive so we call this behaviour "ethical" and the opposite "unethical". Is that what you mean?

Well, yes, "life is preferable to death" could be interpreted as "survival is good", although if one were in agony, the "good" of life would have to outweigh the "bad" of suffering. The premises need to be ranked in a hierarchy so that conflicts between competing values, ethical dilemmas if you will, might be resolved. One of the ancient Greek philosophers, (I don't at the moment recall which one,) illustrated a conflict between the good of truth and the good of life in this way: Suppose your friend felt despondent and wished to commit suicide. You've therefore hidden his sword for fear he might use it to kill himself. He asks you where his sword is. Does your commitment to truth dictate that you tell him where it is? The philosopher suggested that life is more valuable than truth, therefore, it is not unethical for you to lie to your friend and tell him that you don't know where his sword is.

[Artie]

We have a survival instinct. So one premise is "survival is good". So behaviour that helps us survive is "right" behaviour. So it is simply logical that we behave in a manner that helps us survive so we call this behaviour "ethical" and the opposite "unethical". Is that what you mean?

Well, yes, "life is preferable to death" could be interpreted as "survival is good", although if one were in agony, the "good" of life would have to outweigh the "bad" of suffering. The premises need to be ranked in a hierarchy so that conflicts between competing values, ethical dilemmas if you will, might be resolved. One of the ancient Greek philosophers, (I don't at the moment recall which one,) illustrated a conflict between the good of truth and the good of life in this way: Suppose your friend felt despondent and wished to commit suicide. You've therefore hidden his sword for fear he might use it to kill himself. He asks you where his sword is. Does your commitment to truth dictate that you tell him where it is? The philosopher suggested that life is more valuable than truth, therefore, it is not unethical for you to lie to your friend and tell him that you don't know where his sword is.

I don't actually see any conflict. Obviously survival is the ultimate goal and everything is geared towards it. Whether it is correct to tell the truth or not just depends on whether it enhances well being and survival or not. "Telling the truth" has no value in itself. But of course, if people are unable to figure out if "telling the truth" would be beneficial to well being or survival or not then you perhaps might hope that "telling the truth" in all circumstances would statistically do more good than harm.

[pixelero]

We have a survival instinct. So one premise is "survival is good". So behaviour that helps us survive is "right" behaviour. So it is simply logical that we behave in a manner that helps us survive so we call this behaviour "ethical" and the opposite "unethical". Is that what you mean?

Well, yes, "life is preferable to death" could be interpreted as "survival is good", although if one were in agony, the "good" of life would have to outweigh the "bad" of suffering. The premises need to be ranked in a hierarchy so that conflicts between competing values, ethical dilemmas if you will, might be resolved. One of the ancient Greek philosophers, (I don't at the moment recall which one,) illustrated a conflict between the good of truth and the good of life in this way: Suppose your friend felt despondent and wished to commit suicide. You've therefore hidden his sword for fear he might use it to kill himself. He asks you where his sword is. Does your commitment to truth dictate that you tell him where it is? The philosopher suggested that life is more valuable than truth, therefore, it is not unethical for you to lie to your friend and tell him that you don't know where his sword is.

I don't actually see any conflict. Obviously survival is the ultimate goal and everything is geared towards it. Whether it is correct to tell the truth or not just depends on whether it enhances well being and survival or not. "Telling the truth" has no value in itself. But of course, if people are unable to figure out if "telling the truth" would be beneficial to well being or survival or not then you perhaps might hope that "telling the truth" in all circumstances would statistically do more good than harm.

I suppose the value in telling the truth might be that such behavior would tend to give us all a better picture of the reality around us, which could reasonably be assumed to enhance survival potential. So, in that sense, truth might have an objective value in itself.

Of course, one can imagine plenty of situations where the truth might actually be harmful, beyond lying to your suicidal friend about the location of his weapon of choice. The old "Anne Frank" case is one. If government goons come banging on your door asking if any "undesirables" (whom you know to be innocent of any wrongdoing) are being harbored by you or anyone you know, telling a lie would probably be considered virtuous by most. (That example also argues against a strictly legalist interpretation of right and wrong; some laws can be clearly wrong, by most ethical standards.) A more ambiguous situation might be one in which you knew, for certain, that some overwhelming disaster, from which there is absolutely no chance of escape, is about to strike. Would it be more virtuous to tell a group of happy soon-to-be victims that their end is nigh, (assuming they asked you directly, "what's wrong?") or say nothing, (answer "nothing") and let them enjoy their last hours. (I personally hate this type of scenario because it assumes a level of certainty that we really don't have.) This type of scenario, however, is not so far fetched; in Japan, it's common for doctors to not inform patients whom they have diagnosed with terminal cancer, on the grounds that it would only depress them and make their last days miserable. I am adamantly opposed to that attitude as it deprives the patient of the right, not only to know, but of the opportunity to make final arrangements. It assumes too much knowledge: the "knowledge" that the patient would be miserable, as opposed to the alternative possibility that the patient would be accepting, focused, and motivated to achieve certain objectives before life ends.

Anyway, ethics, in practice, is full of interesting questions. The liberating thing about it is that we can determine answers by ourselves, without appeal to scriptural or legal authority, (or so I hope.)