Are Lies Immoral? If so, Why?

[Purple Knight]

Question for debate: Is lying inherently wrong? If so, why?

Christians believe God is perfect and that God doesn't lie. Is this simply a choice, is it necessary for us lesser beings to be able to trust, is it itself a deception, or is it an inherent part of perfection that a being should not lie?

Is it possible that lying is wrong for us, but not God, or vice-versa?

Is it uniquely or especially wrong to lie to a child? Or perhaps uniquely or especially permissible?

[JoeyKnothead]

Being free from misconceptions, at least where God is concerned, is a matter of education; the wicked and the willfully ignorant reject divine education, the humble and the teachable do not. The result of the above is that the wicked and the ignorant do not trust God; the meek, humble, teachable people do. One of the many reasons for the latter is that biblically speaking, they learn from personal experience that God never lies and if He "fools" them it's to throw them a "surprise party".

Well how bout that, you lying bunch of scurrilous scoundrels who can't do you the least bit of good and I'm here to tell it you'll listen to me if it's the last thing you do, you stupid, ignorant, nincompoops!

It's actually kinda funny how the theist has to resort to slurs and slanders when truth can't help em a bit.

[JoeyKnothead]

Being free from misconceptions, at least where God is concerned, is a matter of education; the wicked and the willfully ignorant reject divine education, the humble and the teachable do not. The result of the above is that the wicked and the ignorant do not trust God; the meek, humble, teachable people do. One of the many reasons for the latter is that biblically speaking, they learn from personal experience that God never lies and if He "fools" them it's to throw them a "surprise party".

Report closed?

So slander and insults are perfectly acceptable?

[Bust Nak]

[Replying to JoeyKnothead in post #75]

Moderator Clarification

I closed it. I consider "wicked" and "ignorant" as standard religious lingo used in their holy book. We have to give Christians some slack when they are "biblically speaking."

______________

Moderator clarifications do not count as a strike against any posters. They serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received and/or are given at the discretion of a moderator when he or she feels a clarification of the rules is required.

[JoeyKnothead]

[Replying to JoeyKnothead in post #75]

Moderator Clarification

I closed it. I consider "wicked" and "ignorant" as standard religious lingo used in their holy book. We have to give Christians some slack when they are "biblically speaking."

______________

Moderator clarifications do not count as a strike against any posters. They serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received and/or are given at the discretion of a moderator when he or she feels a clarification of the rules is required.

"We must be accommodating the insults of the Christian, cause they took em the time to write a book" is the single stupidest argument I've ever heard in my time on this planet.

"Atheistically speaking", Christians are a bunch of morons. Do I need to now write me a book to get that slur past the mods?

[Bust Nak]

"Atheistically speaking", Christians are a bunch of morons. Do I need to now write me a book to get that slur past the mods?

There is no such thing as "atheistically speaking." You are saying that. Make it into a religion first then we will talk.

[Purple Knight]

So, someone with no misconceptions would be able to trust God. Someone who has at least one misconception would always be able to be deceived. Is that accurate?

Being free from misconceptions, at least where God is concerned, is a matter of education; the wicked and the willfully ignorant reject divine education, the humble and the teachable do not.

I think we're of like minds about what humility is in this sense, despite the fact that "humble" has always been a bad word to me, and means something like passive-aggressively egotistical. I think this exchange proves that we sort of read each other here, at least about what it is good to do, if not about what the word "humble" means, because I well admit that when regular people use it, my expectations lead me to be triggered.

How is the statement prideful.

I agree. It's really not. If you thought you was wrong you wouldn't be that denomination.

What "humble" usually means, when regular people use it, is that one ought to have an opinion about the beliefs of others that those beliefs are at least as likely to be correct as their own beliefs. But then they would simply change them. And if people thought every belief was exactly equally likely, everyone would be in existential crisis all the time. Everyone has to think they're right. What regular people are therefore wanting, is for people to be more passive-aggressive about thinking they are correct, and pretend they don't, when they do.

So you're just saying, it's possible to have knowledge, if it is genuinely sought. At very least we have to act as if we can, or suffer existential crisis.

The result of the above is that the wicked and the ignorant do not trust God; the meek, humble, teachable people do. One of the many reasons for the latter is that biblically speaking, they learn from personal experience that God never lies and if He "fools" them it's to throw them a "surprise party".

But if God did lie, and made the same restriction on himself, not to do it to hurt, and to only use it against those with a misconception, then the righteous could trust him just as much. The reason it genuinely doesn't insult to refer to some nebulous people as ignorant without it being pointed at anyone, is that we don't know with 100% certainty who is ignorant. We may have good reasons to think as we do, but if the idea that we could be wrong was lost on us, we wouldn't be genuine seekers of knowledge in the first place.

So let's say some man Bob is a genuine seeker of knowledge. He knows God will never lie but might deceive, and if he is deceived it's directly and causally because he deserved it, and he won't be hurt by it and may be cured of his misconception. Is there a terrible difference if God would lie to him, but only if he deserved it, and would never hurt him by it? It seems like there is a difference to God, but not to Bob, who always knows he might be deceived.

The example I usually use to explain why deception and lying are not meaningfully different, is to show that if someone raised you, they can lead you to believe (or even simply exploit an opportunity not to correct you) that stunt means to encourage. They can then tell you that this pill will stunt your growth and have you eagerly consume it so that you remain tiny and the television series you're acting in can run for longer. Yes this is a malicious example, but that's not the point I'm making, which is that the fact that the guardian did not technically lie is absolutely irrelevant to the child.

Words have meanings, and that is ultimately the bedrock on which the distinction is founded, but if deception is allowed, people can deceive one another about the meanings of words, making the discussion about lying versus deception very little meaningful.

[Diogenes]

The first class I had in Philosophy addressed this idea from a Kantian perspective. He said, "Say you promised a friend that you'd meet him at 9:00. You are 15 minutes away, and have just enough time to get there if you don't stop. On the way, you see a car veer off the road and crash. Do you stop to take care of the person, or miss your appointment?

Lying and breaking a promise are two very different acts. They are related, but distinct. Kant's point is that society works better if we can trust each other. I agree, but honesty, at least in the example is much more important than breaking the promise.

One test is whether an honest explanation will satisfy the one you are obligated to, at least about the morality of your choice to break the promise. In the example the one you promised is likely to accept your reason for being late. Of course, the reason for breaking the promise is important and injects relativity into the equation.

If the crash clearly put someone's life in danger and the promise broken merely inconveniences the friend, the friend would want you to break the promise (if he/she has their moral priorities well placed).

Kant was something of an absolutist when it came to lying. As I recall he gives an example of a man who is running from a killer. He runs into your house, informs you he is being chased by the killer, and hides in a back room. The killer arrives and asks if the one he is chasing came into the house.
Kant claims you cannot lie even in that circumstance. Again Kant turns to 'trust' as the rationale. If you lie the killer may leave. The friend knows you will tell the truth, he trusts your honesty, so he goes out by the back door and escapes when the killer enters after you tell the truth that your friend came in the house.

If you lie, the killer (also knowing you are honest) will leave and may find his prey going out the back and kill him. The friend dies because he relied on you telling the truth. If you lied you share some responsibility for the death because of your lie. If you tell the truth you are not responsible.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
BTW,
I have a friend who is a very moral person. She is very generous and empathetic. But she is an inveterate liar. It's as if the truth does not even occur to her. She just says whatever is expedient. She would not lie under oath (I think ), but she lies about little things. For example if someone is picking up furniture she is selling and her husband is injured and cannot help carry the couch, she blithely says, "My husband will not be home. Be sure to bring someone to help you carry the couch."

There is no reason, really, for her to lie. She could just say, "You'll need someone to help you carry the couch; don't rely on having someone here to help." This may not be an important or immoral lie, but I strongly disagree with her choice, even if it is not "immoral."

Kant might say, she is taking a risk of having her unnecessary lie discovered and thus she will be seen as unreliable. The social fabric of society is weakened by having unreliable reporters.

[1213]

[Replying to JoeyKnothead in post #75]

Moderator Clarification

I closed it. I consider "wicked" and "ignorant" as standard religious lingo used in their holy book. We have to give Christians some slack when they are "biblically speaking."

______________

Moderator clarifications do not count as a strike against any posters. They serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received and/or are given at the discretion of a moderator when he or she feels a clarification of the rules is required.

"We must be accommodating the insults of the Christian, cause they took em the time to write a book" is the single stupidest argument I've ever heard in my time on this planet.

"Atheistically speaking", Christians are a bunch of morons. Do I need to now write me a book to get that slur past the mods?

Has someone complained about your slurs?

I would like to know, can truth be called a slur? If truth is a slur, should we embrace lies? Is truth actually immoral in this case?

[Purple Knight]

"Atheistically speaking", Christians are a bunch of morons. Do I need to now write me a book to get that slur past the mods?

There is no such thing as "atheistically speaking." You are saying that. Make it into a religion first then we will talk.

I don't think it's the fact that he doesn't have a Pope hat, a holy book, and a crusade or two under his belt that's relevant here. I think the relevance is whether or not what you say is pointed at anyone on this forum.

Some people being wicked and ignorant is just true. People fight all the time - lie, cheat, steal, make war, kill, assault, and rape one another - and it's not always a misunderstanding. We might argue about who the maggot at the centre of each of these wounds really is, but wicked people definitely exist.

It might sound pointed at non-Christians, but JW said in another thread that few people are truly wicked, so it's not possible by the numbers that JW even thinks that.

I disagree. I think 9 in 10 people are probably irredeemable opportunistic scoundrels who would do anything they thought they could get away with, then, when they were caught, seize on whatever moral reasoning was expedient to make themselves look divinely perfect and selfless. So it's a good thing it wasn't me who made the comment. (But it's still not pointed at anyone here, and I mean that. I wouldn't be here if I got that idea about people on this forum.)

[JehovahsWitness]

It might sound pointed at non-Christians, but JW said in another thread that few people are truly wicked, so it's not possible by the numbers that JW even thinks that.

... (But it's still not pointed at anyone here, and I mean that. I wouldn't be here if I got that idea about people on this forum.)

I dont judge people nor if I refer'to "the wicked" will I ever name or imply I am speaking of anyone on this forum. To do so would not only be unnecessarily antagonistic but I suspect a violation of forum rules.

It is somewhat curious to me if I say " God will kill the wicked" why anyone should self identify with that group and be offended. After all, if I said " God will kill people that rape babies" would you yourself say "I take that as a personal slur on me and all my pedophile brethren" !

The bible is clear about what God will do to the incorrigibly wicked: He. will. Kill. them. Why someone should consider themselves as "incorrigibly wicked" is beyond me!