# Should we ALWAYS tell the truth? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [May 18, 2005, 4:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-we-always-tell-the-truth/304424 "2005-05-18T16:08:31Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [May 22, 2005, 3:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-we-always-tell-the-truth/304424/81 "2005-05-22T15:22:27Z")
> [@Priceguy](#): > > It’s not a question my philosophy struggles with; it’s very easily answered. The option that provides maximum happiness and minimum suffering is the best one. Short-term happiness or long-term happiness I don’t care about, but\*\* usually the answer is long-term happiness.\*\* and here’s the contradiction. The philosophy can’t really function without some way to judge these details. It seems to be more of just an observation about how people function rather than a philosophy. BTW usually the long term, supports my arguement for the truth. > [@](#): > > Who said morals are the same as principles? I certainly didn’t. Well the dictionary for one. Considering their application in this discussion they seem identical. PLease explain how they are not. ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [May 22, 2005, 3:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-we-always-tell-the-truth/304424/82 "2005-05-22T15:31:00Z")
> [@Priceguy](#): > > But you have yet to show any benefit from truth in itself. The benifit is how we judge happiness that has a solid foundation or happiness that does not. > [@](#): > > Every time you try and explain why truth has value, you come back to pleasure. Cornmeal or cornbread. Cornmeal has value because it leads to cornbread. Yet it is impossible for cornbread to exist with out cornmeal. How can one have more value? > [@](#): > > Because you agree that pleasure is good, and that there is no difference between pleasure you experience and pleasure others experience. To then deny that the pleasure of others is good would be intellectually dishonest in the extreme. To have no foundation from which to judge this makes the philosophy intellectually dishonest IMHO. ---
**Author:** ![Dunderman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/ecb155/32.png) [@Dunderman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dunderman)\ **Post date:** [May 22, 2005, 4:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-we-always-tell-the-truth/304424/83 "2005-05-22T16:04:32Z")
> [@cosmosdan](#): > > I don’t think you can support the validity of this philosophy with this type of example by examining only one person’s happiness. It assumes too much. I didn’t use this example. Once again, **Lucius** used it to explain why he would prefer pain to pleasure. > [@](#): > > I’m saying the truth would eventually lead to the gain of both parties, while a lie creates the illusion of pleasure that cannot sustain itself. Again the issue of short term or long term? If the truth leads to more pleasure, then I’m all for the truth. > [@](#): > > Interesting, why this change? Human pleasure is no different from any other kind of pleasure, hence drawing any distinction is illogical. > [@](#): > > If you believe in this principle then please explain how we make the judgement call on what is the greater good? On a case-to-case-basis. Did you expect me to have a patented solution applicable in every situation? > [@](#): > > Thats a stretch and a contradiction. If Utilitarianism doesn’t work then whatever does work is Utilitarianism. It’s meaningless. No, it isn’t. A utilitarianist may well come to the conclusion that, for example, _always_ telling the truth leads to greater happiness than evaluating each situation on its own merits. In that situation, operating under the axiom that truth should always be told is perfectly utilitarianist. > [@](#): > > I’m glad I was exposed to it beause I think it has some valid points but on a whole it has one failing that renders it relatively useless. There is no foundational axiom that is a constant. And you can’t operate without a constant axiom? > [@](#): > > The philosophy can’t really function without some way to judge these details. It seems to be more of just an observation about how people function rather than a philosophy. The way we judge how to promote the greatest happiness is the same way every other philosophy does. You do the best you can with what you have, which is better than choosing arbitrary concepts and living your life by them come hell or high water. > [@](#): > > Well the dictionary for one. Considering their application in this discussion they seem identical. PLease explain how they are not. You said I rejected morals because I reject principles. It should be clear from this thread that I do not reject morals, I merely base my morals on one simple principle: “happiness is good, suffering is bad”. > [@](#): > > The benifit is how we judge happiness that has a solid foundation or happiness that does not. Elaborate. > [@](#): > > Cornmeal or cornbread. Cornmeal has value because it leads to cornbread. Yet it is impossible for cornbread to exist with out cornmeal. How can one have more value? Who said they did? Once again, if happiness cannot exist without truth, then of course I’m all for truth. No-one has yet shown it to be so, though. Furthermore, if truth _only_ has value because it leads to happiness, then it seems pretty clear that the real value lies with happiness, not truth. > [@](#): > > To have no foundation from which to judge this makes the philosophy intellectually dishonest IMHO. It seems you don’t quite understand what “intellectually honest” means (there’s no O involved and certainly nothing H about it). ---
**Author:** ![Eonwe](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/eonwe/32/240_2.png) [@Eonwe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Eonwe)\ **Post date:** [May 22, 2005, 4:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-we-always-tell-the-truth/304424/84 "2005-05-22T16:52:22Z")
Sorry to jump in here so far into the discussion; I hope you don’t mind. I’ve got a couple things I’d like to bring up. First, with regards to the ‘white’ lies, I think it’s important to understand what’s being asked/said behind the words. Sometimes, to stick with an example already used, when a person asks, “do I look good in this?” he or she truly wants to know an opinion, for better or worse. Other times that person is merely saying, “validate me. Make me feel good about myself.” Sometimes it’s hard to tell the difference, but those are two different wants expressed by the same words. In the first case, certainly truthfulness makes sense, as the asker wanted to know an opinion. In the second case, the asker wasn’t really asking a question at all. S/he said, “stroke my ego,” and when I say, “you look great in that dress,” or, “no, that doesn’t make you look fat,” or whatever the specific words are, I’m really only providing the affirmation and feelings s/he wanted from me. Or, even to get more wishy-washy, if she says, “do you think I look fat?” and he says, “no, of course not,” often what is really being said is, “do you think I am beautiful?” “Yes.” Even if he thinks, “well, she is filling out a bit,” if he thinks she’s beautiful, telling her she doesn’t look fat is not necessarially a lie, depending on circumstances. Second, I agree with a lot of your general sentiment, **cosmosdan** , but I think you’ve misjudged how truth-telling plays out in the real world. Particularly: > [@](#): > > I also propose that in EVERY case where a lie seemed the best choice there was an honest alternative. This is the key of the Anne Frank discussion earlier in the thread. I think it’s just not reasonable to propose what you propose. Your premise seemed to be that since the Nazis were going to come in and search anyway, it really didn’t matter what you said, in which case you’re framing the argument in such a way that there automatically can be no benefit to anyone from lying, because you have already ordered the Nazis to search the house regardless. It seems much more reasonable to me to assume that if someone is bothering to ask the question that s/he has at least some intention of taking what you say at face value. Maybe not all the time, but enough to make it worth having the conversation in the first place. If you really don’t believe lying to the Nazis would change anything, let me provide a different, totally hypothetical scenario: Man breaks into a home with a gun. The parents put the kids in a closet and tell them to be quiet. They confront the guy, who has some nefarious motivation or other. He has the parents at gunpoint, and asks if there’s anyone else in the house; they say no. He gives a cursory glance of the building, doesn’t find the kids, shoots the parents and leaves. Should the parents have told the truth? What was the honest alternative? I understand your point about principles, but I also think that for any given principle, particularly when the lives of someone else are at stake, there is a point at which it is desirable to sacrifice that principle momentarily for the sake of that other person’s life or safety. Being unable to be flexible around that principle (or any principle) that you have developed without forseeing all possible outcomes is I think less desirable than having strong but flexible principles backed by critical thinking and analysis. Another example of a time to lie: I’m very good at keeping secrets. When I tell people I am trustworthy and won’t tell others their secrets, I mean it. However, that’s not 100% true. If a friend told me he was going to kill himself, or had thoughts in that direction, I would probably tell someone. Likewise if a friend told me of his desire to hurt someone else seriously, I’d most definitely let someone know. I lied, but a lie worth making I think. ---
**Author:** ![Lucius](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/b782af/32.png) [@Lucius](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lucius)\ **Post date:** [May 22, 2005, 7:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-we-always-tell-the-truth/304424/85 "2005-05-22T19:39:00Z")
> [@Priceguy](#): > > I’m sorry if you feel insulted or not respected by me, but I have done nothing but explain my own moral stance and cannot help if it offends you. It doesn’t offend me in the slightest. Why would it? If anything, I’d like to echo cosmosdan’s thanks. (oh, I think I see where the confusion came from here - when I say the avenue of respecting other people is not open to ‘you’, I meant you as in your philosophy) Occasionally, I’m getting a little frustrated by some of our arguments, but that’s all. I’m gonna try and take a step back and do this reply as exhaustively as possible. so that there’s no way we can misunderstand each other. I’m sorry if what comes after looks a bit rude, or angry - its not meant to be. > [@](#): > > To you, it means precisely that. This point, for example, I thought we understood each other, but now you’ve completely lost me again. How on earth can you be arguing that? (see Ohio) All I can assume is that what you’re saying is that ignoring the consequences to everyone else, if we focus only on the consequences to me then if I can’t tell the difference between the two of them I can’t prefer one of them. Which is true in as far as the ‘you’ in the example goes, but stepping back to outside the hypothetical (ie asking if you’d want to know if your wife had cheated), I can still have a preference, because you can be hurt without knowing about it. You want an example of being hurt without knowing about it? Someone tortures me, then hypnotises me into not remembering it ever happened. I’d still rather not be tortureed, even if I’m not going to remember it. Alternatively, I could become utterly insane without realising it. Again, to me I seem fine, but from an outside objective POV I would have been hurt. > [@](#): > > But you have yet to show any benefit from truth in itself. Actually I have. Several times, I have presented the exact same argument you have done to justify pleasure. > [@](#): > > No. Every time you try and explain why truth has value, you come back to pleasure. Please quote me where I’ve done this. > [@](#): > > No. Red has value to me because it brings me pleasure. Green and yellow have value to you because they bring you pleasure (you “like” them), and therefore they have value to me. It’s an analogy - let’s just pretend we’re not talking about pleasure for a second 🙂 Its more about tastes, anyway. So, I repeat the example again - we are arguing about what the best colour is. You are arguing only red has value **as a colour** , that my tastes for yellow and green are useless unless they contribute to more red-ness, and that I am mistaken for liking the colours in a first place. Do you think that analogy fairly characterises the situation? If not, why not? > [@](#): > > I have argued for precisely that position all along. Pleasure has value because it feels good. This is what I’ve been saying. There is no “to the one who experiences it” in there. Then your argument is mistaken. For someone else’s pleasure does not feel good to me - it doesn’t feel like anything. (I’m ignoring feelings of satisfaction from being kind to other people, because they can be overwhelmed by the grenade example). > [@](#): > > Respecting other people has value because it promotes happiness. It doesn’t promote **my** happiness in the grenade example, does it? > [@](#): > > Because you agree that pleasure is good, and that there is no difference between pleasure you experience and pleasure others experience. To then deny that the pleasure of others is good would be intellectually dishonest in the extreme. Okay, let me try doing this another way: (and none of these are rhetorical questions) Do you accept that the soldier cannot feel the pleasure of his comrades? Do you accept that the solider must have a moral reason to sacrifice himself? Do you think that this moral reasoning must be based on happiness? You want to state that the soldier kills himself because a) pleasure is the only thing valuable b) everybody’s pleasure is of equal worth Why is everybody’s pleasure of equal worth? Is equality valuable, then? In which case, either a) pleasure is not the only thing valuable or b) equality is valuable because of the pleasure it produces If b is true, the pleasure can either a) come from me, which is not always true (see Grenade case) or b) equality is valuable because of the pleasure it produces in other people If b is true, why do I care about the pleasure it produces in other people? And we go back to the beginning - the argument is circular. To break this circle, you’re going to have to do what every Utilitarian does, whether they realise it or not - they make an intuitive assumption that everyone’s pleasure is equally valuable. Which is fair enough, as long as you accept what you’ve done and that your golden rule is no longer true - pleasure is not the only thing valuable to you. ---
**Author:** ![Dunderman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/ecb155/32.png) [@Dunderman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dunderman)\ **Post date:** [May 22, 2005, 8:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-we-always-tell-the-truth/304424/86 "2005-05-22T20:47:13Z")
> [@Lucius](#): > > It doesn’t offend me in the slightest. Why would it? If anything, I’d like to echo cosmosdan’s thanks. > > (oh, I think I see where the confusion came from here - when I say the avenue of respecting other people is not open to ‘you’, I meant you as in your philosophy) That sounded annoyed and insulting, yes, that’s why I apologized. If you didn’t mean it that way, then that’s just fine. > [@](#): > > This point, for example, I thought we understood each other, but now you’ve completely lost me again. > > How on earth can you be arguing that? (see Ohio) > > All I can assume is that what you’re saying is that ignoring the consequences to everyone else, if we focus only on the consequences to me then if I can’t tell the difference between the two of them I can’t prefer one of them. Which is true in as far as the ‘you’ in the example goes, but stepping back to outside the hypothetical (ie asking if you’d want to know if your wife had cheated), I can still have a preference, because you can be hurt without knowing about it. My point there was that you originally brought up the cheating spouse as an example of when _you_, you being **Lucius** and the cheated-on spouse in the example, would like to know the truth even though it would cause you pain. Therefore, what matters in that example is what you would feel. > [@](#): > > You want an example of being hurt without knowing about it? > > Someone tortures me, then hypnotises me into not remembering it ever happened. I’d still rather not be tortureed, even if I’m not going to remember it. Of course, being tortured is still painful. Pain has still taken place, and so the torturing was morally wrong. > [@](#): > > Alternatively, I could become utterly insane without realising it. Again, to me I seem fine, but from an outside objective POV I would have been hurt. If you’re happy in your insanity, then this is OK, but most people aren’t. If you’re hurting from your insanity, then it doesn’t matter that you don’t know _why_ you’re hurting (or, commonly, attribute your hurt to another cause). > [@](#): > > Actually I have. > > Several times, I have presented the exact same argument you have done to justify pleasure. Yes, but the difference remains that while you agree that pleasure is good, I do not agree that truth is good. Pleasure makes us feel good. We agree that feeling good is good. What is the benefit of the truth? > [@](#): > > Please quote me where I’ve done this. I apologize, I confused you for someone else. I can’t see that you’ve done that. > [@](#): > > Its more about tastes, anyway. > > So, I repeat the example again - we are arguing about what the best colour is. You are arguing only red has value **as a colour** , that my tastes for yellow and green are useless unless they contribute to more red-ness, and that I am mistaken for liking the colours in a first place. > > Do you think that analogy fairly characterises the situation? If not, why not? No, I do not, because pleasure is ultimately quantifiable. It is something that everyone I’ve ever spoken to appreciates. > [@](#): > > Then your argument is mistaken. For someone else’s pleasure does not feel good to me - it doesn’t feel like anything. (I’m ignoring feelings of satisfaction from being kind to other people, because they can be overwhelmed by the grenade example). I really cannot see why you aren’t grasping this. Of course someone else’s pleasure doesn’t feel directly good to you. What did I say that seemed to contradict that? > [@](#): > > It doesn’t promote **my** happiness in the grenade example, does it? No, as I have pointed out several times. > [@](#): > > Do you accept that the soldier cannot feel the pleasure of his comrades? Yes. > [@](#): > > Do you accept that the solider must have a moral reason to sacrifice himself? Yes. > [@](#): > > Do you think that this moral reasoning must be based on happiness? Yes. > [@](#): > > You want to state that the soldier kills himself because > > a) pleasure is the only thing valuable > b) everybody’s pleasure is of equal worth Yes. > [@](#): > > Why is everybody’s pleasure of equal worth? Because there is no reason to believe that a certain being’s pleasure is inherently any more valuable than another being’s. There is no discernible difference between them. > [@](#): > > Is equality valuable, then? Indirectly, if it promotes happiness. > [@](#): > > If b is true, why do I care about the pleasure it produces in other people? Because you realize precisely that their pleasure is the same as yours. > [@](#): > > To break this circle, you’re going to have to do what every Utilitarian does, whether they realise it or not - they make an intuitive assumption that everyone’s pleasure is equally valuable. Which is fair enough, as long as you accept what you’ve done and that your golden rule is no longer true - pleasure is not the only thing valuable to you. I claim that everyone’s pleasure is equally valuable. Why this would compel me to accept that there are things besides pleasure that are valuable is beyond me. ---
**Author:** ![Lucius](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/b782af/32.png) [@Lucius](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lucius)\ **Post date:** [May 23, 2005, 12:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-we-always-tell-the-truth/304424/87 "2005-05-23T00:42:36Z")
> [@Priceguy](#): > > My point there was that you originally brought up the cheating spouse as an example of when _you_, you being **Lucius** and the cheated-on spouse in the example, would like to know the truth even though it would cause you pain. Therefore, what matters in that example is what you would feel. No, what matters is how I feel about whether I want to know or not. Anyway, there’s nothing in this example, that isn’t covered just as well by the insane one, and that’s at least relatively new, so I think I’m going to continue there 🙂 > [@](#): > > If you’re happy in your insanity, then this is OK, but most people aren’t. If you’re hurting from your insanity, then it doesn’t matter that you don’t know _why_ you’re hurting (or, commonly, attribute your hurt to another cause). Okay, so you want to claim that nobody cares whether they’re sane or insane as long as they’re happy? I think you’re very wrong 😉 , but its an empirical claim in any case, so unless one of us has got the time to do a survey we might as well leave that point there. > [@](#): > > Yes, but the difference remains that while you agree that pleasure is good, I do not agree that truth is good. Pleasure makes us feel good. We agree that feeling good is good. What is the benefit of the truth? Make your mind up : have I a) not provided any argument for the benefit of the truth or b) not provided one you subjectively agree with If it is a, then I firstly, point you back to practically every post I’ve made so far in this thread, and secondly, will summarise it shortly as truth makes us feel good too. (And by feel good, no I don’t mean, pleasure. Throughout this debate, I have had a suspicion that you’re defining “good” as “pleasure” which I trust you’re not, right, because otherwise all argument’s sort of pointless…) If b, then, well, everyone has different tastes. Is a piece of art only worthwhile if everyone likes it? I would claim that a significant proportion of humanity sees value in things other than pleasure, and so it is just as right to give them value. > [@](#): > > No, I do not, because pleasure is ultimately quantifiable. It is something that everyone I’ve ever spoken to appreciates. What does quantifiable have to do with it? Let’s go back to the colours, once more. Okay, now I like red too. Does this mean I can’t also like yellow and green? > [@](#): > > I really cannot see why you aren’t grasping this. Of course someone else’s pleasure doesn’t feel directly good to you. What did I say that seemed to contradict that? To be honest, I think you’re the one who’s not really grasping the argument. Neither did I for quite a while, actually, when I first met it. > [@](#): > > Because there is no reason to believe that a certain being’s pleasure is inherently any more valuable than another being’s. There is no discernible difference between them. No discernible difference to whom? That’s one of the key points. God? It certainly isn’t the soldier, as as we’ve already discussed, there’s a very real difference between them. > [@](#): > > Because you realize precisely that their pleasure is the same as yours. \*\* So what? \*\* That is not a reason to care about it. It has no effect on me. Can you give me another? > [@](#): > > I claim that everyone’s pleasure is equally valuable. Why this would compel me to accept that there are things besides pleasure that are valuable is beyond me. Because if there were no things valuable other than pleasure your first sentence would have been “I claim that pleasure is valuable.” An “everyone’s” and “equally” have snuck in there. That is a significant step, and no, it is not one that follows automatically by assuming some hypothetical objective observer to whom everyone’s pleasure is equal. ---
**Author:** ![Dunderman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/ecb155/32.png) [@Dunderman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dunderman)\ **Post date:** [May 23, 2005, 6:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-we-always-tell-the-truth/304424/88 "2005-05-23T06:23:18Z")
> [@Lucius](#): > > Okay, so you want to claim that nobody cares whether they’re sane or insane as long as they’re happy? Yes. It wouldn’t even occur to someone’s who is really happy that they might not be sane. > [@](#): > > Make your mind up : > > have I a) not provided any argument for the benefit of the truth > or b) not provided one you subjectively agree with > > If it is a, then I firstly, point you back to practically every post I’ve made so far in this thread, and secondly, will summarise it shortly as truth makes us feel good too. > > (And by feel good, no I don’t mean, pleasure. Throughout this debate, I have had a suspicion that you’re defining “good” as “pleasure” which I trust you’re not, right, because otherwise all argument’s sort of pointless…) > > If b, then, well, everyone has different tastes. Is a piece of art only worthwhile if everyone likes it? I would claim that a significant proportion of humanity sees value in things other than pleasure, and so it is just as right to give them value. But feeling good _is_ the same as pleasure. Saying that other things than pleasure feel good is like saying that not only red things are red. > [@](#): > > Let’s go back to the colours, once more. Okay, now I like red too. Does this mean I can’t also like yellow and green? Of course not, but I feel you’re getting mixed up in analogies. Useful as they are, they always bring their own baggage to a discussion. > [@](#): > > No discernible difference to whom? That’s one of the key points. God? To any observer. > [@](#): > > \*\* So what? \*\* > > That is not a reason to care about it. It has no effect on me. Can you give me another? No, because that’s precisely a reason to care about it. You agree that pleasure is good. You agree that there is no difference between your pleasure and the pleasure of others. Caring about one being’s pleasure over another’s is therefore illogical. I can’t see what’s so difficult about this. > [@](#): > > Because if there were no things valuable other than pleasure your first sentence would have been “I claim that pleasure is valuable.” An “everyone’s” and “equally” have snuck in there. That is a significant step, and no, it is not one that follows automatically by assuming some hypothetical objective observer to whom everyone’s pleasure is equal. I’m not following you. My statement follows logically from my other statements. There is absolutely no reason to surmise that there is any difference between the pleasure of different beings. If there is no difference between the pleasure of different beings, why would they be unequally valuable? That makes precisely no sense. If A=B and A=C then, by gum, B=C. ---
**Author:** ![woodstockbirdybird](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/woodstockbirdybird/32/7905_2.png) [@woodstockbirdybird](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/woodstockbirdybird)\ **Post date:** [May 23, 2005, 10:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-we-always-tell-the-truth/304424/89 "2005-05-23T10:19:56Z")
**Priceguy** , a couple questions: 1. If happiness/ecstasy is the only thing of value, then shouldn’t we all shoot heroin at every opportunity? Not much comes closer to “unthinking eternal nirvana of simple perfect ecstasy” than a nice hit of smack. If you don’t advocate this, why not? If happiness is the only thing of value, surely anti-drug laws/propaganda aren’t enough to sway you, at least, from achieving your stated goal. 2. If maximizing pleasure is the ultimate goal, how much of your disposable income are you giving out to the less fortunate? Because my kids and I could sure use some cash (three of us, total, so I assume from your answer to the grenade example this would make up for any loss of pleasure a single entity [you] might experience at having to give up your cash). Yet I’ve yet to see a single Utilitarian offer to pony up. ---
**Author:** ![Dunderman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/ecb155/32.png) [@Dunderman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dunderman)\ **Post date:** [May 23, 2005, 10:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-we-always-tell-the-truth/304424/90 "2005-05-23T10:55:06Z")
> [@woodstockbirdybird](#): > > **Priceguy** , a couple questions: > > 1. If happiness/ecstasy is the only thing of value, then shouldn’t we all shoot heroin at every opportunity? Not much comes closer to “unthinking eternal nirvana of simple perfect ecstasy” than a nice hit of smack. If you don’t advocate this, why not? If happiness is the only thing of value, surely anti-drug laws/propaganda aren’t enough to sway you, at least, from achieving your stated goal. Heroin has long-term effects that are detrimental to happiness. I can’t imagine that this has passed you by, so your question leaves me puzzled. > [@](#): > > 1. If maximizing pleasure is the ultimate goal, how much of your disposable income are you giving out to the less fortunate? As much as I can without jeopardizing my own happiness. As I’m currently a student, it’s not much. > [@](#): > > Because my kids and I could sure use some cash (three of us, total, so I assume from your answer to the grenade example this would make up for any loss of pleasure a single entity [you] might experience at having to give up your cash). Yet I’ve yet to see a single Utilitarian offer to pony up. I give to charities instead of trying to find people to give money to on my own. It’s more efficient, and the money I give through charities produce much greater results than such sums would if I were to mail them to you. ---
**Author:** ![Dunderman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/ecb155/32.png) [@Dunderman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dunderman)\ **Post date:** [May 23, 2005, 11:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-we-always-tell-the-truth/304424/91 "2005-05-23T11:03:47Z")
I might also add that it seems really desperate to try and attack my personal actions rather than the philosophy. If I were a dark lord living in a gigantic castle, ruling oppressed, abjectly poor peasants with an iron fist that makes normal iron fists seem like silk gloves, and living a life of obscene luxury this wouldn’t mean the philosophy is wrong, just that I don’t live by it. ---
**Author:** ![Lucius](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/b782af/32.png) [@Lucius](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lucius)\ **Post date:** [May 23, 2005, 11:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-we-always-tell-the-truth/304424/92 "2005-05-23T11:31:07Z")
> [@Priceguy](#): > > But feeling good _is_ the same as pleasure. Saying that other things than pleasure feel good is like saying that not only red things are red. Maybe, it would be helpful to differentiate betwen “feels good” (which, yeah, normally is just taken in everyday speech as pleasure) and “feels like it is good” (which is more abstract, and means something more like is desirable) and “good.” But as I said, if you define that pleasure=good, then it is impossible to argue with that. (equivalent, I define “Romeo and Juliet” to be the best play in the world. You say, but ah look, Hamlet has all these excellent qualities too, surely that’s better? No, says I, because Hamlet does not have the quality of being the best play in the world, cause as you can already see that would require it to be Romeo & Juliet). > [@](#): > > Of course not, but I feel you’re getting mixed up in analogies. Useful as they are, they always bring their own baggage to a discussion. [shrug] We’re arguing about tastes. I see no difference. > [@](#): > > To any observer. It’s not an observer who has to decide how to act - it’s the soldier. > [@](#): > > No, because that’s precisely a reason to care about it. You agree that pleasure is good. You agree that there is no difference between your pleasure and the pleasure of others. No, I keep contradicting this. And you usually agree with me. You agree the soldier can only feel his own pleasure? You agree that therefore therefore **is a difference to him** between the two? That saying they are the same is therefore \*\* wrong \*\*? They would only be the same to some outside objective observer, who, firstly, does not exist, and secondly, is irrelevant to how the soldier himself wants to act. > [@](#): > > Caring about one being’s pleasure over another’s is therefore illogical. Why? (and don’t say because the pleasures are equivalent, because we’ve just established that they’re \*\* not \*\*) My pleasure makes me happy. Yours does not. Therefore, I disregard yours. Why is that illogical? > [@](#): > > I’m not following you. My statement follows logically from my other statements. There is absolutely no reason to surmise that there is any difference between the pleasure of different beings. If there is no difference between the pleasure of different beings, why would they be unequally valuable? That makes precisely no sense. If A=B and A=C then, by gum, B=C. Because they’re not equal to anyone who actually has to act. In stating that everyone’s pleasure is equally you’re already assuming that everyone has an equal right to pleasure, and you need a justification for that assumption. ---
**Author:** ![Lucius](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/b782af/32.png) [@Lucius](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lucius)\ **Post date:** [May 23, 2005, 11:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-we-always-tell-the-truth/304424/93 "2005-05-23T11:32:19Z")
> [@Priceguy](#): > > I might also add that it seems really desperate to try and attack my personal actions rather than the philosophy. If I were a dark lord living in a gigantic castle, ruling oppressed, abjectly poor peasants with an iron fist that makes normal iron fists seem like silk gloves, and living a life of obscene luxury this wouldn’t mean the philosophy is wrong, just that I don’t live by it. Yeah, I’d agree with that. Course I probably also think it would impossible to live a perfect Utilitarian lifestyle anyway, but that’s neither here nor there 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![woodstockbirdybird](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/woodstockbirdybird/32/7905_2.png) [@woodstockbirdybird](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/woodstockbirdybird)\ **Post date:** [May 23, 2005, 11:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-we-always-tell-the-truth/304424/94 "2005-05-23T11:41:48Z")
> [@Priceguy](#): > > I might also add that it seems really desperate to try and attack my personal actions rather than the philosophy. If I were a dark lord living in a gigantic castle, ruling oppressed, abjectly poor peasants with an iron fist that makes normal iron fists seem like silk gloves, and living a life of obscene luxury this wouldn’t mean the philosophy is wrong, just that I don’t live by it. Well, exactly. The point of my questions was to see how close you came to living by your philosophy. As far as I’m concerned, it’s not desperate to attack someone’s actions rather than the philosophy - anybody can claim a philosophy, or patch one together out of bits of existing philosophies; the real test of the philosophy, to me, is whether it’s viable as a way to live, which is testable only through observing the actions of its adherents. If somebody says they believe in a certain philosophy but doesn’t live by it, it doesn’t really seem worth arguing the logical merits of the philosophy with them, since they don’t actually seem to believe in it anyway. Of course, I was being a bit facetious with the heroin example, but I could also argue that heroin use doesn’t always have long-term effects that are detrimental to happiness. I’ve got a friend who was on heroin for quite a while (he started taking it for chronic back pain - he’s now taking marijuana and just got off morphine [legally, in both cases]); withdrawal was hard, but he got other medications to help him through, and he says to this day he’s glad he had it, and he’s happier now than he ever has been. Really, what I was trying to get at was the possibility that there might be other reasons that you don’t take heroin (or other drugs that enhance your mood) regularly; I’d imagine that even if there were no negative effects, you might find you valued sobriety to drooling bliss at least some of the time. I could be wrong; but _I_ definitely prefer being sober to being high, even though I’m carefree and feel no pain when high. ---
**Author:** ![Dunderman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/ecb155/32.png) [@Dunderman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dunderman)\ **Post date:** [May 23, 2005, 12:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-we-always-tell-the-truth/304424/95 "2005-05-23T12:38:25Z")
> [@Lucius](#): > > Maybe, it would be helpful to differentiate betwen “feels good” (which, yeah, normally is just taken in everyday speech as pleasure) and “feels like it is good” (which is more abstract, and means something more like is desirable) and “good.” What’s the difference between “feels good” and “feels like it is good”? The same difference as between “is red” and “looks like it is red”. > [@](#): > > But as I said, if you define that pleasure=good, then it is impossible to argue with that. I define “pleasure” as “that which feels good”, not “morally good”. > [@](#): > > (equivalent, I define “Romeo and Juliet” to be the best play in the world. You say, but ah look, Hamlet has all these excellent qualities too, surely that’s better? No, says I, because Hamlet does not have the quality of being the best play in the world, cause as you can already see that would require it to be Romeo & Juliet). Pure aesthetics and thus unquantifiable. > [@](#): > > It’s not an observer who has to decide how to act - it’s the soldier. The soldier is an observer. > [@](#): > > You agree the soldier can only feel his own pleasure? > You agree that therefore therefore **is a difference to him** between the two? > That saying they are the same is therefore \*\* wrong \*\*? There’s a _subjective_ difference, yes, but not an _objective_ one. I have been talking about objectivity throughout this discussion. > [@](#): > > They would only be the same to some outside objective observer, who, firstly, does not exist, and secondly, is irrelevant to how the soldier himself wants to act. I disagree. The soldier should try to emulate the outside observer to ascertain the correct act, not get mixed up in his own emotions. > [@](#): > > Why? > > (and don’t say because the pleasures are equivalent, because we’ve just established that they’re \*\* not \*\*) No, we haven’t. > [@](#): > > My pleasure makes me happy. Yours does not. Therefore, I disregard yours. Why is that illogical? Because there is no objective difference. We both experience pleasure. You make an arbitrary distinction and act on it, which is very strange. That action is comparable to forbidding yellow because you prefer green. > [@](#): > > Because they’re not equal to anyone who actually has to act. The problem is in the word “to”, where you are assuming subjectivity, which, of course, will change the situation. In real life, as much as I would subjectively like to blow the brains out of every criminal, I can objectively see that it would be a bad idea, so I do not advocate it. > [@](#): > > In stating that everyone’s pleasure is equally you’re already assuming that everyone has an equal right to pleasure, and you need a justification for that assumption. No. Please stop making assumptions for me; it’s very annoying. I haven’t used the word “right” in the sense you’re using it in yet. “Rights” don’t enter into it. > [@woodstockbirdybird](#): > > Well, exactly. The point of my questions was to see how close you came to living by your philosophy. Which is irrelevant in this theoretical discussion. If the subject were “who comes the closest to living by their philosophy”, then you should put my personal life under scrutiny. > [@](#): > > As far as I’m concerned, it’s not desperate to attack someone’s actions rather than the philosophy - anybody can claim a philosophy, or patch one together out of bits of existing philosophies; the real test of the philosophy, to me, is whether it’s viable as a way to live, which is testable only through observing the actions of its adherents. I guess we just differ, then. > [@](#): > > If somebody says they believe in a certain philosophy but doesn’t live by it, it doesn’t really seem worth arguing the logical merits of the philosophy with them, since they don’t actually seem to believe in it anyway. Believing in it and acting on it are two different things. The latter can be very difficult, and doesn’t change the philosophy. > [@](#): > > Of course, I was being a bit facetious with the heroin example, but I could also argue that heroin use doesn’t always have long-term effects that are detrimental to happiness. I’ve got a friend who was on heroin for quite a while (he started taking it for chronic back pain - he’s now taking marijuana and just got off morphine [legally, in both cases]); withdrawal was hard, but he got other medications to help him through, and he says to this day he’s glad he had it, and he’s happier now than he ever has been. You didn’t ask anything to do with heroin for medicinal purposes; you asked if we shouldn’t all shoot heroin at every opportunity. I answered that question, no other. > [@](#): > > Really, what I was trying to get at was the possibility that there might be other reasons that you don’t take heroin (or other drugs that enhance your mood) regularly; I’d imagine that even if there were no negative effects, you might find you valued sobriety to drooling bliss at least some of the time. I very much doubt it. I’m not a fan of sobriety. There are, however, many reasons not to shoot heroin. If you do need me to list them, I will, but I am fairly certain that you already know them, and they’re also not very relevant to this thread. ---
**Author:** ![woodstockbirdybird](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/woodstockbirdybird/32/7905_2.png) [@woodstockbirdybird](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/woodstockbirdybird)\ **Post date:** [May 23, 2005, 1:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-we-always-tell-the-truth/304424/96 "2005-05-23T13:07:40Z")
> [@Priceguy](#): > > Which is irrelevant in this theoretical discussion. If the subject were “who comes the closest to living by their philosophy”, then you should put my personal life under scrutiny. > > I guess we just differ, then. > > Believing in it and acting on it are two different things. The latter can be very difficult, and doesn’t change the philosophy. Grouped these together, as they address the same issue. “Theoretical discussions”, to me, are just masturbatory when dealing with philosophy; it’s always nice to iron out the logical validity of an argument, but it’s just a game, or a puzzle, if that’s the level at which you operate - philosophy wasn’t designed to be merely a puzzle, but as a guide to how to live life, and if it doesn’t prove feasible in the real world, it’s a flawed philosophy. If all the followers of a particular branch of philosophical thought fail to be able to live by the tenets of that philosophy (at least a good portion of the time), the philosophy isn’t viable, no matter how rigorously logical it may be. Or its adherents don’t actually believe in what they claim to, in which case what’s the point in their espousing it? Anyway, yeah, I guess we differ. > [@Priceguy](#): > > You didn’t ask anything to do with heroin for medicinal purposes; you asked if we shouldn’t all shoot heroin at every opportunity. I answered that question, no other. The point I was trying to make had nothing to do with whether or not the heroin was used for medical reasons; I was pointing out that heroin use doesn’t always have long-term negative effects. Like I said, in my friend’s case, his overall happiness now is greater than it was before he took heroin (and before he had back pain, according to him). He was on heroin for about three years. > [@Priceguy](#): > > I very much doubt it. I’m not a fan of sobriety. There are, however, many reasons not to shoot heroin. If you do need me to list them, I will, but I am fairly certain that you already know them, and they’re also not very relevant to this thread. Not a fan of sobriety? Yet most everything I can think of that causes a person to be intoxicated/high has been shown to have long-term negative effects in the majority of people. So it would seem, ultimately, that sobriety would be more conducive to maintaining happiness than non-sobriety. No? ---
**Author:** ![Dunderman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/ecb155/32.png) [@Dunderman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dunderman)\ **Post date:** [May 23, 2005, 1:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-we-always-tell-the-truth/304424/97 "2005-05-23T13:32:50Z")
> [@woodstockbirdybird](#): > > “Theoretical discussions”, to me, are just masturbatory when dealing with philosophy; it’s always nice to iron out the logical validity of an argument, but it’s just a game, or a puzzle, if that’s the level at which you operate - philosophy wasn’t designed to be merely a puzzle, but as a guide to how to live life, and if it doesn’t prove feasible in the real world, it’s a flawed philosophy. If all the followers of a particular branch of philosophical thought fail to be able to live by the tenets of that philosophy (at least a good portion of the time), the philosophy isn’t viable, no matter how rigorously logical it may be. Or its adherents don’t actually believe in what they claim to, in which case what’s the point in their espousing it? Anyway, yeah, I guess we differ. Apparently, yeah. I’m in this debate for fun and diversion. > [@](#): > > The point I was trying to make had nothing to do with whether or not the heroin was used for medical reasons; I was pointing out that heroin use doesn’t always have long-term negative effects. Like I said, in my friend’s case, his overall happiness now is greater than it was before he took heroin (and before he had back pain, according to him). He was on heroin for about three years. And once again, that was not the question you asked. You asked if we shouldn’t _all_ shoot heroin _at every opportunity_. That’s the question you asked, that’s the question I answered. That there are _some_ people who should _sometimes_ shoot heroin is a side issue. That _some_ people escape negative long-term effects is a side issue. > [@](#): > > Not a fan of sobriety? Yet most everything I can think of that causes a person to be intoxicated/high has been shown to have long-term negative effects in the majority of people. So it would seem, ultimately, that sobriety would be more conducive to maintaining happiness than non-sobriety. No? Nah. In moderate amounts, the detrimental effects of intoxicating drugs are often minimal. ---
**Author:** ![Lucius](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/b782af/32.png) [@Lucius](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lucius)\ **Post date:** [May 23, 2005, 2:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-we-always-tell-the-truth/304424/98 "2005-05-23T14:54:13Z")
> [@Priceguy](#): > > No. Please stop making assumptions for me; it’s very annoying. I haven’t used the word “right” in the sense you’re using it in yet. “Rights” don’t enter into it. Huh? The phrase “you’re already assuming that everyone has an equal right to pleasure” pretty much means the same as “you’re already assuming everyone should be objective”. Which pretty sums up the whole issue really - so: \*\* Why should the soldier be objective? \*\* > [@](#): > > I define “pleasure” as “that which feels good”, not “morally good”. But you’re defining “morally good” as being that which leads to what feels good, which is pretty much a pragmatic way of saying the same thing. ---
**Author:** ![Dunderman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/ecb155/32.png) [@Dunderman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dunderman)\ **Post date:** [May 23, 2005, 3:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-we-always-tell-the-truth/304424/99 "2005-05-23T15:41:04Z")
> [@Lucius](#): > > \*\* Why should the soldier be objective? \*\* Another question that puzzles me. Subjectivity adds nothing useful and brings with it a wide margin of error. > [@](#): > > But you’re defining “morally good” as being that which leads to what feels good, which is pretty much a pragmatic way of saying the same thing. Yes, but I only define “morally good” that way because I have yet to see anything except feeling good that actually has a benefit. ---
**Author:** ![woodstockbirdybird](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/woodstockbirdybird/32/7905_2.png) [@woodstockbirdybird](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/woodstockbirdybird)\ **Post date:** [May 23, 2005, 3:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-we-always-tell-the-truth/304424/100 "2005-05-23T15:54:29Z")
> [@Priceguy](#): > > Apparently, yeah. I’m in this debate for fun and diversion. > > And once again, that was not the question you asked. You asked if we shouldn’t _all_ shoot heroin _at every opportunity_. That’s the question you asked, that’s the question I answered. That there are _some_ people who should _sometimes_ shoot heroin is a side issue. That _some_ people escape negative long-term effects is a side issue. > > Nah. In moderate amounts, the detrimental effects of intoxicating drugs are often minimal. Fair enough. To change gears, in your most recent reply to **Lucius** , you say > [@Priceguy](#): > > Another question that puzzles me. Subjectivity adds nothing useful and brings with it a wide margin of error. Is there an objective method for the soldier to determine what will bring the greatest happiness, or are such decisions often not subjective themselves? It seems really hard to discount subjectivity when talking about human rationalizations for their actions. And consequently it’s hard to avoid a wide margin of error. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-we-always-tell-the-truth/304424.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-we-always-tell-the-truth/304424.md?page=6)