a) It has nothing to do with margin of error. What margin of error anyway?
b) What do you mean “adds nothing useful”? For the soldier, it gives him back his life!
In fact, I’d protest against the word “add” while we’re at it. We all start subjective, and then need a reason to become objective, not the other way round.
Yeah, because the only thing you’ll accept as a benefit is feeling good.
She just might be one of us flat-asses who would like to make her butt look bigger.
Also, I believe that most of the time, the truth is in order, or what we know to be the truth, anyway. I think that avoidance of directly answering a question has some deception to it, except where you can honestly tell a person that it is an inappropriate question that you do not wish to answer. I feel that any statement that has the word ALWAYS in it is probably deceptive itself.
Sometimes, the truth is not so clear.
Welcome
I think you make some good points. Several people have made the point that avoiding the truth with words that are not a direct lie but meant to decieve is the same as lieing. I think they have a valid point as well.
Your example doesn’t make much sense to me. Did the parents hear a noise and then instruct the kids to hide because they somhow sensed it was a homicidal maniac? Did they call the police before confronting him? But lets come to that moment when he’s holding them at gunpoint and asks if anyone else is in the house. They could avoid lieing by avoiding the question. Why are you here? Take whatever you want and leave? I don’t agree with the poster who indicated that anything but a direct answer to a direct question is deceit. As I said, anyone in the heat of the moment might lie. In certain circunstances, like somone’s life is at stake, I wouldn’t worry to much about the lie.
Let me clarify. One thing this discussion has helped me to understand is that it’s not about principle. It’s not truth for truths sake or because its good or noble or right. It’s because a comittment to the truth is the best way for mankind to grow as individuals and a society. Thats why I say strive for truthfulness in every circumstance. Think about it. Try to live it. Once we say lieing is acceptable under certain circumstances then the flood gates open and there are more and more “good” reasons for a lie. By striveing for truthfulness in every circumstance it forces us to be honest in so many areas of our lives. Personal honesty about our own motives for one. As we grow we will learn more about tempering our honesty with wisdom and compassion. When we reach those moments when lieing seems like the logical, obvious or easiest choice an honest alternative will be more apparent. We can’t learn how to be truthful while we accept little dishonesties at every turn.
Another example of a time to lie:
No matter the example, there’s an honest alternative that will accomplish the same positive effect the lie was used for.
Again, I’m not making a judgement call that a person is “bad” because they lied. I’m saying for the long term welfare and growth of the individual and society finding the truthful alternative is the better choice.
She might be, but I doubt thats the way it was meant.
This may be true under certain circumstances, not all.
Correct, sometimes the truth is not so clear, however the statement “I am **always ** caucasian” is not deceptive in any way.
Lucius, the first bit here is for you too since you both ask the same question.
Of course we can never completely eradicate subjectivity but that should always be the goal, since that’s how you get correct results. It’s pretty easy to choose between one soldier’s death and many soldier’s deaths, all things being equal. Why should that choice change just because you happen to be the one soldier?
Show me something else that has a real benefit and I’ll accept it.
Correct according to who?
According to objectivity?
But you still haven’t provided a reason to be objective in the first place.
The way you’ve defined the terms, that’s impossible for me to do.
Well, you haven’t provided a reason to be subjective, so I guess we’re about even there.
Subjectivity is useless. It taints perception and affects interpretation of results. That’s why the scientific method is constructed so as to eliminate subjectivity as much as possible from the process, and that, in turn, is why the scientific method produces real, replicable, actual, useful results.
What are the terms that you and I define differently, and what are your definitions of them?
not sure who said this but a agree with them…“if the truth servers no other porpose other than to hurt someone then lie”…not sure if that is how it goes but you get the meaning.
Yes, but you made three points to support your arguement. In this situation since his happiness is intimately linked to hers I don’t think your points are valid.
No. Thats my role.
I see your point. Still, if the axiom is true it would seem that several key tenents of this philosophy would change and the philosophy as a whole would no longer exist.
good point.
I don’t see the principles as arbitrary. They are guidelines or tools by which we make our judgements.
Yes and physical emotional and mental pleasure is good while suffering is bad. I have a hard time understanding how this all works with the concept of “everyone’s happiness is of equal value” and “the greter good” without seeing major contradictions.
Earlier you describe principles as nothing and antiquated and later you say the man throwing himself on the grenade is morally correct. His pain and suffering, however brief, added to the suffering of his friends and family are the morally correct thing? This seems a contradiction. In the no pain no gain scenario the physical pain of exercise leads to a better physique and happiness. IS the pain then good? Isn’t this a contradiction? Eating pizzia and ice cream feels phyically pleasureable but leads to horrible health issues. Is that pleasure then bad?
You say it’s obvious that children should be denied their every whim because that serves the greater good. Yet they are ignorant of this greater good so their suffering is just as real as the happiness of the man who doesn’t know his wife is cheating on him.
Let’s say a sadist can only feel happiness by beating on me. Since his happiness is as important as my own how do I decide which is better. His happiness or my suffering, or my happiness and his suffering.
It seems to me that you use the very principles you dismiss to make the judgement calls about happiness.
Truth can be the constant by which we jurge. To judge which to serve, the short term or the long term, or which is best, the individual or the greater grood of the group, the constant that leads us to the best choice is the truth.
If happiness has crucial ingrediants then they must have equal value. In my own philosophy I would change happiness to true love. Both aspects are essential and share equal value.
I don’t believe the truth ever support only that purpose. The truth may hurt someone in the short term but lead to the greater good in the long term.
That phrase has become an excuse to lie for the sake of convienience and since we never learn how to tell the truth consistantly, we lie more often.
I don’t need to. Everyone starts subjective.
If I did need to, you’d have already done the job for me - subjectivity gives me more pleasure. I look after myself cause that’s what makes me live longer.
What on earth are are you even trying to say?
Yes, the scientific method is a reliable way of helping us explain things or figuring out a reliable way to achieve a goal. We have to know what goal we want before we start however.
And there is no reason in your philosophy for the goal to be objective happiness, rather than my own subjective happiness.
“Good.”
I says its undefinable, and that we can only tell what it is by what people actually desire.
Sounds awfully convenient for you. Cite?
Once again, my philosophy cares not one jot or tittle who is experiencing the pleasure.
The first goal is finding out what’s good. The only good thing I could find when I tried was happiness. The next goal is finding out how to achieve maximum happiness. Nowhere in this process is “I’m more important than other beings” enter the picture and I see no reason to introduce it.
Yes there is. As I said earlier (and once before in this very post), my philosophy does not distinguish between pleasure felt by me and pleasure felt by someone else.
I say its definition is “that which has benefits”, which is probably pretty much the same as what people desire.
Why do they desire what they desire?
Rubbish. This does not follow in the slightest. Next you have to decide what to do once you know what is good. Saying that you should maximise it for everyone is another assertion stating that to maximise is good.
Will you please stop saying this?
For a start its nonsensical, because as you’ve admitted a thousand times, one I feel and one I don’t.
Secondly, its a strawman.
Your philosophy may (seemingly illogically) value the two the same, but it is certainly possible to distinguish the two.
I’ve never argued with you that that what is you claim. The problem is that your claim doesn’t make sense from your initial assumptions.
What you want to say is that to you it seems intinctively obvious that if pleasure is as good it should count as equally worth for everybody. It is instinctually obvious in the same way the fact that pleasure was good was obvious.
Which is all to say that as well as valuing pleasure, you value a type of equality, for reasons that can not be brought back to the pleasure it causes alone.
So why do you value this equality?
Well, I could go on for a while about you wanting there to be a neutral valid objective scientific view of the universe, one that (to get back on topic for once 
) relies on, gasp, the truth - but I’ve never really wanted to go that far.
All I’ve wanted you to do is admit that your philosophy makes more assumptions than just that pleasure is good.
And you define “benefits” as pleasure, so again, its all just word games.
For all the reasons stated before in this thread: to give life meaning. To be more noble. To be enjoyable. etc. etc. etc.
This topic brings to mind the movie “The Matrix”, which presents the dilemma of living in an computer simulated world versus living in the real world. The protagonist of the movie, when faced with the choice, elects to live in the real world because he values truth over the psycho-somatic comforts available to him in the Matrix. Presumably, he is mentally “happier” in the real world, despite its harshness. The audience can infer from the first 30 minutes of the movie that Neo is unhappy living in the Matrix primarily because of a quiet but deep-seated awareness that certain things just aren’t right/real. That awareness comes from the subconciousness knowledge that the Matrix world is a lie.
So in Neo’s case, we understand why living in the Matrix is counterproductive to happiness, even though it has many pleasures unattainable to those who live in the real world. Being aware of a false world precludes (in Neo’s case) having a happy, contented life in such a world. He much rather live a hard, grim life that is “true” rather than a easy, pleasant life that is “false”.
But what about Cerus? Was his choice, too, equally valid? He found himself unhappy in the real world and wanted to be plugged back into the Matrix, so much that he committed treason. Now his murdering aside, does his desire to live in make-believe make him any less of noble person than Neo? Why does the audience generally see Cerus’s choice as less respectable than Neo’s?
I personally think human beings are natural truth-seekers, much like insects seeking light. Not due to some concept as “whatever is best for the common good” but because we are rational animals. Truth and reason go hand in hand; once one of those elements goes out the door, the other follows suit. We trust people who tell the truth; we distrust people who tell us only what we want to hear. Why? Because information that is contaminated with deceit tends to lead us to making decisions that go against reason. And our ability to reason is the only thing keeping us alive, since instincts don’t do a whole lot to govern our species like with other species.
The problem with Priceguy’s principle is that it is quite easy to make happiness the end all be all when everything that can be called good is labeled “happiness”. ** But truth does have value in and of itself. ** We see in “The Matrix” that much of the harshness and pains plaguing the residents of Zion are mitigated by the fact that they are living authentically. They are happy because they are living in reality as opposed to a computer simulation. So in this case, the truth has value because the people value it (to be purposefully circular).
I think most people are like this, not just these characters in the movie. When people discover that they’ve been cheated on, the revelation is usually devastating. But despite the pain, don’t most people prefer to know that they are with a cheater as opposed to living blissfully unaware? Armed with that knowledge they are capable of making rational decisions. Without that knowledge, they may be putting themselves at risk of STDs, baby-mama drama, or other craziness. So even though most people are hurt by knowing the truth about their mates, I’d bet most people would rather know than not know. The truth provides a relief that mitigates that hurt. It allows us to exercise free will.
To answer the OP, IMO happiness has nothing to do with being honest. We can talk about the extreme cases (e.g. Nazis) all day, but why is it necessary? I think if we set the rule that honesty is the best policy–with the understanding that there are exceptions to every rule (like when the truth only serves to cause pain, murder, and mayhem)–then there really should be no need to factor in the nebulous factor of happiness.
If we agree that good is good, then I must definitely say that it follows that you should maximize good. If good is good, maximizing good is better than not maximizing good.
No.
Which I don’t care about, and nor does my philosophy.
That it most definitely is not.
Yes, but my philosophy does not care about the distinction. That’s what I mean when I say that my philosophy doesn’t distinguish between them. I don’t distinguish between the two lions chasing me, either, but it is certainly possible to distinguish between them. However, the fact that one of the lions has a small dark patch on its left hind leg is rather irrelevant when I’m trying to escape being eaten alive. In the same way, the fact who experiences the happiness is quite irrelevant when I’m trying to maximize it.
This is what you are saying. I keep telling you that I do not value equality in itself. Maximizing good is obviously better than not maximizing good. If two people are happy, there is more happiness than if one person is happy, so in the first case good is maximized. I really can’t see what your problem with this is.
I won’t do that, because it’s simply not true.
No, it’s not word games. Show me a benefit that doesn’t hinge on pleasure.
And what do they get out of meaning, nobility and so forth?
I don’t quite see what this has to do with the topic at hand, but no, he doesn’t. He doesn’t know the consequences nor the significance of the choice when he makes it.
So? It’s a movie.
Because, as you stated, he is unhappy in the fake world. How does this contradict me?
It’s Cypher. I would have made the same choice, although I would not have killed to be able to make it.
So truth only has value because it promotes happiness? Isn’t this what I’ve been saying all along?
We’ve already been through this, and your choice of the word “blissfully” shows quite clearly that the answer is “no”.
Because the question was if it is ALWAYS best to tell the truth. Clearly, it is not.
Why does it matter if he knows the consequences of the choice? He knows that one pill leads to the truth and the other will allow him to continue the status quo. And that was all he apparently needed to know to make his decision. He chose truth because it is the truth, not because he forsees pleasant consequences to picking one pill over another.
Glad that you are aware of that. 
Because you have implied that truth has no inherent value. I argue that truth does have value in and itself, and that is illustrated in this movie. It is the truth–and not the consequences of the truth–that make the people of Zion happy. Perhaps the reason why this movie resonates with so many people is because as rational animals we have an affinity towards “realness”, and this movie reaffirms that drive in us.
Thanks for correcting me. It’s been a while since I’ve seen it.
You started out by saying this:
See how this statement contradicts my analysis of The Matrix? I contend that the truth by itself can make people happier. You’re saying that the consequences of knowing (or telling) the truth must be factored in before you decide to seek (or share) the truth. I disagree. Sometimes those consequences should be factored in (e.g. with Nazis), but not always.
Imagine what would happen if doctors withheld medical information from patients because they felt it would do no good. A person comes in with advanced cancer of the liver, they will probably have less than 3 months to live, and the doctor sees no cure in sight. So the doctor tells them they only have a bad case of gall stones and prescribes them some morphine to ease the pain of their suffering. To the doctor, this decision is ethical because at least the patient isn’t going to live the last of his days in mental anguish over impending death, and in fact, will probably live in a euphoric, pain-free existence.
But what about the patient’s loved-ones? Won’t the sudden, unexpected death of their friend or relative make their grief a lot worse than it would if they had ample warning? What if the condition is hereditary? Shouldn’t the family be informed so they can start taking proper screening procedures? What if the patient, left in ignorance about their impending death, didn’t take the time to write up a will, and so had no say over how their estate was to be divided?
The doctor really shouldn’t have to trouble himself over these questions. That’s too much responsibility for one person to have. All the doctor should be concerned with is telling the truth. Not because that is what he is paid to do, but because asking fallible beings to factor in all the consequences of their choices all the time is just asking for some consequences to either be overvalued or ignored altogether.
No, the previous discussion on cheating dealt with the question of knowing versus not knowing. My question asked how many people who have found out that they were being cheated on actually wish they could erase that knowledge and continue living in ignorance. So the two questions are different. I don’t believe most people would wish to un-know they were being cheated on. Maybe at first, when the pain is at its most acute, but few people in the long run actually wish ignorance on themselves like that.
Just because there are exceptions to this rule, does that mean we should replace it with a utlitarinistic principle that actually does very little, in practice, to define what is right and wrong? The “must” provision of your principle (as in, the consequences to telling the truth must be factored in) is just as binding as the “always” in the title of this thread. Both of them are problematic, just for different reasons. The “always” allows for little discretion for the individual to determine when the truth is called for and when it is not. The “must” prevents an individual from exercising honesty without undertaking mental machinations that are inherently subject to personal bias, and thus may not be reliable for person to person.
The rule I follow says we should always strive to tell the truth. In those extreme examples with Nazis knocking on my door, I would simply opt to disobey that rule. Big rubber deal. That’s what free will is all about.
You said “The protagonist of the movie, when faced with the choice, elects to live in the real world because he values truth over the psycho-somatic comforts available to him in the Matrix”. I pointed out that this is incorrect. When he made the choice, he didn’t know that the world he thought was real was not. I still don’t understand what this has to do with anything, but if we’re going to talk about Matrix, let it at least be correct.
Well, you seemed not to be, as you were using events in the movie as arguments.
I have not just implied it, I have said it straight out, several times.
I think we should leave the movie out of this. It brings very little to the discussion.
Yes.
If this is so, and I’m not saying that it is or that it isn’t, that still only means that truth has value because it promotes happiness.
Why not, and how do you distinguish between the two situations?
If this policy were to be implemented, it would be a matter of record, which would in turn mean that no-one would ever trust what a doctor said, which would in turn mean that more patients would suffer anguish.
Yes, these are all valid reasons why your policy should not be implemented, in addition to the one I mentioned.
That’s why I believe in rules and laws, and I believe that rules and laws should be based firmly in rule-based ethics, while the makers of rules and laws should be guided by utilitarianism. In this case, one set of rules is clearly superior to another. We agree on this.
Cite?
Utilitarianism may lead to wrong conclusions sometimes. It’s still better than following blind rules.
So you follow the rule, except when the consequences of following the rule compel you to break the rule? How does that make you unlike me?
Sorry to jump in at the middle of the 3-way discussion of Priceguy, Lucius, and Cosmosdan.
It seems at this point, the debate has been diverted from “Should we ALWAYS tell the truth?” to definition of personal happiness and pleasure, and sacrificing yours for other peoples happiness (the soldier case, or charitable contributions).
It appears that without “knowing, hearing or telling the Truth”, **Lucius ** cannot achieve pleasure and happiness. To get back to the OP, I am inclined to go with **Priceguy ** and dig further into Lucius and Cosmosdan responses when they were confronted to choose among 3 options:
A. Your spouse doesn’t cheat on you.
B. Your spouse does cheat on you, but you don’t ever find out.
C. Your spouse does cheat on you, and you find out.
Priceguy first assumed that Lucius would pick option A or even B. As shown in post # 77, Lucius’ top choice is clearly A. But surprise, surprise, when it came to B & C, he preferred C. He totally dismisses B because of “the truth value”. He further justifies picking C over B by saying that “it is about the greater good”. To which Priceguy responds: How does it promote the greater good to find out about your spouse’s cheating? Lucius answer: “Because I define truth as valuable”.
Then Cosmosdan joins in and says:
Here is my 2 cents:
Picking A is a no brainer as far as the OP is concerned. So, option A is irrelevant. The OP is about picking between B and C. Having personally experienced both B and C in my life (with 2 separate long term relationships), and having witnessed similar real life stories and their outcomes, I am voting for B. And here is why:
So your and your spouse/girlfriend are happy and in love for many years. So, some occasion happens when she has a fling with a guy called Robbie. So, Robbie ends up being Rubbish-in-the-sack, in which case she’d most probably dump him and continues her devotion to you. In that case, why should she tell you about the fling with Robbie, and why would you want to know? It was a fling, she used protection (condom, etc.) and it is over. She is back even more excited and appreciative in having you as her lover. Simple and no pain. However, If she tells you “the truth” about the fling with Robbie, “the truth” often ends up having unintended consequences, as you may never trust her anymore, and gradually destroy the relationship.
On the other hand, if Robbie does not end up being rubbish-in-the-sack, then she will continue seeing him and eventually “the truth” will come out, and you’ll know about it in due course. She will either leave you for Robbie, leave Robbie for you, or if Robbie is not possessive, she may ask if you can handle it if she continues both relationships simultaneously. So, “the truth” will be out anyway, and you can decide whether you can put up with it or split. Simple, but painful.
So, why prefer C to B? Especially if you don’t know Robbie, or how he turns out to be?
Not neccesarily. There are (broadly) two sorts of ethics. One that aims to maximise good, and another just as logical which doesn’t care the least about that and just wants everyone to leave each other alone, more or less.
Yes, but the point is it as just as logical to make a distinction as it is to not. Thus, please allow for this.
Except you do, and as far as I can tell all you seem to be doing is misunderstanding what I mean by equality. Please go back and read my previous posts for further clarification, but to summarise - you assert that everybody’s pleasure is equally valuable.
*I give up. *
I am quite happy to continue this debate, if you’ll actually try and interact with the issues. As it is, I see no point in my posting the same answer a thousand times which you ignore because apparently your subjective opinion is sancrosact while others are worthless.
One last time: They are the valuable for the same reason pleasure is valuable. Because we value them.
How is that logical? Once we establish that X is good and that “good” is something desirable, then surely it is logical to attempt to maximize good?
Yes I do. That doesn’t mean I value equality.
Once again, I must apologize if I have offended or insulted you. The last time I believed I had done so you assured me that I hadn’t, but now I can see no other explanation. Why else would you believe that I considered the opinions of others to be worthless?
Then explain it to me. I am a human, just like you. I’m equipped with the same sensory apparatus as you. The process that created me is very much like the process that created you. The same substances flow through our bodies. The same impulses travel throughout our system of nerves. We are the same in every relevant way. There is no reason why I should not be able to understand the value of truth, or the value of nobility, or the value of meaning, if you do understand them.