> [@](#):
>
> Hopefully this isn’t too blunt, but I think your assessment of the morality of selfishness is broken. When properly tuned, selfishness is only considered bad when it causes you to act to another person’s _detriment_ in the pursuit of your own benefit. Mutual benefit, though selfish, is not a bad thing.
Mutual benefit. I agree. My theory is about promoting mutual benefit. I think learning how to communicate more honestly while remaining considerate of others is a win win.
> [@](#):
>
> Which seems to dissolve this objection of yours against benevolent lies, bringing us back to assessing the merit of lies based on their consequences (or, at the point of the making of the decision, their expected consequences), which has the result of concluding that lies with positive results are moral.
That’s just not the conclusive argument you think it is. We have to consider short and long term affect.Sure within the context of a couple of minutes we \*might \*categorize it as win win. How do we know conclusively that avoiding an awkward situation with a lie, and allaying the others concerns {perhaps temporarily} is a win in the long term as well? My experience tells me that learning to be truthful tempered with consideration is a bigger win for the long term for both people and that makes it a better choice for the short term as well.
> [@](#):
>
> Seriously, if you think I’ve said nothing but “is not/is so” and given no arguments to back up my position, all I can say is that you should go back and reread what I’ve written. You may think this is a battle of opinions, but that’s seriously not the game I’ve been playing.
I accept that wasn’t your intention. I just think you haven’t realized that reality. This post is a good example. Wouldn’t you say morality is largely subjective? You just stated an opinion about the moral situation in which the lie is positive {IYO} and concluded that your opinion dissolved my objection. Not so, and not even close says I. How is that not an opinion on both our parts? Tell you what. I’ll post this for now and go back and read your other posts.
> [@](#):
>
> (There’s a limit to the length a post can be? What the heck?)
😃 I just learned that myself when my post was forced into two parts.
---
### Author:  [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)
#### Post date: [March 24, 2009, 6:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-there-any-circumstances-in-which-lying-is-a-moral-good-or-even-neutral/488662/88 "2009-03-24T18:47:10Z")
In your first response to me in post #45 you led with
> [@](#):
>
> “As far as I can tell”
That indicates an opinion to me and perhaps recognition that the subject matter is pretty subjective.
2nd response post # 48, you described some possible benign lie situations
> [@](#):
>
> “Any of the cases in the thread, really, and many, many others. “How are you?” “What do you think of the food?” “Are there jews in the attic?” “Do you think I’m fat?” “Are you listening to me?” “What are the nuclear launch codes?” “Daddy, do you like it?”
And said
> [@](#):
>
> “Sure, society generally fares better when we’re not all lying scumbags. However, in many cases (some mentioned above) the unvarnished truth is _not_ the best way to encourage smooth relations with others and thereby take care of ourselves and make a positive contribution to society. White lies can be the lubricant that keeps the societal machine running smoothly, which fact seriously undermines the societal argument for honesty being an objective moral good?”
Here you present your personal theory about white lies and refer to it as fact even though that hasn’t been and still isn’t established. That’s an assertion of your opinion as fact.
I tried to explain in post 50 how an effort at being honest leads to better communication and in post 54 you claim my honesty is actually dishonesty that supports your own position. That’s okay except that that’s still an unsupported assertion and opinion which you identify in that same post.
> [@](#):
>
> “In my opinion, this again proves my point”
Since it is your opinion, it doesn’t actually prove anything.
In post 60 you make this comment.
> [@](#):
>
> “So you assert - but is there an _objective_ reason to think that using weasel words and ambiguous phrasing really leads to a more positive long range outcome than engaging in political niceties? 'Cause I think that you’re assuming that without evidence because it sounds nice and supports your predetermined conclusion”
This is also where I began to lose interest. You dismiss my own description of my own honesty as” weasel words without any objective reason to believe it”. What I’ve said is , that’s true,{the objective part} I don’t expect you to blindly accept my explanation and I know my experiences are not transferable because of their subjective nature. There’s isn’t any objective reason to believe it because of the subjective nature of the subject. That nature applies to your assertions as well because they have no objective reasons either. That’s the part you don’t seem to accept. No matter how many words or assertions we use the argument boils down to our opinions about the nature of truth and lies and their effect, for which there is no objective proof. That remains true no matter how strongly either of us believe in our respective assertions. IMO you’re doing exactly the same thing you accuse me off. You’re assuming things as factual and blatantly obvious because they support your own pet theory.
I hope you can understand my dismissal of your opinions about whether I’m actually being honest of have some emotional need to pretend I’m an honest person. I now can see why you concluded that. It supports your own personal theory about selfishness. The one which you have no objective proof for.
In post # 60 you also make a comment about my assertion
“I think the higher good of personal and societal growth are better served by a commitment to honesty. Not only for the sake of honesty alone but for what the effort brings to us”
you said
> [@](#):
>
> “And I think this isn’t known - or knowable.”
I don’t disagree with that. I think it also applies to your own pet theory and I was hoping you acknowledge that. The fact it isn’t known or knowable doesn’t make it false or true. It remains a viable possibility unless you can demonstrate otherwise. You haven’t. I’ll explain that in another post.
Post 70 consisted of more dismissal of my opinion and assertions of your own, for all its length. I tried to explain and make my points and you dismissed them with snide comments about me really being dishonest, while asserting you must be right, failing to recognize your own assertions were no better than mine.
This is interesting in 70
You said
> [@](#):
>
> “The time when it is moral to lie is when (to the best of your ability to determine) telling the lie results in the most positive situation for all concerned. You know, weighing the anticipated effects of the lie on _all_ effected parties, including onesself, against one another.”
The thing you fail to recognize is that’s just what I’ve done to come to my theory. I’ve weighed the anticipated effects for all effected parties including myself and come to the conclusion that the most positive situation for all concerned is to avoid lying altogether. Although your conclusion obviously differs it’s not inherently better.
Still later in 70 you make this assertion
> [@](#):
>
> “And I maintain that you have given no argument that does even a passable job of demonstrating, or even hinting, that all lies are negative. That being the case, there’s no reason not to think that the lie is the best option. (Or that it’s an “evil” at all.)”
Here you’re basically saying that since you dismiss my arguments and my claims at honesty you must be correct? That’s not objective evidence is it? You may sincerely feel your opinions and arguments are vastly superior but I disagree and it is after all, just your feeling rather than facts. Sorry that irritates you.
That’s where I decided to bail since it was an unresolved and unpleasant battle of opinions.
and yet, here I am:confused:
---
### Author:  [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)
#### Post date: [March 24, 2009, 7:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-there-any-circumstances-in-which-lying-is-a-moral-good-or-even-neutral/488662/89 "2009-03-24T19:33:27Z")
> [@cosmosdan](#):
>
> I \*don’t \*concede that, which was the point I was trying to make. It’s a semantic difference that is important to my point. Lies don’t have a positive effect. They may be involved in a situation in which the outcome is subjectively viewed as positive but there’s no way of knowing if the lie itself was positive of whether the positive of compassion and consideration outweighed the negative of the lie. This is important to my premise because it relates to long term and short term positive. The short term may seem positive but IMO the individual and society are better served by learning to be more truthful more often and tempering our honesty with consideration and compassion.
> This is also the point at which I think it boils down to opinion. There’s no way for me to prove my premise and I don’t accept that you have done anything to disprove it.
Let’s be quite clear - when I speak of (some) lies as having a positive effect, I am speaking of the sum of all observable effects, on onesself and other, short-term and long term.
So, for example, a lie that saves Anne Frank’s life would be presumably assessed as having a positive consequence, based on its consequences. This would be true even if lies actually do have some inherent ‘magic negativity’, divorced from the summed merit of their effects, so long as that inherent ‘magic negativity’ was not worse than the value of a life.
You seem to fluctuate wildly on wether lies with a positive summed merit exist. (Enough so that it has lost weight when you deny it.) So, for the sake of peace, I will concede that you never, ever, admitted anything of any kind on any subject whatsoever - and immidiately resume resting on the library of examples of lies with positive effect (starting with the Anne Frank example and going on down) and presuming that their existence **proves** that lies with positive observable effects exist, beyond all reasonable doubt. Denials of this are denials of reality.
Now, you are of course free to declare that in addition to _observable_ effects, lies also have magic effects, and that these effects make all lies immoral. I will give these unobservable effects the same consideration I do with other mystical things that are postulated to exist without a shred of evidence or logic supporting the theory.
Now, this ‘long term’ business. I’ll start by stating that it looks to me like a baseless smokescreen; in my observation the vast majority of benign lies have no subtle long term effects at all - just the obvious short term effects. (Malicious lies can have more visible permanent effect, as they will sometimes do real damage - benign lies tend to barely ripple the surface of things.)
It seems here like, rather than arguing for a trend of readily observable negative consequences, that you’re instead arguing for the existence of ‘butterfly effect’-type consequences, which you are rather inexplicably and unsupportedly assuming will be on average bad. Of course, the thing about ‘butterfly effect’-type consequences is that they are truly unpredictable, and thus there can be no basis for assuming anything about them whatsoever. So assuming their effects will be bad is certainly wrong to do.
Of course, the other, more problematic thing about butterfly effect consequences is that _everything has them_. Not just lies - compassionate truth also may have unintended unpredicatable long-term consequences. The same thing goes for buying the can of peas instead of the can of beans. Any decision or action may have unexpected negative consequences - or unexpected positive consequences, or some mix, or no unexpected consequences at all.
And so we find that you have again made an argument that essentially says that it’s impossible for humans to assess the merit of things or make any kind of reasoned decisions. Perhaps you do this to try to support your claim that this is a realm of opinion (perhaps to abrogate yourself of the usual reposibility to defend your position with arguments).
Of course, the possibility of ‘butterfly effect’-type long term consequences is nothing new to decision-making and discussions of morality…and as far as I can tell the general concensus is _they don’t matter_. Yes, by telling that compassionate truth you might be setting into motion a chain of events that will cause the destruction of humanity in six thousand years. So what? _No_ action you can take is free of that possibility. So no action you can take is superior to any other due to that possibility.
Which is not to say that you shouldn’t avoid actions where you _can_ discern an expected negative long-term outcome. But the unanticipable unintended consequences are irrelevent to the decision-making process…and the assessment of the morality of compassionate lies…and to this discussion!
> [@cosmosdan](#):
>
> Interesting. I don’t agree completely but it’s interesting. It’s no wonder you disagree with me.
> It’s an interesting topic for another thread but I’ll refrain from the tangent here. I appreciate the explanation.
The fact that compassionate truth is selfish as well (and probably based on exactly the same motivations as compassionate lies, if you think about it) does seriously undermine the ‘selfishness’ angle for arguing that compassionate lies have inherent magic negativity.
> [@cosmosdan](#):
>
> The point here is personal dishonesty which compounds the lie. I can appreciate the “honesty” in your position of lying and acknowledging it.
I can’t parse this. The lie _is_ the dishonesty; how does it compound itself? No other dishonesty was present in the scenario you presented. (And the last sentence loses me completely. ‘My’ position?)
> [@cosmosdan](#):
>
> I’m not sure why you go to these extremes.It’s not the first time. It’s unnecessary and does nothing to further the discussion. It’s certainly not an accurate representation of my position.
Isn’t it? You have stated that the thing that makes lying bad is because (in some cases) it is motivated by a benign selfish desire in addition to the desire to be kind. This implies that the compassionate lies would be okay if they were based in self-destructiveness (the opposite of selfishness). That _is_ martyrdom. Any other way of reading it drains the selfishness of negative value, which disintegrates the argument.
I’m not inventing these extremes, they’re directly implied by your arguments. And I show them to you so you can realize the error of these arguments you are presenting.
> [@cosmosdan](#):
>
> Mutual benefit. I agree. My theory is about promoting mutual benefit. I think learning how to communicate more honestly while remaining considerate of others is a win win.
Well, you have two theories actually. One is that honesty + compassion is a good thing (so long as the consideration is the more significant factor, apparently). The other is that lies have an inherent negativity, independent of their compassion or consequences.
I have no beef with your first conclusion, other than the fact you are incorrectly concluding that it supports your second conclusion. My position isn’t that telling the truth is inherently negative, after all.
To be specific, your error is in presuming that in honesty + compassion = positive, that the positivity is coming from the ‘honesty’ part. I’d say that it’s pretty easily demonstrated (and pretty intuitively obvious) that the positivity is coming from the ‘compassion’ part of the equation. I mean, it’s pretty easy to demonstrate harsh and damaging truths, just as it is easy to demonstrate both constructive and damaging lies. In my observation, the positivity correlates _much_ more closely to the compassion than the truth/falsehood difference.
Given that, the positive effect of compassionate truth does not imply a negativity to compassionate lies. Quite the opposite, really.
> [@cosmosdan](#):
>
> I accept that wasn’t your intention. I just think you haven’t realized that reality. This post is a good example. Wouldn’t you say morality is largely subjective? You just stated an opinion about the moral situation in which the lie is positive {IYO} and concluded that your opinion dissolved my objection. Not so, and not even close says I. How is that not an opinion on both our parts?
Correction - talking about a moral situation where the _effect_ of the lie is (objectively) positive, I then analyzed your reasoning for why the lie was nonetheless inherently negative (specifically, that it had some selfish motivations), and then presented you with the fact that your reasoning led to conclusions that, I suspected (rightly) you did not intend, and that those extreme conclusions demonstrated that your attribution of negativity to benign lies due to the existence of some selfish motivations was an untenable position. _That_ dissolved your argument. (At least until you can show that negativizing benign mild selfishness is not a positivization of martyrdom.)
This is debate. Not an opinon.
> [@cosmosdan](#):
>
> Tell you what. I’ll post this for now and go back and read your other posts.
I see you responded, and reading I have one thing to say:
Are you _seriously_ unable to detect and identify verbal qualification so soften delivery?!? You can’t tell that apart from simply stating opinions??
You know, as far as I can tell, 1 + 1 = 2.
And When I say “In my opinion, this proves my point”, the point is in the argument above! I’d think that should be obvious!
And I have stated that “you have given no argument that does even a passable job of demonstrating, or even hinting, that all lies are negative”…because you haven’t! I’ve refuted each of the arguments you have presented, and you have failed to refute my refutations. The problem here isn’t my opinions - it’s that you have indeed not managed to rebut my arguments that refute yours!
That’s the difference between a debate and an exchange of opinions - in a debate, you are expected to answer refutations. With other refutations. That’s how it works, see. _As far as I can tell. In my opinion._
---
### Author:  [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)
#### Post date: [March 24, 2009, 8:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-there-any-circumstances-in-which-lying-is-a-moral-good-or-even-neutral/488662/90 "2009-03-24T20:39:19Z")
Since the order of the day appears to be paired posts, now that I am past my shock and outrage that you would erect my verbal qualifications as a shield against having to respond to my actual arguments, allow me to clarify what the _actual_ purpose of such statements are.
They’re invitations to debate.
Suppose I were to make a statement like, say, “Lies don’t have a positive effect.” Note the lack of qualifiers - this is a statement of certain fact. Spoke straight from lips of God, as it were. By presenting opinions as facts in this matter, I would be forcing my opposition to make similarly stark unadorned rebuttals, if nothing else to clear the way for a more nuanced argument to follow. Thus I would be forcing my opinion to the forefront in a manner as though I would be trying to stifle debate with my unquaified rightness.
I do this rather a lot.
But on occasion I will decide to present a statement in such a way as to not deflect argument, but invite it. I will wrap my most certain statements and suffix my strongest arguments with expressions of opinion and uncertainty. In this manner I positively open the door and invite in objections and refutations, without presenting the confrontationality that would suggest to the opponent that they need to take a mirroring confrontational position. In doing so, I hope to encourage reasoned debate, and hope to bring the tone of the discussion down some to compensate for where I escalate it with arguments untactfully demonstrating the absurdity of the opponent’s positions.
Usually I find this works pretty well. Only once have I encountered someone who focused on the qualifications and ignored the arguments they adorn.
And man, is it annoying.
---
### Author:  [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)
#### Post date: [March 24, 2009, 11:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-there-any-circumstances-in-which-lying-is-a-moral-good-or-even-neutral/488662/91 "2009-03-24T23:40:48Z")
> [@begbert2](#):
>
> The extended response here is interesting because of how it clashes with a theory of my own that _I’ve_ developed from years of observation and experience: that _all_ human actions are driven by selfish desire. Without exception. Every single last one.
In thinking about this while out running errands it occurred to how odd it is that you make a statement like this after mocking me for being an extremist. Pot, Kettle wouldn’t you say?
and now on we go, still trying to condense when appropriate.
> [@](#):
>
> Witnessing is fine, this is the forum for it. But I’m not witnessing back, I’m debating against your witnessing. That’s allowed, you know; and you may argue back or back away at your leisure, I suppose…but it’s more fun if you defend your position by refuting my arguments.
Semantics IMO. When you make assertions as factual that you can’t prove are factual that strikes as either witnessing or just opinion.
> [@](#):
>
> Premise = axiom, so don’t bother with that.
Theory it is. My point is my starting with an assumed truth does not mean I’m not open to new information if it is _convincing_
> [@](#):
>
> And, perhaps you’re not aware, but your approach to testing theories is flawed. Your theory is that all lies are inherently bad, so to test that, you not only have to test that truths have good effects, but whether all types of lies have bad effects. If you fail to do the latter your testing methodology does not support your conclusion.
The latter was included. I said I wasn’t always successful right? That means at times I was less than honest for various reasons and had to examine the results of those times. The question was, in that situation where I was less than honest for whatever reason was there a way to be honest and still have a positive outcome or even a more positive outcome. If the lie turned out to be the best solution my theory would have been shot down. That didn’t happen. So much for excluded middle. Argument dismissed.
> [@](#):
>
> Given that I have _not_ merely declared that you are wrong, but instead actually presented arguments disuting your assertions…I’d say it’s clear that you _have_ missed my points. Every single one of them, apparently!
IMNO your arguments consisted of claiming that mine weren’t true, {an assertion of an opinion as fact} and yours were. {ditto}
> [@](#):
>
> I’ve argued that your testing doesn’t cover all the bases.
Just refuted
> [@](#):
>
> I have offered an argument that a slippery slope does not correctly describe the observable distribution of lies and truth.
IYO, No evidence, just assertion of your opinion and dismissal of mine.
> [@](#):
>
> Look, we just covered this, I didn’t say my opinon was patently obvious, I said that the existence of lies with positive effects was patently obvious.
I think something you say in a more recent post clears something up so I’ll respond to this there.
> [@](#):
>
> And it is irritating when you misrepresent my position as contentless. The fact that you do not rebut my arguments doesn’t mean I didn’t make them!
Maybe it felt something like your arguments were being dismissed without reasonable consideration? I feel ya.
> [@](#):
>
> Meh, _all_ unselfishness is mislabled seflishness. This argument treads no water.
If your own extreme position is correct. Gosh that’s a big if ya got there.
> [@](#):
>
> And I already argued that the mere existence of kindly lies proves that those liars already know how to express themselves in benevolent ways, which elimiates your argued benefit to honesty, and I already made the argument demonstrating that, no, there is reason to believe that there is a slippery slope that “inevitably” happens making progressive lies eviler. It’s all there earlier in the thread.
You didn’t demonstrate anything. You asserted it as true.
Let’s say we have a moral person who only lies when they truly feel it’s the best solution to achieve a positive result. Can we say with absolute certainty that such a person could not achieve a result just as positive or even more positive by trying to be truthful with consideration? If we can’t the benefit of honesty is not eliminated.
> [@](#):
>
> My point is
>
> Sigh. You were indeed in that quote restricting yourself to lies that have a positive effect, just as i said you were. This, of course, would include -2+6 lies. You need to stop just disputing everything I say, just because I said it.
As I said earlier. There may be a misunderstanding in semantics.
IMO a lie being a negative involved in a situation that has a somewhat positive outcome {my math example} does not mean the lie had a positive effect. That’s an important difference in understanding my theory.
> [@](#):
>
> I am claiming that lies with positive effects have positive effects, and that you have _not_ shown, _not_ given arguments for, and heck, not even argued a reason _why_ lies would have an inherent negative value. The closest you’ve come is to point out that sometimes the lies also benefit the liar, in addition to everyone else…and then neglected to give arguments for why _that’s_ immoral.
And I already said I did give arguments and reasons, which you dismissed offhandedly by what amounted to “Is Not” I offered real life long term efforts as evidence and arguments which you summarily dismissed. Now you’re bitching when a similar thing happens to you. Doesn’t feel good does it? Would you characterize your own complaints and expressions of frustration with Whaaaaaaa?
---
### Author:  [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)
#### Post date: [March 25, 2009, 12:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-there-any-circumstances-in-which-lying-is-a-moral-good-or-even-neutral/488662/92 "2009-03-25T00:25:00Z")
> [@cosmosdan](#):
>
> In thinking about this while out running errands it occurred to how odd it is that you make a statement like this after mocking me for being an extremist. Pot, Kettle wouldn’t you say?
What’s extreme about it?
No, seriously? Or are you arguing that people who are altruistic do so _against their will_? They’re all like, “God, no, don’t give that poor guy money! Arm, stop moving! Don’t reach out there and hand it over, I’ll hate myself if you do! Aaauuugh!”
Oh, dear, I’m presenting your position in such a way as to show its inherent absurdity again, aren’t I? I should be ashamed of myself.
> [@cosmosdan](#):
>
> Semantics IMO. When you make assertions as factual that you can’t prove are factual that strikes as either witnessing or just opinion.
Good thing I made ARGUMENTS then, huh?
> [@cosmosdan](#):
>
> Theory it is. My point is my starting with an assumed truth does not mean I’m not open to new information if it is _convincing_
And you immidiately dismiss or ignore anything that conflicts with your axiom. Wow, funny how nothing is even remotely convincing to you, isn’t it? What a coincidence!
> [@cosmosdan](#):
>
> The latter was included. I said I wasn’t always successful right? That means at times I was less than honest for various reasons and had to examine the results of those times. The question was, in that situation where I was less than honest for whatever reason was there a way to be honest and still have a positive outcome or even a more positive outcome. If the lie turned out to be the best solution my theory would have been shot down. That didn’t happen. So much for excluded middle. Argument dismissed.
How do you know it didn’t happen? Have you been traversing alternate future timelines to compare results again?
Or just letting your preconcieved notions do your arguing for you, perhaps?
> [@cosmosdan](#):
>
> IMNO your arguments consisted of claiming that mine weren’t true, {an assertion of an opinion as fact} and yours were. {ditto}
You just keep telling yourself that. It’s not like the arguments are still all written out in posts in the thread to disprove your words, or anything.
> [@cosmosdan](#):
>
> Maybe it felt something like your arguments were being dismissed without reasonable consideration? I feel ya.
Which of your arguments have I not disputed with an actual argument against? I admit I may have missed something; I am fallible. (Not fallible enough to be fooled into thinking I never actually made any arguments, though.)
If you have anything you think has not been sufficiently argued against, feel free to repeat it. I would hate to have missed anything.
> [@cosmosdan](#):
>
> Let’s say we have a moral person who only lies when they truly feel it’s the best solution to achieve a positive result. Can we say with absolute certainty that such a person could not achieve a result just as positive or even more positive by trying to be truthful with consideration? If we can’t the benefit of honesty is not eliminated.
Dude, this _very argument_ cuts in the reverse direction to slice your position off at the knees. If you can’t know which is better with “absolute certainty”, then you can’t know that honesty is better! (Unless you’re fallaciously and foolishly arguing from unproven and unsupported axiom, that is.)
You should be more careful swinging those double-edged swords. You don’t seem to realize how morally similar lies with positive intent and effect are to _truths_ with positive intent and effect - virtually any argument that can be used to criticize one is equally applicable to the other, simply by swapping the words ‘lie’ and ‘truth’. About the only one that doesn’t work with that is the slippery slope…which isn’t supported by reason or observable reality.
And by the way, who gives a flying crap if it’s the “best” solution? There is not just one moral action in any given situation. If the lie is positive in intent and effect, then it’s moral (presuming a connection between positivity and morality), regardless of whether or not there was some other lie that might have given an even better result.
> [@cosmosdan](#):
>
> IMO a lie being a negative involved in a situation that has a somewhat positive outcome {my math example} does not mean the lie had a positive effect. That’s an important difference in understanding my theory.
So lies that _do_ have positive outcomes/effects, do _not_ have positive outcomes/effects, according to your theory.
That’s a kind of cognitive dissonance that can’t be learned, folks. It has to be _learned_. 😉
> [@cosmosdan](#):
>
> And I already said I did give arguments and reasons, which you dismissed offhandedly by what amounted to “Is Not” I offered real life long term efforts as evidence and arguments which you summarily dismissed. Now you’re bitching when a similar thing happens to you. Doesn’t feel good does it? Would you characterize your own complaints and expressions of frustration with Whaaaaaaa?
Actually I’m bitching that you’re continually saying misrepresenting my arguments as “amount[ing] to “Is Not””, when that is a complete load of fetid shit that no truly honest person could ever bring themself to post. (And no sensible liar would either - the prior posts are _still there_, after all.) How you can bring yourself to argue the side favoring complete honesty is a complete mystery to me.
And there is nothing similar between our two argumentive styles. Don’t insult me like that - there’s no _way_ I would stoop so low as to claim that you did not _make_ arguments.
You have made arguments. Just none that stood up to examination.
---
### Author:  [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)
#### Post date: [March 25, 2009, 2:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-there-any-circumstances-in-which-lying-is-a-moral-good-or-even-neutral/488662/93 "2009-03-25T02:57:28Z")
> [@begbert2](#):
>
> (continued…)
>
> Oh, come on. I said “you have not even shown that the truth always has a positive effect (and I can easily show it doesn’t always)”. I can _trivially_ show that the truth sometimes has a negative effect. Easily! “Actually, dear, it’s your fat that makes you look fat.” “Actually, I _am_ hiding jews in the attic!” “Kid, your drawing sucks. The only reason I don’t rip them up is to make you feel good.”
>
> You really should choose your battles a little more carefully; you’re not actually _obligated_ to dispute everything I say after all, especially if doing so makes you look foolish.
Funny , I don’t feel foolish. I think in some areas we’re talking past each other and disagreeing because of semantics rather than real content. I’ve said repeatedly that a decision to lie or tell the truth does not exist in a vacuum. In the same way I tried to explain how a lie can be negative but part of a positive outcome, truth can equally be positive but part of a negative outcome when we do not temper it with wisdom and consideration. The +2 of truth added to the negative -3 of ignorance and the negative -4 of a lack of compassion is a positive -5. So the person telling the truth may conclude, “Dam I told the truth and it wasn’t worth it”, unless they are as smart as me 😉 Then they realize the truth is good but they need to improve other aspects to make it more positive.
I have a hard time relating to the Jews in the attic but let’s use racism in this country as an example. White people in the south honestly felt they were superior and entitled to more rights than blacks. In view of a greater moral truth they were wrong, but many sincerely felt they were right. Some black people out of a desire to avoid a confrontation that they believed would end badly, went along with he lie. Some white people afraid of rejection and condemnation by their own race kept quiet when they felt deep down it wasn’t correct. Were the black people who accepted racism in order to get along in relative peace getting a positive result from their lie? Were white people who caved to peer pressure benefiting from their lie? The short term answer might be yes. Still, in order to move in a more positive direction towards equality there had to be a confrontation between the lie of racism and the truth of equal human rights. That lie cost a bunch of people their lives. Was it worth it. Was the outcome more positive or less positive? I feel certain it was more positive and I also feel that the principle applies to lies and truth in general, even the much more mundane type.
> [@](#):
>
> What “premise” do you think I have, by the way?
“White lies can be the lubricant that keeps the societal machine running smoothly” and “The time when it is moral to lie is when (to the best of your ability to determine) telling the lie results in the most positive situation for all concerned"
both prongs of the same premise.
> [@](#):
>
> I have **SO** offered arguments!!! I’m getting irritated at your repeated assertions that I’ve done nothing but make assertions. Am I arguing into a vacuum chamber here? Is your computer filtering 90% of the text out of my posts?
We obviously see your arguments differently. It seemed reasonable to dismiss yours in a similar fashion as you dismissed mine.
> [@](#):
>
> And no, it’s not impossible to make arguments about this. I do not buy the “it can’t be known, so **cosmosdan** ’s theory is true” argument.
That’s an argument I’ve never made so cut **that** shit out.
> [@](#):
>
> Amazing how I seem to be successfully eviscerating your position, then - so badly that you apparently have to pretend my arguments don’t _exist_.
Uh huh I’m not pretending anything. I’m saying yours are no more valid than mine. If mine can be dismissed out of hand turn about is fair play.
> [@](#):
>
> Based on the thread so far, I’ve _disproven_ your axiom with arguments. That’s compelling enough for me so far, though you are invited to actually make rebuttals and counterarguments at any time.
I guess if you’re only trying to convince yourself and not me then your work here is done. Personally I don’t think you’ve disproven anything.
> [@](#):
>
> You forgot all those _arguments_ I’ve been making that you’ve been ignoring. They give me that power.
Hmmmm I don’t think so. Perhaps you have a cape or a ring you haven’t mentioned yet.
> [@](#):
>
> The **stated topic of the thread** is lies that are potentially moral.
>
> But you discuss what you like.
Snap out of it. The thread title is a question asking for opinions. I answered with “No I don’t think so” You must be making this up because I’m sure you’re not that dense.
> [@](#):
>
> I wish you’d make up your mind as to whether benign lies _exist_. You toggle back and forth from paragraph to paragraph, whichever way is better for your argument at any given moment.
I can only assume you’re saying this because a. we’re talking past each other with a misunderstanding in semantics, or b, you don’t actually understand my position which would also explain why I think you haven’t disproven anything and you keep insisting you have.
---
### Author:  [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)
#### Post date: [March 25, 2009, 7:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-there-any-circumstances-in-which-lying-is-a-moral-good-or-even-neutral/488662/94 "2009-03-25T19:07:53Z")
> [@cosmosdan](#):
>
> Funny , I don’t feel foolish. I think in some areas we’re talking past each other and disagreeing because of semantics rather than real content. I’ve said repeatedly that a decision to lie or tell the truth does not exist in a vacuum. In the same way I tried to explain how a lie can be negative but part of a positive outcome, truth can equally be positive but part of a negative outcome when we do not temper it with wisdom and consideration. The +2 of truth added to the negative -3 of ignorance and the negative -4 of a lack of compassion is a positive -5. So the person telling the truth may conclude, “Dam I told the truth and it wasn’t worth it”, unless they are as smart as me 😉 Then they realize the truth is good but they need to improve other aspects to make it more positive.
Clearly some of the discussion here is resulting from ‘assumed qualifications’ - saying ‘truth has a positive effect’ without actually qualifying it as referring to truth-value-not-counting-effects or truth-value-counting-effects leaves open the possibilty (probability) of you meaning the former and me reading it as the latter.
As for the provided example, we’re back to the fact that, assuming that truth or falsehood has any inherent magic positive/negative value _at all_, it’s so insignificant that it is inevitably overridden by the overt positivity or negativity of the positive or negative intents and effects.
It seems the only case where this inherent magic positive/negative value could possibly be relevent is in cases where both the lie and the truth are perceived as having equally beneficial effect (and equally benevolent and equally selfish motivations, keeping in mind that selfishness is only bad when it is done to the _detriment_ of others).
I do not expect you to agree with the above two paragraphs.
> [@cosmosdan](#):
>
> I have a hard time relating to the Jews in the attic but let’s use racism in this country as an example. White people in the south honestly felt they were superior and entitled to more rights than blacks. In view of a greater moral truth they were wrong, but many sincerely felt they were right. Some black people out of a desire to avoid a confrontation that they believed would end badly, went along with he lie. Some white people afraid of rejection and condemnation by their own race kept quiet when they felt deep down it wasn’t correct. Were the black people who accepted racism in order to get along in relative peace getting a positive result from their lie? Were white people who caved to peer pressure benefiting from their lie? The short term answer might be yes. Still, in order to move in a more positive direction towards equality there had to be a confrontation between the lie of racism and the truth of equal human rights. That lie cost a bunch of people their lives. Was it worth it. Was the outcome more positive or less positive? I feel certain it was more positive and I also feel that the principle applies to lies and truth in general, even the much more mundane type.
I suspect your difficulty in relating to the Jews in the attic scenario is the fact that it is not possible to prevent it contradicting your theory, being as it lacks long-term negatives to counter the short-term positives.
As for the racism, the issue there isn’t lying so much as oppression and wether it is productive or wise to confront oppression. (Some wordplay there is required to relate it to truth and lies at all; you are not referring to individual honest/dishonest statements.)
The question of whether to fight against oppression is, like the unrelated issue of whether to lie, a moral issue that relies on both short and long term consequences, and what the consequences are for both the self and others. Like lies that have complicated effects (such as deciding whether to tell someone about an unavoidable tragedy in their future), determining whether the short term benefits outweigh the long term benefits, or whether the individual costs outweigh the long-term costs, can be a complex issue.
Which is probably why I don’t choose lies with demonstrable long-term negatives to make my argument. I’ll just stick with the ones with only positive discernible effects, short _and_ long term, thanks. 🙂
> [@cosmosdan](#):
>
> “White lies can be the lubricant that keeps the societal machine running smoothly” and “The time when it is moral to lie is when (to the best of your ability to determine) telling the lie results in the most positive situation for all concerned"
The last one is actually a _conclusion_, based on an argument based on how we dermine whether _anything_ is moral (if not the very definition of the word “moral”). And I of course provided support for the former with numerous examples. I ask nobody to accept either statement _axiomatically_.
But that doesn’t mean they aren’t premises, especially in other arguments, so I concede these as indeed being premises I’ve stated.
> [@cosmosdan](#):
>
> We obviously see your arguments differently. It seemed reasonable to dismiss yours in a similar fashion as you dismissed mine.
If _only_ the fashion we were dismissing each others arguments with were similar! I say “Your argument has this problem: [insert argument here] - therefore I dismiss it (pending your refutation)”. You say “You never made arguments, you just asserted your opinion with no supporting arguments at all.”
If you dismissed my arguments the way I’m dismissing yours, this would be _piles_ more productive!
> [@cosmosdan](#):
>
> That’s an argument I’ve never made so cut **that** shit out.
> [@cosmosdan](#):
>
> Let’s say we have a moral person who only lies when they truly feel it’s the best solution to achieve a positive result. Can we say with absolute certainty that such a person could not achieve a result just as positive or even more positive by trying to be truthful with consideration? If we can’t the benefit of honesty is not eliminated.
Parahprasing: “We can’t possibly know with absolute certainty - \*so the benefit of honesty cannot be elimiated.”
What benefit of honesty? Why, the benefit of honesty that **cosmosdan** is assuming of course! Why yes, this _is_ the “it can’t be known, so cosmosdan’s theory is true” argument. And it’s the point of _all_ your repeated “I don’t think it’s knowable in an absolute sense” arguments - that we can’t be certain, so _I_ don’t get to argue, but _you_ still get to make unsupported assertions unswayed by the fact “it’s unknowable in an absolute sense”.
And I _still_ don’t buy it.
> [@cosmosdan](#):
>
> Uh huh I’m not pretending anything. I’m saying yours are no more valid than mine. If mine can be dismissed out of hand turn about is fair play.
You really have no clue the difference between making rebutting arguments and “dismissing out of hand”, do you?
> [@cosmosdan](#):
>
> I guess if you’re only trying to convince yourself and not me then your work here is done. Personally I don’t think you’ve disproven anything.
Arguments against dogmatically held beliefs unsupported by evidence or reason are always done for the benefit of the audience, for the argumentive practice, and for the fun of it. Nobody expects to convince somebody who is more dedicated to their axioms than the reality.
> [@cosmosdan](#):
>
> Hmmmm I don’t think so. Perhaps you have a cape or a ring you haven’t mentioned yet.
I see. I don’t get to be sarcastic, but you do. Got it.
(My sarcasm usually addresses the point actually under discussion, though - perhaps that’s why it’s disallowed?)
> [@cosmosdan](#):
>
> Snap out of it. The thread title is a question asking for opinions. I answered with “No I don’t think so” You must be making this up because I’m sure you’re not that dense.
Welcome to Great Debates!
I think Great I Get To Make Assertions And Not Have Them Argued Against is on the next forum over.
> [@cosmosdan](#):
>
> I can only assume you’re saying this because a. we’re talking past each other with a misunderstanding in semantics, or b, you don’t actually understand my position which would also explain why I think you haven’t disproven anything and you keep insisting you have.
Actually I said it because you said you had experience with benign lies, which would be quite a trick if there’s no such thing, which you also occasionally assert.
Presuming we’re miscommunicating, I’ll restate: “I wish you’d be more clear in your mention of general terms which require clarification, qualification, or additional description to prevent ambiguity.”
---
### Author:  [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)
#### Post date: [March 25, 2009, 10:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-there-any-circumstances-in-which-lying-is-a-moral-good-or-even-neutral/488662/95 "2009-03-25T22:07:47Z")
I’m going to try and wrap this up in this post. I don’t really have the time or, after reading the last three posts, the interest.
> [@begbert2](#):
>
> Let’s be quite clear - when I speak of (some) lies as having a positive effect, I am speaking of the sum of all observable effects, on onesself and other, short-term and long term.
>
> So, for example, a lie that saves Anne Frank’s life would be presumably assessed as having a positive consequence, based on its consequences. This would be true even if lies actually do have some inherent ‘magic negativity’, divorced from the summed merit of their effects, so long as that inherent ‘magic negativity’ was not worse than the value of a life.
This is what I was speaking of in previous posts that leads me to believe you really don’t understand my position and we may have been talking past each other.
If you grant the possibility of inherent negativity then you’re agreeing with my position not disproving it, even granting an apparently positive outcome.
> [@](#):
>
> You seem to fluctuate wildly on wether lies with a positive summed merit exist.
No I’m not, and this shows even more that you don’t actually understand the argument you think you’ve destroyed. Either that or you’re purposely misrepresenting my argument in order to declare some imagined victory.
In my very first post I said
“In rare cases, like the Jews in the attic thing, the choice may sometimes be between the lesser of two evils, and lying may be the lesser.”
Thus recognizing a positive summed merit in my very first post and still consistently referring to lying as negative. I’ve acknowledged several times and been consistent in claiming that although the outcome may be seen as a positive the lie itself remains a negative as in the math example. The fact that you keep repeating this as if it shows a flaw in my theory indicates you didn’t get it. My objection to your choice of words semantically is when you refer to the lie as positive or indicate that the lie was the most positive choice. I haven’t fluctuated wildly.
> [@](#):
>
> I can’t parse this. The lie is the dishonesty; how does it compound itself? No other dishonesty was present in the scenario you presented. (And the last sentence loses me completely. ‘My’ position?)
It’s perfectly obvious. Someone lies in order to “spare someone’s feelings”. That’s lie one. They tell themselves they were being considerate and concerned about the other person when actually they were just looking for a quick and easy out for themselves. That’s the 2nd lie that compounds the negative effect of lies. The effort to be more honest must contain personal honesty about our own feelings and motives.
> [@](#):
>
> Correction - talking about a moral situation where the effect of the lie is (objectively) positive, I then analyzed your reasoning for why the lie was nonetheless inherently negative (specifically, that it had some selfish motivations), and then presented you with the fact that your reasoning led to conclusions that, I suspected (rightly) you did not intend, and that those extreme conclusions demonstrated that your attribution of negativity to benign lies due to the existence of some selfish motivations was an untenable position. _That_ dissolved your argument. (At least until you can show that negativizing benign mild selfishness is not a positivization of martyrdom.)
>
> This is debate. Not an opinon.
You asked that I go back and reread your arguments and I did and posted about it. regardless of phrasing it still relies on your analysis which is basically, your opinion, evidentially based in part on your own extreme position as you mock mine. That’s funny. You’ve never demonstrated anything and I now suspect the reason you think you have is that you didn’t really understand my position as well as you thought you did.
Here’s why it boils down to our unprovable opinions. {something else I’ve expressed more than once}
There’s no way for either you or I to prove to the other in any meaningful way, that the lie is positive or negative , even in a situation where the outcome is apparently positive. That comes down to , I think the lie is a negative, but can’t prove it, and you evidently think it isn’t, and also can’t prove anything. Regardless of all the arguments you mistakenly think have destroyed this or proved that , that’s what you have. In any and every example and analogy you give that remains the essence of the disagreement. All the extra crap you threw in about excluded middle and how it’s my obligation to prove something very subjective is meaningless because it all comes down to that central issue.
> [@](#):
>
> What’s extreme about it?
Holy fuck is this a serious question?
You repeatedly mock my theory about \*\*all \*\*lies have some negative effect as a ridiculous extreme and then say this
> [@](#):
>
> The extended response here is interesting because of how it clashes with a theory of my own that I’ve developed from years of observation and experience: that **all humanactions** are driven by selfish desire. **Without exception. Every single last one.**
The bolded parts indicate the extreme bits. Note their similarity to the language in my own theory that you mocked repeatedly. It would be funny if I didn’t think you were serious.
> [@](#):
>
> Oh, dear, I’m presenting your position in such a way as to show its inherent absurdity again, aren’t I? I should be ashamed of myself.
I think you should be, but not for the reason you stated. THat never happened.
> [@](#):
>
> And you immidiately dismiss or ignore anything that conflicts with your axiom. Wow, funny how nothing is even remotely convincing to you, isn’t it? What a coincidence!
My posts show this to be a falsehood.
> [@](#):
>
> How do you know it didn’t happen? Have you been traversing alternate future timelines to compare results again?
>
> Or just letting your preconcieved notions do your arguing for you, perhaps?
I examined the possibilities and decided a positive truthful answer was available. The next time a similar situation came up I tried the truthful answer and discovered it was indeed more positive. No time travel required.
> [@](#):
>
> Dude, this _very argument_ cuts in the reverse direction to slice your position off at the knees. If you can’t know which is better with “absolute certainty”, then you can’t know that honesty is better! (Unless you’re fallaciously and foolishly arguing from unproven and unsupported axiom, that is.)
Dude that’s exactly what I’ve been trying to point out to you and why , as I just explained **again** , it boils down to opinion. I can’t know with absolute certainty{and neither can you } but since my theory and my personal efforts and experience match my theory to observed reality I will continue to hold this theory until my experience and a\* decent\* argument presents a more likely alternative.
> [@](#):
>
> And by the way, who gives a flying crap if it’s the “best” solution? There is not just one moral action in any given situation. If the lie is positive in intent and effect, then it’s moral (presuming a connection between positivity and morality), regardless of whether or not there was some other lie that might have given an even better result.
My theory is concerns personal and societal growth so the best solution is clearly something we should be concerned about. When you set a goal wouldn’t you choose what appeared to be the best solution, even allowing for a margin of error?
> [@](#):
>
> Actually I’m bitching that you’re continually saying misrepresenting my arguments as “amount[ing] to “Is Not””, when that is a complete load of fetid shit that no truly honest person could ever bring themself to post. (And no sensible liar would either - the prior posts are _still there_, after all.) How you can bring yourself to argue the side favoring complete honesty is a complete mystery to me.
This is on the edge of a personal insult and one of the main reasons this will be my last post. Because we don’t agree you assume I’m pretending and not arguing in good faith. Being in retail I’m quite used to people assuming I’m not honest. It only matters if I truly value their opinion. I think if you questioned your own motives as seriously as you questioned mine you’d solve the mystery but clearly YMMV.
> [@](#):
>
> What benefit of honesty? Why, the benefit of honesty that cosmosdan is assuming of course! Why yes, this is the “it can’t be known, so cosmosdan’s theory is true” argument. And it’s the point of all your repeated “I don’t think it’s knowable in an absolute sense” arguments - that we can’t be certain, so I don’t get to argue, but you still get to make unsupported assertions unswayed by the fact “it’s unknowable in an absolute sense”.
I \*\*have not
\*\* made the argument you stated. “Since you can’t prove I’m wrong I must be right.” for you to say I have is a gross misrepresentation of my position at best. What I’ve said is that because of the subjective nature of the topic the possibility I’m correct remains open as well as the possibility you’re right. That’s a perfectly reasonable statement. That kind of thing occurs regularly in _objective_ fields when there is insufficient data.
And that’s a wrap, with peppers, onions, and extra cheese.
If you decide to start a thread about about your own extreme position concerning selfishness I’ll be glad to stop by and mock, er I mean discuss it. 😉
---
### Author:  [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)
#### Post date: [March 25, 2009, 11:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-there-any-circumstances-in-which-lying-is-a-moral-good-or-even-neutral/488662/96 "2009-03-25T23:41:34Z")
> [@cosmosdan](#):
>
> If you grant the possibility of inherent negativity then you’re agreeing with my position not disproving it, even granting an apparently positive outcome.
Nonsense - I don’t have to agree with your axiom to point out that even _if_ it was true, it is demonstrable that it would still be utterly irrelevent to all actual moral decisions, since actual results actually matter.
> [@cosmosdan](#):
>
> No I’m not, and this shows even more that you don’t actually understand the argument you think you’ve destroyed. Either that or you’re purposely misrepresenting my argument in order to declare some imagined victory.
>
> In my very first post I said
> “In rare cases, like the Jews in the attic thing, the choice may sometimes be between the lesser of two evils, and lying may be the lesser.”
>
> Thus recognizing a positive summed merit in my very first post and still consistently referring to lying as negative. I’ve acknowledged several times and been consistent in claiming that although the outcome may be seen as a positive the lie itself remains a negative as in the math example. The fact that you keep repeating this as if it shows a flaw in my theory indicates you didn’t get it. My objection to your choice of words semantically is when you refer to the lie as positive or indicate that the lie was the most positive choice. I haven’t fluctuated wildly.
Option three: you are at least as bad as I am at clarifiying wether you are referring to a lie’s “inhererent magic negativity” or its “negativity as assessed by the sum total of all effects”.
I feel I’ve been fairly consistent in referring to the former as, specifically, “inherent magic negativity/positivity”, and the former as “benign/destructive lies”. I have probably ommitted this clarifying commenting on occasion. You **certainly** have, and you **certainly** have responded to comments using one term as though it discussed the other.
Your accusations of deliberate misrepresentation are nothing but poisoning of the well, and are scummy shit tactics unworthy of a moral human.
Would you like me to _tell_ you what your position is? It’s really simple, and I’ve understood it the entire time, though you have said things that on a plain reading contradict it in places.
1. You believe that lies have inherent moral negativity, caused by nothing and based on nothing, since it’s separate from intent and consequences. It’s just _there_.
2. You recognize that intent and consequences can have much more of a positive moral effect than your imagined inherent negativity. You try to pretend this happens only rarely or never, to validate your position.
3. You assert that lies with only positive detectable consequences must have stealthy secret negative consequences. You don’t give arguments supporting this conclusion.
Am I with you so far?
> [@cosmosdan](#):
>
> It’s perfectly obvious. Someone lies in order to “spare someone’s feelings”. That’s lie one. They tell themselves they were being considerate and concerned about the other person when actually they were just looking for a quick and easy out for themselves. That’s the 2nd lie that compounds the negative effect of lies. The effort to be more honest must contain personal honesty about our own feelings and motives.
Oh, I see why I didn’t understand it - it’s ridiculous nonsense. People who are telling benign lies know exactly why they’re doing it. They might lie to _you_ about why they’re doing it, but that doesn’t mean they have some sort of mental confusion about their own motives - and if they _did_, then it _wouldn’t be a lie_ for them to think that they did it out of consideration!
And I gotta say, this was _hilarious_ coming from a guy who tells himself that his kid was _really_ asking if daddy is appreciative that the kid bothered to give him anything at all. I was letting that drop, because your own personal approach to honesty is really irrelevent to the general discussion of it, -but the irony here is _priceless_.
> [@cosmosdan](#):
>
> You asked that I go back and reread your arguments and I did and posted about it. regardless of phrasing it still relies on your analysis which is basically, your opinion, evidentially based in part on your own extreme position as you mock mine. That’s funny. You’ve never demonstrated anything and I now suspect the reason you think you have is that you didn’t really understand my position as well as you thought you did.
I get the point, your reading comprehension drops to zero when you read things that puncture your position. You demonstrated that amply by selecting a statement that _immidiately followed_ an argument and responding to it rather than the argument, using it as proof I don’t make arguments!
Selective hearing, reading-style, as it were.
> [@cosmosdan](#):
>
> Here’s why it boils down to our unprovable opinions. {something else I’ve expressed more than once}
> There’s no way for either you or I to prove to the other in any meaningful way, that the lie is positive or negative , even in a situation where the outcome is apparently positive. That comes down to , I think the lie is a negative, but can’t prove it, and you evidently think it isn’t, and also can’t prove anything. Regardless of all the arguments you mistakenly think have destroyed this or proved that , that’s what you have. In any and every example and analogy you give that remains the essence of the disagreement. All the extra crap you threw in about excluded middle and how it’s my obligation to prove something very subjective is meaningless because it all comes down to that central issue.
You probably think that it’s up to the skeptics to prove that each individual claimant _wasn’t_ abducted by aliens, too.
The nifty thing about this is, that morality is presumably caused by _something_. I assert that it’s caused by intent and effects. You are asserting it’s caused by something else…which has no apparent mechanism for happening. (You’ve proposed some potential causes, I’ve put holes in them, you’ve stuck your fingers in your ears and said la la la really loud.)
Occam’s razor suggests that there are problems with your position.
> [@cosmosdan](#):
>
> Holy fuck is this a serious question?
>
> You repeatedly mock my theory about \*\*all \*\*lies have some negative effect as a ridiculous extreme and then say this
Couldn’t think of an argument against it, eh? It’s bugging you, isn’t it? 😉
> [@cosmosdan](#):
>
> The bolded parts indicate the extreme bits. Note their similarity to the language in my own theory that you mocked repeatedly. It would be funny if I didn’t think you were serious.
What _is_ funny is that you had to lop out the subsequent argument in order for this pathetic textual comparison attack to even pretend to hold water. If you had a _real_ rebuttal to this postion, of course, you would have argued against _the actual argument_.
> [@cosmosdan](#):
>
> I think you should be, but not for the reason you stated. THat never happened.
Riiiiight. Suuuuure it didn’t.
Given your conduct in this thread, your censure isn’t very stinging.
> [@cosmosdan](#):
>
> My posts show this to be a falsehood.
Your posts are all still here, too, you know.
> [@cosmosdan](#):
>
> I examined the possibilities and decided a positive truthful answer was available. The next time a similar situation came up I tried the truthful answer and discovered it was indeed more positive. No time travel required.
You do realize that the number of factors here, and more significantly selective memory and confirmation bias - and your bias is _obvious_- make comparisons like this spectacularly shaky, right?
> [@cosmosdan](#):
>
> Dude that’s exactly what I’ve been trying to point out to you and why , as I just explained **again** , it boils down to opinion. I can’t know with absolute certainty{and neither can you } but since my theory and my personal efforts and experience match my theory to observed reality I will continue to hold this theory until my experience and a\* decent\* argument presents a more likely alternative.
That didn’t even come close to saying that it boiled down to opinon. It said that when you criticize lies told with benign intent you are criticizing _truth’s twin_. Morally speaking there is barely any way to tell the positions apart, and that fact is underscored by the fact that any argument you make against benign lies turns back around and skewers your own position. (Except that ridiculous imagined slippery slope, as I mentioned.)
And the only reason you are arguing that it boils down to opinion is because your theory doesn’t stand up to facts _or_ logical examination. And I’d give your claim of being suseptible to “decent” arguments perhaps a shred of credibility if you weren’t so desperately failing to even _counter_ the arguments I present. Which an honest debater would…or be forced to admit they’re decent!
> [@cosmosdan](#):
>
> My theory is concerns personal and societal growth so the best solution is clearly something we should be concerned about. When you set a goal wouldn’t you choose what appeared to be the best solution, even allowing for a margin of error?
Because the discussion isn’t whether the truth is best (which you haven’t shown), it’s whether lies with benign intent and effects are moral. Wether or not chocolate is tastiest is _completely irrelevent_ to the question of whether or not grapes are tasty.
> [@cosmosdan](#):
>
> This is on the edge of a personal insult and one of the main reasons this will be my last post. Because we don’t agree you assume I’m pretending and not arguing in good faith. Being in retail I’m quite used to people assuming I’m not honest. It only matters if I truly value their opinion. I think if you questioned your own motives as seriously as you questioned mine you’d solve the mystery but clearly YMMV.
God, look at the hypocricy. You persistently pretend I’m only stating opinions and not presenting arguments, complain that I’m questioning your motives, and then immidiately turn around _and question my motives_.
You’re amazing.
> [@cosmosdan](#):
>
> I **have not** made the argument you stated. “Since you can’t prove I’m wrong I must be right.” for you to say I have is a gross misrepresentation of my position at best. What I’ve said is that because of the subjective nature of the topic the possibility I’m correct remains open as well as the possibility you’re right. That’s a perfectly reasonable statement. That kind of thing occurs regularly in _objective_ fields when there is insufficient data.
Yeah, you _sure_ stated that your theory was uncertain in the quoted post. Or anywhere else when you’re not explicitly playing the “it’s not my responsibility to prove esp is real; it’s your responsibility to prove it isn’t, and since nobody can be sure, believing in esp is exactly as valid as believing rocks exist” card.
By what mechanism did lies with benign intent and effect acquire their inherent magic moral negativity again, by the way? Morality fairies?
> [@cosmosdan](#):
>
> If you decide to start a thread about about your own extreme position concerning selfishness I’ll be glad to stop by and mock, er I mean discuss it. 😉
Yes, because you can’t find any flaws in it, so you couldn’t actually _argue_ against it. If you could, you would have done so already!
---
### Author:  [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)
#### Post date: [March 26, 2009, 2:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-there-any-circumstances-in-which-lying-is-a-moral-good-or-even-neutral/488662/97 "2009-03-26T02:38:40Z")
> [@begbert2](#):
>
> Yes, because you can’t find any flaws in it, so you couldn’t actually _argue_ against it. If you could, you would have done so already!
If you believe this is true then by all means start a thread about it and we’ll see.
---
### Author:  [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)
#### Post date: [March 27, 2009, 3:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-there-any-circumstances-in-which-lying-is-a-moral-good-or-even-neutral/488662/98 "2009-03-27T03:35:35Z")
> [@begbert2](#):
>
> That’s a kind of cognitive dissonance that can’t be learned, folks. It has to be _learned_. 😉
> . . .
> Actually I’m bitching that you’re continually saying misrepresenting my arguments as “amount[ing] to “Is Not””, when that is a complete load of fetid shit that no truly honest person could ever bring themself to post. (And no sensible liar would either - the prior posts are _still there_, after all.) How you can bring yourself to argue the side favoring complete honesty is a complete mystery to me.
> [@begbert2](#):
>
> Your accusations of deliberate misrepresentation are nothing but poisoning of the well, and are scummy shit tactics unworthy of a moral human.
> . . .
> I get the point, your reading comprehension drops to zero when you read things that puncture your position. You demonstrated that amply by selecting a statement that _immidiately followed_ an argument and responding to it rather than the argument, using it as proof I don’t make arguments!
>
> Selective hearing, reading-style, as it were.
> . . .
> God, look at the hypocricy.
I realize that this thread has evoked a lot of passion, but you need to stop getting quite so personal in your responses. (In general, I think that you and **cosmosdan** have both come pretty close to attacking the poster rather than the post, but you have stepped closer to the line with these comments.
If you guys feel the need to continue this discussion, I would suggest that you each avoid attacking the other’s method of argumentation and stick to trying to resolve the logic (or failure of logic) in the arguments. I would strongly suggest that both of you, (and everyone else), refrain from using the words “you” and “your” from here on out. Stick to the third person, (“one,” “one’s,”) for references to the actors in a scenario and just do not even address the other’s presumed position.
[/Modding]
[Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-there-any-circumstances-in-which-lying-is-a-moral-good-or-even-neutral/488662.md?page=4)