[sao desi]

Why does lying matter if people can get away with it?

Is it right to tell somebody one doesn't respect the truth?

[see-are]

Lying is wrong in all cases because the act is what counts not the result. It is our duty to peruse the summum bonum and therefore act in a way that can be universalised without adverse effect. We can't accurately predict the outcome of our actions so should act in the best way possible e.g. never lying in order to cover our backs for if the act leads to something bad.

[aftrglw]

(Original post by sao desi)
Why does lying matter if people can get away with it?

Is it right to tell somebody one doesn't respect the truth?

Why is murder wrong if people can get away with it? What's wrong with telling somebody one doesn't respect their life?

I didn't realize the ability to 'get away with something' was a determinant of its morality. Look out world, here I come!

[see-are]

(Original post by aftrglw)
Why is murder wrong if people can get away with it? What's wrong with telling somebody one doesn't respect their life?

I didn't realize the ability to 'get away with something' was a determinant of its morality. Look out world, here I come!

You've made a logical fallacy here mate. Just because he said that lying's morality could be determined by being able to get away with it doesn't mean the same would apply to murder.

[angrydanmarin]

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

First thing that comes to mind about this. interesting read obviously

[see-are]

(Original post by angrydanmarin)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Categorical_imperative

First thing that comes to mind about this. interesting read obviously

thats what i was trying to say. great minds think alike ey? Haha, yeah!

Or maybe you just copied me?
Maybe you didn't read my post or didn't clock it was about that due to me not remembering the actual term
I'll give you the benefit of the doubt pal!
expect rep!!

[sao desi]

(Original post by aftrglw)
Why is murder wrong if people can get away with it? What's wrong with telling somebody one doesn't respect their life?

I didn't realize the ability to 'get away with something' was a determinant of its morality. Look out world, here I come!

if one doesn't respect another, why tell them the truth?

[aftrglw]

(Original post by see-are)
You've made a logical fallacy here mate. Just because he said that lying's morality could be determined by being able to get away with it doesn't mean the same would apply to murder.

It's not a logical fallacy. He implied the ability to get away with something is determinate of whether or not it's wrong. Not marginal utility or some adherence to some deontological principle. Presumably, it would be applied to other things that we generally consider wrong.

Obviously, it's a dumb question. There's plenty of routes you can take. E.g., murder directly violates agency, whereas lying doesn't. My point is, I've simply never seen 'getting, or not getting, away with something' as a moral principle. Most ethical theories focus on the action itself (deontological), the result (consequential) or the status of the person doing them (virtue)... not whether or not someone finds out about it.

You can make the 'logical fallacy' accusation, but you certainly haven't shown how my argument is a logical fallacy.

[miser]

I believe that lying is wrong in some cases but not all cases - in my opinion what matters is the intent of the person committing the lie. If they have good intentions they should be judged in accordance with that, because the best any person can do in life is to act with good intentions. I do not believe that the outcome of the lie is an adequate means to judge the morality of the person who committed it.

There are many examples I can think of where lying would be, in my opinion, appropriate and justified (for example for a surprise party; to protect a friend's secret; to protect a government secret - knowledge of which could lead to deaths; to protect one's own privacy; or lying to the 'murderer on the doorstep' to protect a friend he wants to kill).

Lies which would seem to do no harm (or actually to prevent harm) to people are, to me, acceptable (though perhaps at the cost of one's reputation). Lies which benefit no-one or inflict harm are harder to justify, and perhaps immoral.

Lies, when told, are done so almost always with some justification. Rarely I think do people tell lies in order to harm or intentionally restrict the freedoms of another.

[see-are]

(Original post by aftrglw)
It's not a logical fallacy. He implied the ability to get away with something is determinate of whether or not it's wrong. Not marginal utility or some adherence to some deontological principle. Presumably, it would be applied to other things that we generally consider wrong.

Obviously, it's a dumb question. There's plenty of routes you can take. E.g., murder directly violates agency, whereas lying doesn't. My point is, I've simply never seen 'getting, or not getting, away with something' as a moral principle. Most ethical theories focus on the action itself (deontological), the result (consequential) or the status of the person doing them (virtue)... not whether or not someone finds out about it.

You can make the 'logical fallacy' accusation, but you certainly haven't shown how my argument is a logical fallacy.

Well let me make it clear
When you make the jump to "presumably, it would be applied to other things" you are making an unfounded assertion. Yes it may be likely that the OP will take this approach on morality for more than just lying but it is something you do not know for sure, so you cannot base your argument on it. Logical Fallacy.

[aftrglw]

(Original post by see-are)
Well let me make it clear
When you make the jump to "presumably, it would be applied to other things" you are making an unfounded assertion. Yes it may be likely that the OP will take this approach on morality for more than just lying but it is something you do not know for sure, so you cannot base your argument on it. Logical Fallacy.

That's not what a logical fallacy is though. A logical fallacy involves fallacious reasoning, such as attacking a person rather than their argument (ad hominem) or simply citing an expert (appeal to authority) to make one's argument. I took sao's ethical principle and applied it elsewhere to show it doesn't sync with what almost anyone would consider ethics. That's not fallacious, it's what ethics is. If his questions was 'why do people consider getting away with lying to negate the ethical implications when this doesn't work with other concepts?' it would be fallacious. If you can't apply ethical principles they're essentially useless. It therefore makes sense to apply them elsewhere to test their validity.

Take the classical ethical hypothetical: you have 7 people on a life raft that only fits 6. If you don't throw one off (killing them) you'll all die. What do you do? Obv, most deontological theories would argue that killing someone is wrong so the ethical thing to do is die together. Utilitarianism would argue that that saving 6 lives is better than losing 7, so you should kill one of them. The point of all this is, suppose you switch the life raft for a bomb shelter or rocket to save you from a nuclear holocaust. If you can show that the principle advocated in the original argument does not apply for a bomb shelter, is that a logical fallacy? Surely not, because while the specifics change, the principle remains the same...

[see-are]

(Original post by aftrglw)
That's not what a logical fallacy is though. A logical fallacy involves fallacious reasoning, such as attacking a person rather than their argument (ad hominem) or simply citing an expert (appeal to authority) to make one's argument. I took sao's ethical principle and applied it elsewhere to show it doesn't sync with what almost anyone would consider ethics. That's not fallacious, it's what ethics is. If his questions was 'why do people consider getting away with lying to negate the ethical implications when this doesn't work with other concepts?' it would be fallacious. If you can't apply ethical principles they're essentially useless. It therefore makes sense to apply them elsewhere to test their validity.

Take the classical ethical hypothetical: you have 7 people on a life raft that only fits 6. If you don't throw one off (killing them) you'll all die. What do you do? Obv, most deontological theories would argue that killing someone is wrong so the ethical thing to do is die together. Utilitarianism would argue that that saving 6 lives is better than losing 7, so you should kill one of them. The point of all this is, suppose you switch the life raft for a bomb shelter or rocket to save you from a nuclear holocaust. If you can show that the principle advocated in the original argument does not apply for a bomb shelter, is that a logical fallacy? Surely not, because while the specifics change, the principle remains the same...

It is a logical fallacy because you are being illogical in assuming that the OP is consistent in his reasoning for the morality of actions without confirmation of this.

As I said before: just because he thinks that lying can be justified in this way does not mean that he would judge murder like that. This is a very standard logical fallacy it is called the slippery slope in some circles it is where you go "oh so that is what you think then you must think x as well" when in reality he may not think x.

In your case you are saying "oh you think that lying can be said to be wrong or right based on getting caught or not so you must think the same about murder etc" When in reality you don't know that OP thinks that about murder - he could literally just be talking about lying .

[Lorem Ipsum]

(Original post by see-are)
It is a logical fallacy because you are being illogical in assuming that the OP is consistent in his reasoning for the morality of actions without confirmation of this.

As I said before: just because he thinks that lying can be justified in this way does not mean that he would judge murder like that. This is a very standard logical fallacy it is called the slippery slope in some circles it is where you go "oh so that is what you think then you must think x as well" when in reality he may not think x.

In your case you are saying "oh you think that lying can be said to be wrong or right based on getting caught or not so you must think the same about murder etc" When in reality you don't know that OP thinks that about murder - he could literally just be talking about lying .

It's only as much as a fallacy as any analogy is, although in this case I don't think the analogy was particularly fallacious. On a wider note, Kantian ethics only work if everyone obeys it. The nature of the query ruins it obsolete so it's not particularly useful.

[aftrglw]

(Original post by see-are)
It is a logical fallacy because you are being illogical in assuming that the OP is consistent in his reasoning for the morality of actions without confirmation of this.

As I said before: just because he thinks that lying can be justified in this way does not mean that he would judge murder like that. This is a very standard logical fallacy it is called the slippery slope in some circles it is where you go "oh so that is what you think then you must think x as well" when in reality he may not think x.

In your case you are saying "oh you think that lying can be said to be wrong or right based on getting caught or not so you must think the same about murder etc" When in reality you don't know that OP thinks that about murder - he could literally just be talking about lying .

I never said he wasn't just talking about lying, it was just an analogy to show that the moral dictum seemed a bit silly. I didn't realize it was illogical to assume that someone else is consistent in their reasoning (i.e. somewhat logical). I must have been illogical in my philosophy classes all the time! Silly Renee, of course you tried to jump from 'cogito ergo sum' to 'God exists'. It would have been ridiculous of me to assume you'd actually make a logical conclusion. It's ok, better to be illogical than French... oops.

Edit: Just realized the other part of what you said. You're misunderstanding a slippery slope. Crucially, slippery slopes rely on causal chain so that A leads to B, leads to C, lead to D, leads to absurdity E. For example, it's common in anti-gay marriage arguments: If you let homosexuals marry then what's to stop me from marrying my daughter? If I can marry my daughter, why can't I marry my dog? If I can marry my dog, why can't I marry a tree? I simply used an analogy to show the problem with a moral principle, it's not a slippery slope.

Now, I don't mean to go all 'ad hominem' on you, but are you a first year philosophy student? Or maybe in A levels?

[Wawasan]

With regards to whether the comsequences of lying will be punished for...well, there's something called karma...

[cl_steele]

people say lying is so wrong well what about the cases where the truth is worse than the lie? some white lies arent so bad are they? after all ... ignorance is bliss...

[snozzle]

Plato endorsed the 'noble lie'. The Rulers of the City are permitted to lie for the good of the City.

St Augustine said lying was always wrong, but that didn't mean one had to tell the truth, one could stay silent or say very little truth.

[snozzle]

(Original post by aftrglw)
I didn't realize the ability to 'get away with something' was a determinant of its morality. Look out world, here I come!

I think what he meant was what is the use of truth telling being deemed honorable if liars can get way with lying, that is to say retain honour AND acquire the goods that lying can help the acquire?

If honour is all that matters and lying is never found out then lying would be the logical choice.

This would imply he does not consider truth teling salutary to the truth teller or a duty to the truth teller, and also he doesn't care about any consequences to the receiver of the lie.

[there's too much love]

(Original post by see-are)
Well let me make it clear
When you make the jump to "presumably, it would be applied to other things" you are making an unfounded assertion. Yes it may be likely that the OP will take this approach on morality for more than just lying but it is something you do not know for sure, so you cannot base your argument on it. Logical Fallacy.

In which case the burden is on the OP to explain themselves better. The context they gave looked as if it was broadly being applied to morality, and that they were interested in it's application with regards to 'the morality of lying'. They haven't said why lying is in any way special.

The counter of using murder as another application isn't making a presumption as much as begging the question; why is that relevant to any of morality? In particular with regards to lying?

I think you need to try to read the tone of the post you criticised.

[there's too much love]

(Original post by see-are)
It is a logical fallacy because you are being illogical in assuming that the OP is consistent in his reasoning for the morality of actions without confirmation of this.

As I said before: just because he thinks that lying can be justified in this way does not mean that he would judge murder like that. This is a very standard logical fallacy it is called the slippery slope in some circles it is where you go "oh so that is what you think then you must think x as well" when in reality he may not think x.

In your case you are saying "oh you think that lying can be said to be wrong or right based on getting caught or not so you must think the same about murder etc" When in reality you don't know that OP thinks that about murder - he could literally just be talking about lying .

"It is a logical fallacy because you are being illogical in assuming that the OP is consistent in his reasoning for the morality of actions without confirmation of this."


May as well read:
"It is a logical fallacy because you assume that the OP understands all of the concepts involved."

Or:
"It is a logical fallacy because you assume that the OP is typing in English rather than typing in another language that happens to use the same symbols in a pattern that appears at first and even second and third glance to be English."

Are you done being absurd?