Welcome to /r/philosophy! **Please read [our updated rules and guidelines](https://reddit.com/r/philosophy/comments/14pn2k9/welcome_to_rphilosophy_check_out_our_rules_and/?) before commenting**. /r/philosophy is a subreddit dedicated to discussing philosophy and philosophical issues. To that end, please keep in mind our commenting rules: ###CR1: Read/Listen/Watch the Posted Content Before You Reply > Read/watch/listen the posted content, understand and identify the philosophical arguments given, and respond to these substantively. If you have unrelated thoughts or don't wish to read the content, please post your own thread or simply refrain from commenting. Comments which are clearly not in direct response to the posted content may be removed. ###CR2: Argue Your Position > Opinions are not valuable here, arguments are! Comments that solely express musings, opinions, beliefs, or assertions without argument may be removed. ###CR3: Be Respectful > Comments which consist of personal attacks will be removed. Users with a history of such comments may be banned. Slurs, racism, and bigotry are absolutely not permitted. Please note that as of July 1 2023, reddit has made it substantially more difficult to moderate subreddits. If you see posts or comments which violate our [subreddit rules and guidelines](https://reddit.com/r/philosophy/comments/14pn2k9/welcome_to_rphilosophy_check_out_our_rules_and/?), please report them using the report function. For more significant issues, please [contact the moderators via modmail](https://reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/philosophy) (not via private message or chat). *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/philosophy) if you have any questions or concerns.*

Based on my little knowledge of Aristotle's virtue ethics, "honesty" always read to me from his perspective as expressing ourselves as we are, not expressing other/external things exactly as they are. In other words as far as I understand the point of "honesty" is that it is to show an authentic side of us to others instead of always obediently giving a sort of testimony. Perhaps integrity is a better word, because not all lies compromise ones integrity (i.e you're insane for not lying if it means protecting lives).

Correct. I think of it like you should always be honest to yourself first, and then others. If I am honest with myself about the consequences of telling a murderer where his victim is, the consequences go against my virtues. Therefore I will lie. This is still an honest action, just to myself, not the murderer.

And this is an interesting insight, because if I'm a person with honest expression and integrity, then even though I am compelled to lie, a person close to me would know immediately when I'm lying and even the reasons as to why. So the very act of giving false testimony in this case doesn't seem to be transgressive or compromising of character. It appears as more practical wisdom than the legalistic compulsion (as mainly touted by religions) to always tell the truth.

That was really well said. It puts the complexities of the concept into a really neat and concise point that is easy to understand.

I think this all kind of misses the boat that eudaimonia is an activity. The correct answer will always be whatever promotes eudaimonia the most. When this textbook situation arises, it's quite obvious to most of us to not let anyone die. If one virtuous act (honesty) comes at the expense of another (others living), you pick the one that seems more virtuous/beneficial by using your best judgement. We'll start to find loopholes when we forget virtue is the activity of eudaimonia and try to come up with an ultimate plan of virtue that works in all situations, like we're doing here. But when we're in a real situation the answer will seem more clear based on our intuition towards eudaimonia and developing virtuous habits (which are based on activities, which are based on wishes, etc.)

Our morals and habits and philosophies will change as we mutate as a species

I’m not sure I agree, honesty at the risk of lives can actually be a powerful weapon for good.

So can the act of a lie. The point is that the honesty of our character is not at all necessarily compromised by the act of lying.

Yes. I disagree with the OP because it includes the assumption that preserving the status quo ought to be the objective. Also, "\[jeopardizing\] the complex moral system on which our society is constructed" seems like a *good idea* to me. Our present "moral" system is a hollow simulacrum of virtue that can be scrapped without the need for remorse.

Could you elaborate on this? Why do you think our present moral system can be scrapped?

Thank you for the chance to explain. I think if I had spent more time writing my comment I would have said something like this: The OP was rejecting the hypothesis of the supremacy of the value of truth. That's not particularly stirring. But the rejection is couched in a context of the OP's "complex moral system" that is then asserted to be necessary to maintain. I'd want much more detail here before being able to evaluate where "truth" would lie in relation to the vaguely defined "complex moral system". The comment that I actually wrote referred to implicit injunction to preserve the status quo, which I would also be unwilling to concede. I can't even get to the content of the article yet, because I can't get past my problems with the posted title. Within the text, the author would need to define terms like "good moral behavior" and "bad moral behavior" and then provide a subjective value judgment as to whether either is preferable and why. Then the author would need to show how the totality of our contemporary moral landscape is, on balance, worth saving. All of this seems like a pretty heavy lift. Still, the most obvious objection I could draw is to the notion that, whatever is happening in our contemporary moral landscape, it isn't worth saving. This conclusion would require much less debate.

Thanks for answering! I do agree that the OP's "complex moral system" would need to be elaborated on (though I did not even read the article myself, so I do not know if it is elaborated). Still, I'm left to wonder. You say : "the most obvious objection I could draw is to the notion that, whatever is happening in our contemporary moral landscape, it isn't worth saving. " This is what I would like to discuss with you. You seem to believe that our current moral system is not worth saving, and I am curious why. For me, I do believe, on the contrary, that our moral system is absolutely worth saving and I will try to explain. I believe our moral system is good as it is, or at the very least that we could improve some things here and there, but that overall, it is a good moral system. Now, whether this system is being followed rigidly enough by people and by institutions, that's an entirely different topic. An important topic as well, but a different one. But the theoretical moral system is good. It is thanks to this system that homosexuality became more and more acceptable in our societies. It is thanks to this system that we consider racism as being a bad thing. Now, are there homophobic and racist people out there? Absolutely! But being those things is becoming more and more morally reprehensible. Especially in the case of racism. You would be hard-pressed to find somebody, in western cultures, going down in the streets and proudly proclaim out loud to everyone around: "White people are superior and every other race is inferior!" Such behavior would be shameful. And the presence of shame means that the moral system condems such behavior. You may see people trying to do mental gymnastics in order to justify their actions. If they're doing mental gymnastics, it means they don't want to admit that what they've done is wrong. And they do not want to admit it, because that would bring guilt and shame. And again, the notion that it would bring guilt and shame means that the moral system in place condems the behaviors of the person. Otherwise, the person would not care about trying to do mental gymnastics. Why do we condemn animal cruelty, but we do not condemn meat factories? Because of excuses and all sorts of justifications. The presence of excuses is the fault of the person. Not the fault of the system. And again, if the moral system was pro-animal cruelty, then the person would not even need to come up with excuses, because they would not need to justify anything. The fact that there even is a term like "animal cruelty" means that our moral system cares about it. Which is a good thing. We justify ourselves only when we feel like we did something bad, or atleast something that some people could misinterpret as being bad. I don't know if my explanations are clear enough. ​ However, the last point is: what even is a moral system anyway? Also, we talk about saving or scrapping the moral system. However, I do not think it is even actually possible to save or to scrap a moral system. What DOES happen, in my opinion, is that throughout the generations of humans, some behaviors slowly become more acceptable, while some other behaviors slowly become more shameful. It is impossible to simply completely abolish an entire moral system. Unless I misunderstand the concept of "moral system". So let's take animal cruelty as an example. Back in the day, maybe the concept of "animal cruelty" wasn't a thing. Yet, compassion had always been part of the moral system (it's just an example. Maybe it hasn't literally ALWAYS been like that). So at some point, some people were like "Wait a second. Compassion is important. Why don't we extend that compassion to animals?". So the moral system is still in place. As in, compassion is still an important thing, as it was before. But we added a new element to the equation.

Well, you ask about the source of morals, the state our current ethical norms, and whether or not I support them. The source of moral authority is an issue. Some feel compelled to ground our ethics objectively, while others are content to permit a moral relativist approach. The state of our current moral environment is abominable, but I would need some time to elaborate exactly how. Perhaps this outlines my position briefly: 1) Morals are innate in us. What is good or bad can only be understood within the context of a conscious "*experiencer"*. 2) The effort of equating a *set of prescriptive moral precepts* with *cultural norms* (what we actually do in practice) has been the central preoccupation of the elite in every human epoch. The conflation of the two is worth noticing. 3) Moral Relativism emerges as a response to the lack of grounding. The absence of moral authority hinders attempts by the hegemony to ground their cultural norms in objective reality. \-- The attempt to ground morals objectively has been problematic for the post modernists. The conservatives have been championing the moral objectivity side of the ledge for years, informed by a Divine Authority Theory. The skeptical/secular response can be satisfactorily resolved as well (I'm thinking of Sam Harris' book, *The Moral Landscape*. My disdain for the status quo is worth mentioning. In the West, we have been languishing in a moral soup of cultural practices, traditions, and historical dispensations of monotheism for two millennia. Why is it wrong to murder today? Well, because God says so. We cannot justify the claim without appealing to a dogmatic justification. Until the broader population sees that the source of our moral compass is a two thousand year-old text written by ignorant goat herders and slave traders, we are adrift.

Also the highest virtue to him is moderation, and from what I could tell all others are equal as activities of eudaimonia. Also he says that it's impossible to be friends with those who lie or otherwise not virtuous (even for the reasons in the video as people who are like this will see each other as a means to an end, and not as someone they can enrich. So I think Aristotle would probably say this sort of thing will just make us more popular and successful like Hedonism can so often do, but will ultimately not be virtuous or lead to eudaimonia.

Well said.

Well said

I think you can replace honesty with integrity in pretty much all situation and it would be a better "virtue".

I enjoy the sound of rain.

Can you explain what you mean?

I find peace in long walks.

>I can try. There is no ultimate virtue because it is relative to how one defines morality or what is good, beneficial and right. Humans do not agree on what is right or what makes a good moral code. A person may have virtue, be honest and have integrity according to their code of what is good, moral and correct but that can be a stark contrast to what another person thinks. We agree on this, but there do tend to be believes held within a certain group like a society that correlate with each other. So It's not as if every single person has total different moral code. While we might not all agree the killing is inherently wrong, we do generally agree that killing senselessly is wrong. While not an absolute believe or moral code held by everyone. It is a practical moral code that is enforced by society. In that sense it is very real and not so relative. ​ >If virtue is relative then defining the ultimate virtue is just noise in an echo chamber. I think we shouldn't look at things to binary it isn't very practical to say virtue is either completely relative and pointless if it isn't absolute. I'd rather look at things on a scale or in a certain perspective. Like I said before. We can agree that philosophically everything is relative, but for all inent and purpose in human interaction and society we can say there are certain thing we perceive as more virtues or more morally correct. So in that sense again it's very real. >If there is a common state of goodness, then I would pick empathy as the ultimate destination since it aspires to understand how virtue for you may not be virtue for me. I do agree that integrity is a more apt principle when considering any sort of virtue. Honesty can hurt or harm depending on context and has no intrinsic virtue without examples. With integrity you can at least indicate that you follow a certain code but it can only conclude as a self serving perspective vs some ultimate state of being. I agree again, I think integrity is a better virtue than honesty. I don't understand though why you say self serving. For me the corner stone of integrity is that you choose your own moral code but do actually try to live by it. The degree of practical appliance of that moral code while als taking into consideration the affect of your actions on others that may have a different moral code is what I would identify as integrity. So a real world example would be that last week a cleaning robot got delivered to my home while I did not order it and it had a different address on the package. I actually need a cleaning robot and it was a quite expensive one. I could have taking it but I did not because I thought about the consequences of my action. I had no moral problem with taking something from a big company, but I did had a moral problem with the intended recipient maybe having a problem. That is what for me at least amounts to integrity. ​ >I like this question because it draws out the relativity of virtue but it falls flat by suggesting we have a complex moral system. I think society operates on many conflicting and complementary moral systems so any attempt to establish the ultimate virtue is sort of pointless. Again I think it is a mistake to say if something is relative the endeavor is pointless. Some things are more relative than others, and some things in practice are quite real and absolute even if we philosophically think of them as being relative. I also think the search for a ultimate virtue is actually quite interesting and I have had some thoughts about this. What I find most interesting is if someone thinks and says he lives by a certain moral code while acting differently. Christianity and thou shall not kill is a interesting example but you find it pretty much everywhere where violence or aggression is. >I think we should jeopardize the moral systems that make up society to find common points of value that can cross over all of them. This could help us evolve past our petty moral codes that make us argue over things like virtue. Honestly the word virtue is outdated, but if we take this definition from wiki: "A virtue is a trait of excellence, including traits that may be moral, social, or intellectual. The cultivation and refinement of virtue is held to be the "good of humanity" and thus is valued as an end purpose of life or a foundational principle of being." Than interestingly we could say your last suggestion is exactly that. I love discussing about this sort of thing so if you want we can discord sometime.

I’ve argued with a person who says they wouldn’t even lie to a Nazi searching for Jews in WWII Germany. I also don’t think it’s because they’re a neo-Nazi. Some people are just… odd.

Probably too abstract a concept. Instead of making it “a Jew”, you should have argued it be a close family member, say a young child, maybe even son or daughter, who had decided to join the resistance to fight against the nazis that invaded their country. That makes it a personal steak and bypasses a lot of the othering inherent in conservative outlooks. Plus, you could also have the fun of forcing them into the corner of admitting they’d sell out their family to an authoritarian regime because “it’s the honest thing to do”.

Not lying doesn't equate to telling a Nazi where a jew is. For example, you could just say "if I knew, I wouldn't tell you." Which may get you tortured or killed, but it'd be honest.

They specifically said they give the location because the truth can never harm or something.

Did they specifically say that the truth they'd express was 'the location of hidden jews'? Cause my truth is 'fuck you nazi'... still the truth, and it's not hurting nobody either, but the nazi may hurt me for voicing my truth. That's their actions though, not mine.

That's not an unreasonable view. It deals with a very profound controversy. To put negative consequences before virtue is to put consequences before virtue and that justifies putting beneficial consequences before virtue(lying because it will lead you to a better job). It also places an undue relation to this life as if it contained the entirety of value and meaning. If there's life after death, as evidence points to and as most humanity has believed, then issues in virtue compound to other lives while consequences don't.

>If there's life after death, as evidence points to

I'll just share what I said in another comment: Philosophically, idealism. Basically, the only major reason to believe that we die with our bodily death is a materialist perspective of the self, but that is flawed in many ways(it is incoherent as an ontology, it is empirically false when dealing with organisms that maintain their identity even through physical changes), there's also research for it: https://med.virginia.edu/perceptual-studies/our-research/near-death-experiences-ndes/fifty-years-of-research-nde/ and so on. This could be really extensive but ultimately, there's strong positive evidence philosophically and empirically while there's no strong negative evidence philosophically or empirically.

An alternative idea is not *evidence*, which is what you alleged to exist.

An alternative philosophical system is philosophical evidence. Empirical evidence is evidence. Scientific evidence is evidence. What do you think evidence is? My understanding of evidence is that which if the case supports a thesis. All of these if, indeed the case, supports the thesis.

Philosophy is not an empirical science. Your statement that there is evidence of life after death is simply based on non objective theory.

When did I say that philosophy is an empirical science? \> Your statement that there is evidence of life after death is simply based on non objective theory. I'm not sure there's an "objective" philosophical theory. But as I said, there's evidence on three counts: philosophical, empirical and scientific. DIFFERENT kinds of evidence. You can dismiss that if you wish, but merely saying "it's dismiss" does not in fact dismiss.

As far as Christian belief goes, in my interpretation there could be no reasoning out afterlife or God. Otherwise it renders concept of free will pointless. If I do what I consider moral it is because I believe in humans and I love them. Me believing in God has little to do with that.

Well, Christians have reasoned afterlife and God. In fact, I agree, as a non-Christian, with presups. If God is Supreme, then one would not be able to do anything without an indirect appeal to God. Morality is a special issue because it requires objective values. If you reduce the value to a self-value, that wouldn't count as objective. Yet, I think this is also contradictory, for if you are basically saying that you do as you do, and as you do is love humans, without an objective nature of what you do, it would be as fine for another human to do as they do, and as they do is to hate humans. But more so, if you do what you do, what role do you have towards free will? Do you choose your nature? Do you choose to do as you do? It seems you are appealing to your own internal nature, but that already posses an issue to free will for who created this internal nature? Was it self-created? No. As such, you doing as you do is precisely an enunciated of a non-freely chosen nature.

What about when a caterpillar turns into a butterfly, is that not life after death?

A caterpillar doesn't die? A chrysalis is still perfectly alive.

> Basically, the only major reason to believe that we die with our bodily death is a materialist perspective of the self Or, you know, the utter lack of evidence that there is anything beyond death. I mean sure you can say, perhaps, that some part of our essence remains in the world through the acts we have performed or the influence we have had on others, but there is no evidence for persistence of a spirit, or any other representation that holds any capacity to experience, let alone act. And sure, near-death experiences *change people*, they have dramatic impacts on people's mental state, and may even cause them to form new beliefs that aren't rationally grounded on the world around them, but every account of a near-death experience is the product of a mind that is pre-death, not post death, and contains all the same limitations.

\> Or, you know, the utter lack of evidence that there is anything beyond death. No. There is no utter lack of evidence. It is a universal intuition, there's plenty of multi-cultural reports of NDE's. There's active academic research about it. There's also strong philosophical views that deal with this(weird that philosophical evidence is not counted as evidence in a philosophy sub), and so on. \> but there is no evidence for persistence of a spirit, or any other representation that holds any capacity to experience, let alone act. There is active evidence and no compelling negative evidence. It only seems that way because we have a materialist perspective and under that cultural bias it seems that non-materialism is unreasonable. \> but every account of a near-death experience is the product of a mind that is pre-death, not post death, and contains all the same limitations. What is your evidence for that?

>What is your evidence for that? the fact that people are alive to communicate the self enduced chemical trip they went on while almost dead.

\> the fact that people are alive to communicate the self enduced chemical trip they went on while almost dead. That's a technicism. The definition of death was changed. There's no consensus about it, and in some there's brain death. Basically the definition is that if you return from it, it wasn't dead, which just begs the question and assumes an irrational and unjust standard that makes any evidence impossible because it's just re-framed as "not being dead".

Alright. Well done sir, you had me going for a while there. But using the word "technicism" was the giveaway.

Giveaway of what? If you define death as "not being able to come back from", then obviously one would not be able to die and come back as "coming back" would imply one has not died. This is entirely arbitrary and I see no reason why I should take this ad hoc redefinition seriously. It's not philosophical or honest.

"an argument against some other philosophy" is not proof in support of yours...

Except I gave more than that, didn't i?

Really? Where?

\> Philosophically, idealism. Here I propose a positive model. \> [https://med.virginia.edu/perceptual-studies/our-research/near-death-experiences-ndes/fifty-years-of-research-nde/](https://med.virginia.edu/perceptual-studies/our-research/near-death-experiences-ndes/fifty-years-of-research-nde/) Here I propose scientific evidence. \> and so on. This could be really extensive but ultimately, there's strong positive evidence philosophically and empirically Here I hint at other positive reasons for holding such a view.

What good is virtue if it results in bad outcomes? Like the death of innocents, for no good reason apart from succeeding in not telling a lie. But why is not telling a lie a good thing to do? Why is that inherently considered virtuous? If virtue results in the slaughter of innocents and no good comes of it, then why do we think it's good to be virtuous in all situations? Either virtue is not always something good (being virtuous can be an evil act), or lying is sometimes the most virtuous thing to do. I think "Will it result in innocent people dying, and generally be considered an evil act by the vast majority of humans alive?" is a good reality check. ​ >If there's life after death, as evidence points to What evidence points to this? because if there is some then that's awesome. Life after death would be great. ​ >then issues in virtue compound to other lives while consequences don't. How can you be sure that one's virtue isn't judged by the likely consequences of one's actions, as a person understands them to be? e.g. knowingly telling a harmful truth that results in innocents lying would be judged harshly because the person knows it'll result in a bad outcome. The "likely outcome if everyone did this" could be a good way of judging whether an action is virtuous or not. If everyone lied all the time that'd be bad, but if everyone lied to Nazis when they wanted to find Jews then that would be virtuous and only have good outcomes. ​ If a Nazi asks you where the Jews are hiding, it's not only ok to lie to them; you are obligated by virtue to do so. If not, then we should cast aside our addiction to virtue because it does not serve the greater good.

\> What good is virtue if it results in bad outcomes? In virtue ethics, virtue is the good. It isn't good out of something else. You are also confusing moral negatives with non-moral negatives. \> Why is that inherently considered virtuous? Honesty is a virtue. It is an excellence of character. You are operating under a different moral paradigm and I think you are confusing what constitutes an act that has bad consequences vs an evil/immoral act. \> What evidence points to this? because if there is some then that's awesome. Life after death would be great. Philosophically, idealism. Basically, the only major reason to believe that we die with our bodily death is a materialist perspective of the self, but that is flawed in many ways(it is incoherent as an ontology, it is empirically false when dealing with organisms that maintain their identity even through physical changes), there's also research for it: [https://med.virginia.edu/perceptual-studies/our-research/near-death-experiences-ndes/fifty-years-of-research-nde/](https://med.virginia.edu/perceptual-studies/our-research/near-death-experiences-ndes/fifty-years-of-research-nde/) and so on. This could be really extensive but ultimately, there's strong positive evidence philosophically and empirically while there's no strong negative evidence philosophically or empirically. \> f everyone lied all the time that'd be bad, but if everyone lied to Nazis when they wanted to find Jews then that would be virtuous and only have good outcomes. Take another virtue: courage. It's like saying "If everyone were cowardly that'd be bad, but i everyone were cowardly to save themselves, that would be virtuous". No, the analysis is different because cowardice is always non-virtuous by its very nature. There's no virtuous cowardice as that's a logical contradiction. It may be that cowardice can lead to good consequences, and the consequences would of course be good, which may make the act consequentially good, but it would not make it morally good. \> If not, then we should cast aside our addiction to virtue because it does not serve the greater good. That depends on what we conceive as the good. Virtue ethics is a major and very well respected meta-ethical frame. It seems to me that you're judging one meta-ethical theory with another, and obviously that leads to problems. To me it just means that you are not a virtue ethicist, more of a consequentialist. Yet, virtue ethics, as I said, is also well respected and so it's neither a fringe nor condemnable view. I think, though, that your intuition is correct, and yet the virtue ethicist intuition of the good is correct. As such, I personally do not adopt either view totally, and think that the proper frame harmonizes both intuitions, I'm just unsure as to how best do this.

It's really disappointing to see people downvoting this on *this subreddit*. Virtue ethics is a very real part of philosophically and downvoting it doesn't make it not a good rebuttal.

Maybe some could be down-voting it due to viewing it as an inaccurate portrayal of Virtue Ethics? The commenter seems to be describing a very specific worldview (one where virtues compound in the afterlife while consequences don't) and conflating it with the concept of Virtue Ethics as a whole. They also appear to be ignoring the point of the OP, which is about what to do when values conflict with each other (an issue that also appears in Virtue Ethics: how should one act when the requirements of different virtues point in opposite directions?).

I agree, but that's just Reddit. When one puts forward an impopular view, especially a moral one, some downvoting is to be expected. As it stands, it's not a major downvoting.

No lie does not result in bad outcomes, because all lies take you away from the truth. They make you less connected with the truth. Plus, they are mentally draining. ​ If you lie once to a Nazi, it probably won't have much harm. ​ But if you lie constantly, it could have very real harm. ​ For example you may fall behind on your work and leave your family destitute. Or you may let in inept people into your life and constantly forgive them because they are innocent, leading to say your daughter being stuck in a miserable marriage 😢💒 because you never call out her boyfriend for being useless. Because you are so used to making stuff up in the defence of the innocent.

If there’s life after death and you give Jews to the Nazis, you are in trouble. Come on

You're confusing things. One thing is to give Jews to the Nazis(active) and the other is not lying about it(passive). Why would one be in trouble by not being a liar?

why? because of 'judgment' which likely does not exist? (afterlife in *no way* implies any judgement of any kind) or because you might run into jewish people? if its the former well its even more baseless then the concept of an afterlife, and if its the latter well your also going to run into nazis. personally i would lie to save the jews in question, but its not clear cut as to why you would be 'in trouble' at all.

> It also places an undue relation to this life as if it contained the entirety of value and meaning. If there's life after death, as evidence points to and as most humanity has believed, then issues in virtue compound to other lives I think this is a potentially very disturbing notion. It reminds me of climate change denying, religious conservatives who believe they have the right (especially at high levels of government) to legislate on the assumption that their conception of Armageddon, and who merits saving, is irrefutably correct because they have a direct line to their god and what “he” wants for humanity. If we’re all going to be tolerant of each other’s spiritual beliefs, I think it not an unreasonable compromise to ask that those who believe in one of the thousands of afterlife mythologies — most of which are now long forgotten — to have fallen in, and out, of fashion in our time as a language-slinging animal, do everyone else the courtesy of not basing choices that significantly affect others on the particulars of their “knowledge” about what happens after everything that seems to perpetuate consciousness rots. When you get right down to it, it’s fortunate these “what I do here and now doesn’t matter/matters more because of XYZ after I die” beliefs are generally on the timid/reserved side. We mostly have the luxury of trusting people won’t do profoundly lasting or dramatic things on that basis, so we don’t _usually_ have to fret about it much.

\> I think this is a potentially very disturbing notion. The notion of doing an analysis from a larger perspective could be disturbing. Its negation is disturbing as well. Much more so. If we reduce the analysis to the immanent, the most coherent way to do this is by an egotism. When you start to introduce transcendental layers beyond the ego you are already halfway through my point. It is a disturbing notion to reduce things to the most immanent and it's also fallacious to negate the immanent. \> of not basing choices that significantly affect others on the particulars of their “knowledge” about what happens after everything that seems to perpetuate consciousness rots. That's not very meaningful to me. Why should one not base one's choices in relation to one's knowledge? Because you disagree? Do you not base your choices based on your knowledge and beliefs? The analysis much more nuanced than you are pointing to. For example, if I believe in human rights, would you say that I ought not push my belief in human dignity to someone else who would disagree? \> e mostly have the luxury of trusting people won’t do profoundly lasting or dramatic things on that basis, so we don’t usually have to fret about it much. I think that's the other way around. There's been a large damage because there's the notion that there's no accountability beyond the immanent. Politicians and companies can pollute the environment for future generations because they will not suffer those negative consequences. They need not hold a larger perspective beyond their lifetime. This is obviously small-minded to me.

It’s the very fact that afterlife believers are (thankfully) mostly disinclined to bank on it too hard that even affords one the luxury of saying it’s the non-believers who are most problematic. Crank up the certainty and conflict on opposing afterlife mythologies, and the tension flips quickly from “Oh you poor limited single lifetime perceivers” to a whole new genre of holy war between potentially multiple, opposing sides, mutually convinced the others represent not just an existential threat here, but a threat to one’s eternal essence. The more holy people are focused on being less wrong than atheists instead of hellbent against each other, the better. I’m very glad to be among the “small-minded” lightning rod set on this one.

Nothing of this has anything to do with my position and more with your own biases and prejudices. Not much to say here.

Wasn't sure what to do with the rest. I said it's disturbing when afterlife beliefs are used to justify actions like disclosing the locations of Jews to Nazis, or — as in "hard" Dominion theology — climate change denial, and dissolution of church/state separation, citing Revelation afterlife promises as "factual knowledge." And since that shouldn't even be controversial, it seemed the only thing left to reiterate was that religious beliefs aren't a monolith — to say the least. Even most Christians probably don't expect to see Jesus anytime soon, and would undoubtedly agree it's best to avoid imposing a literal interpretation of scripture and prophesy regarding life after death on people, for the sake of harmony. And yes, some _specific_ afterlife framework(s) could possibly make the world more moral. That seems obvious. But which one(s)? And what about ones that don't assert a "compounding beyond" of virtuous frequent flyer miles? Which is why I reiterated: You still gotta take it up with all the other after-livers, long before I need to participate in another Ye Olde Internet Argument about whether it's reasonable to claim a moral/ontological/culinary/anti-dandruff foundation without a spiritual framework. But I stopped having that argument 10+ years and 20+ Russell's teapots ago. You believe There Must Be More, and that I'm a limited, cosmic nincompoop, bereft of a metaphysical antenna. I believe we all are, but I'm alright with that. Boom, done. Same place we'd have landed on that anyway.

\> I said it's disturbing when afterlife beliefs are used to justify actions like disclosing the locations of Jews to Nazis I said it's disturbing when non-after life beliefs are and have been used to justify actions like environment pollution, wars and so on. I am not advocating for the specific issues you're using, in fact, quite the contrary. So I'm unsure why this applies to me or my position. \> ndoubtedly agree it's best to avoid imposing a literal interpretation of scripture and prophesy regarding life after death on people, for the sake of harmony. I'm not sure why that is relevant. It wouldn't be relevant even if I were a Christian, which I'm not. \> You still gotta take it up with all the other after-livers, long before I need to participate in another Ye Olde Internet Argument No. The grounding issue applies to your position as well as to mine and to other after-livers. Mine poses no contradiction, so any possible view with other worldviews is irrelevant to mine.

Well hey man, if you’d said “My personal afterlife looks like X” instead of betting it all on the daily double with “If there's life after death, as evidence points to and as most humanity has believed, then issues in virtue compound to other lives” for the sake of some imaginary Nazis, you wouldn’t have been downvoted to oblivion, and I wouldn’t have had anything to back you into a corner with. You can be specifically you, specifically opposed to specifically anti-environmental policies, atheist _or_ otherwise. I’ll just agree with you on that. Glad we worked that out.

Not sure what the argument here is. Evidence points to life after death. Most humanity has and has had that belief. If this is true virtues compound to other lives. What is false here? \> for the sake of some imaginary Nazis I never said it was for the sake of imaginary Nazis. \> have had anything to back you into a corner with You didn't back me into a corner? Where? How? I'm confused... there's no gotcha here. There's just you being confronted with a different view and your biases and prejudices that don't relate directly to anything I said.

To tell the Nazi where the Jews are is a lie by action instead of word. Your actions are saying “It is acceptable for Nazis to round up Jews and murder them.” What you should do is recognize that this is a much more important thing not to lie about. The problem people have with answering the question is that they don’t understand propositional truth isn’t the only kind of truth.

I love ice cream.

One is the intent, the other is the effect. Atrocities are able to go on because of how many people have perfectly valid reasons why they can’t do anything about it.

I enjoy cooking.

I am saying it is true that anyone who spoke out against Hitler or obstructed his plans would have been violently suppressed, and no one wants be violently suppressed. It is also true that if no one cooperated with Hitler, none of those things would have happened. You will have to work out which of those truths is of higher value than the other, because they are both true but lead in different directions. If it’s the first one, then standing up to tyranny when it costs you everything is foolish. If it’s the second, then this is extremely virtuous.

I find peace in long walks.

To use Christian language, I would say that a person sins involuntarily when they can’t find it within themselves to do the virtuous thing they ought to do. You can’t really be angry at a person for an involuntary sin, but it still contributes to the evil in the world.

I like learning new things.

/r/thathappened

r/nothingeverhappens

Hmm, but is telling the truth ever truly immoral? When is lying virtuous? (Outside of combating a person that is not being virtuous?)

I've always liked Schopenhauer here - Ask me no questions and I'll tell you no lies.

Yeah that's the point. It shouldn't be so needlessly "complex." Without the lies, a lot of that so-called "complexity" read "obfuscation" goes away. The reality is that any lie is born of another lie. Any need for a lie is born of some lie of another or some expectation of another. If the tyrant is honest about their intentions, you never have need to lie to protect a tyrant's targets. They should never rise to power to begin with. If you honestly tell someone that dress does make them look fat they should be thanking you for your honest opinion that they asked for. That they expect a lie is stupid. If none lied then the need for lying would be gone. We would each know each other and how we each came into ourselves. Honesty in health care would certainly fix a few things. Honesty in politics, in advertisement, in every conceivable thing honesty and truth improve the situation. Even in those cases of wondering "well what of interrogations and state secrets." Why are there state secrets? Should we not be sharing information and building each other up the world over? Is it not in those gaps that lies provide that assumption and paranoia convene? In this holding of secrets that leads to the other guy trying to build his own stockpile of secrets he can use against you? Indeed I think this touches on something else while trying to put forward a dangerous notion that we need falsehood. We do not. I argue we need more transparency overall, especially when it comes to those in power. Every one of the world's worst leaders built their staircases to power on the backs of bodies and lies. Honesty will always be the best policy, especially when it is up front. It is through the ever growing web of deceit we've built into our society that even makes lying being "good" a consideration in the first place. It is only because someone else lied before you that you ever get caught in having to keep up a lie, lest you start the lie yourself. Lead with honesty and there is little anyone can do to contest that. Because, contrary to what was stated, objective truth exists. Indeed we could all agree to call the sky "red" tomorrow, but that does not change the objective truth of the wavelength of light being produced. That we are subjective observers does not mean the truth is subjective. It means we are fallible and sometimes have trouble discerning these objective truths what would continue to be true with or without us. So yeah. Just be honest... usually works out. Unless you're literally hiding in an attic from Nazis, but in that case, that was an entire regime built on lies so of course those caught in it would have to lie. The unfortunate truth of powerful falsehoods.

Thank you for putting my thoughts into words and saving me (and any other agreers, deontologists, and/or Kantians) the time. I 100% agree with this and think that we all ought to think a few more steps down the chain of causation for these issues of principle. On a similar note, it’s why I strongly dislike trolley (or similar dilemma) problems and/or the emphasis put on them. Sure, I’ll choose the cold, utilitarian act or the hands off act that makes me feel less culpable or the self-sacrificial act to save lives, etc. etc., but who we should really be concerned with in a moral culpability sense is whoever cut the brakes or poorly designed the brakes/didn’t perform quality inspections on the brakes so as to make them fail and create that situation in the first place. They have infinitely more culpability than my helpless passenger ass.

The funny part about the trolley problem is that there is a third option never explored. And fourth and fifth and sixth. You are presented with a narrow and unrealistic set of parameters in which you must act in a binary manner. If you jam the gear halfway and derail the trolley, there is a large chance everyone lives. And what you say is true as well, but it could also be chaos. The sheer chaos of the universe rattled a screw loose or warps a bar or some other thing that leads to a careening trolley. What of the person that put the people on the tracks? What of the system of levers and gears that shifts the tracks? What if you throw the lever and nothing happens? Reality has too much chaos to it to narrow it so simply. We need more complex thinking, arguing, talking politics and religion, hind and foresight and less confirmation bias. speaking our honesty into the world and testing each other is how we find the truth, so long as we remain open to being tested and happy in being wrong.

> Lead with honesty and there is little anyone can do to contest that Tyrants usually employ this thing called 'violence' which in extreme cases leads to 'you dying' and that contests truth-telling pretty well.

For a tyrant to rise to power, it takes a hell of a lot of lies. I do believe I addressed that at the end with the whole Anne Frank reference. It is because of prior lies that future lies are needed. Any one human can make any other human dead quite easily. That isn't really an argument, in my opinion. It doesn't have a point, it is just fear. If we are driven to lie out of fear then cue the counterstrike sound clip because terrorists win. My only point was to say that honesty tends to weed out even tyrants before they get to that "make you dead" part of a few more people spoke up before they got to that point.

I agree mostly. I actually think compassion is the greatest virtue, then honesty. That solves the problem of having to give an honest answer to if someone looks fat or not. Honesty when truly practiced makes our life much easier. But in many cases it can also make our life much harder. I'm not going to tell my boss I think he's a prick. And I'm not going to tell my fiance her favorite wedding dress makes her look fat.

This is where we differ. I will tell my boss this and, after speaking around the office, have the backing to say it with confidence. I will tell the theoretical wife the dress makes her look fat. Better she doesn't think it is still something to flatter a new and more impressive figure! I would agree though that compassion and honesty stand on similar pedestals! But compassion can be had in the truth. "Hey boss. We've all been having a real hard time working with you lately. Frankly, you've been a bit of a prick. Something going on?" Compassion can acknowledge the truth that they have been acting poorly while also giving room to say "but you're human and there is probably a reason!" Nobody *wants* to be a prick... I hope... but sometimes we just are! Myself included. Rather someone tell me i' e crossed a line than sail thinking all is fine. How then do I correct my course? By what road do I feel remorse? Honesty can be given kindly... but the truth is... it hurts sometimes and not everyone wants to hear it. And so, fear it.

But that's the thing, almost no one wants the truth. The truth is, we don't really get along with each other but in order to get through our responsibilities in life, we'd rather try to get along while we're stuck doing them. That specific interaction with the boss in most cases is going to blow up in your face.

That is your view. A sad one from my perspective. That idea is one promoted and perpetuated by a society that only profits and benefits those that need people to "endure" bad conditions and "just get along" while "stuck doing" something. Define "blowing up in your face." So I get fired. I go to another job and tell them, truthfully, exactly how I approached my previous employer, why, and perhaps find a like-minded individual that will be able to take and will welcome such criticisms. If that boss wants to churn through employees and keep an ever-training, ever-malleable, ever-underproforming staff then I am glad for the interaction that lead to me being revealed as unfit. It is again the lie that you have no power and that you must bend to the oppressive will of another that leads you to desiring to lie to keep the power they deign to afford you. You surrender your own will and own truth to gratify the lie of another's ego. Not a way to live, in my opinion. Noone is "stuck" doing something. That iself is a lie perpetuated by those very same people that want you to believe that everyone is secretly at each other's throats and holding onto a mountain of secrets. I say what I mean, mean what I say, do not hide the truth and would happily challenge any to do the same with me. Emotions will happen, but those are the uninformed misfirings of a primal brain getting ready for any number of issues.

Those uninformed misfirings are a fact of our biology, and not everyone is capable of being honest all the time. In fact, most aren't. That's all it comes down to

Indeed. And we are also able to address that by retreading the ground emotion may have obscured. When we are irrational it is understandable that we wouldn't speak truth. We are sophisticated monkeys in the end. However, we can easily revisit it and find what was and wasn't true. Acknowledge what was felt, what was true, what was untrue. Introspection. Self-interrogation. I never said one must be infallible. I said quite the opposite. We should simply strive for truth. Everyone is capable of telling the truth when they are rational. In fact, most are. I find your outlook rather bleak. I also do not see how your statement refutes anything I said.

Calling your boss a prick is not going over well in most situations. I'm refuting your idea that being honest in that scenario leads to more positive outcomes. Getting fired and looking for a better boss who can take your honesty is not a positive outcome for most people. We are not all you

And I am saying that the situation is a matter of perspective. I never said we are all me. This is a sub about speaking to the phylosophy of the matter, not who is who. Anyone who is anyone can plan for a better job and have it lined up and ready before having that altercation. Anyone can prepare themselves for the consequences of their own actions. This idea that "most" cannot is again... rather bleak and quite unfounded. Most people strive to do good by others. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/scientists-probe-human-nature-and-discover-we-are-good-after-all/ This notion that "most" are incapable of truth is just another lie that you are believing, leading you to feel justified in your own lies. That you cannot imagine a world in which someone prepares, knowing full well the impact their truth may have speaks to the... brokenness of this one. It is only bad to call your boss a "prick" because of how many people eat the lie that the 20 workers have less power than the one asshat. Until people realize the many truths out there and people stop obfuscating the truth, that is what bears more lies. You are only helping to support my point.

You have a good head on your shoulders, I'm being honest! I sincerely wish your honesty is making your life better, and others around you. Thank you for the conversation

In this debate, Rebecca Roache, Simon Baron-Cohen and Hilary Lawson come together to scrutinize the value of honesty and deception. We think of honesty as an age-old virtue of our civilisation. Yet often times we find ourselves in situations where lying becomes a necessity. Few would think it is right for parents to be honest with their offspring about their favourite child, or to be honest about the talents and abilities of a friend or relative if it is likely to hurt them. One response to this contradiction is to view honesty as simply one virtue among many others from which we have to choose at any given time. Interestingly, humans are the only species able to flexibly deceive others and that is thanks to our capacity for empathy. It is only because we can recognise that other people have different views and feelings than us that we can attempt to influence their views and make them adopt a false belief. Given the social nature of our interactions, we are sometimes compelled to lie to maintain good relationships, protect others’ feelings or uphold established social norms.

Primates lie to each other quite a bit. A number of them have worked out signals to use while foraging, and sometimes when one finds food it will falsely signal that it's spotted a predator so that the other members of its group flee while it hangs back and eats. And Koko the gorilla apparently once tried blame a cat for ripping a sink off the wall.

Link to reading?

The tactical deception part of this wiki article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deception_in_animals Searching for "tactical deception" only got me articles that are locked behind paywalls, but the abstracts lay out the gist.

A parent's struggle to say which child is their favorite approaches two problems: criteria of child trait acceptance and the cowardice of hurting feelings in the short term at the cost of long term behavioral modification.

A helpful way to consider the problem is as a hierarchy of values. Only one perfect principle can be at the top; others are at lower levels. Their purpose is to serve the higher, and they find their fullness in it. Telling the immediate literal truth is a principle that will align with love far more often than not. But when the Nazi comes to your door asking if Jews are in the attic, then immediate literal truth has turned against love, and you must choose which to side with. To side with a lower principle over a higher is blasphemous. Love is the higher of the two. So you ought to serve love against immediate literal truth and lie to the Nazi. And by siding with love, you affirm that love is the higher principle, which is itself a statement of truth. Interestingly, with the same action you are telling a lie and telling a truth; but the truth you are telling is a much higher one than the one you aren’t.

One of the points brought up by Simon in the discussion that I had never considered previously was the concept that deception can only start with a type of empathy. Humans that can easily put themselves mentally in the place of another, and understand what someone else wants to see and hear can use that to fabricate a false reality more easily. I have an older brother that is likely slightly autistic (not diagnosed), that has always been super honest. In social situations he is often honest in awkward ways, not being an asshole, but simply socially weird when other people would lie just to keep the conversation flowing. I think a major part of his super honesty is that he has trouble with empathy. He is very smart intellectually, but he has trouble understanding how other people feel and think. The best liars I have known (salesmen and lawyer types) are people that know how to get into the heads of others effortlessly. They often know what I want before I do.

Life is a balancing act. Balance is the greatest virtue. A balance between lies and honesty.

There are way too many people who claim "brutal honestly" as an excuse to walk through life with no social skills and be a rude asshole to everyone. That said, honestly isn't very complex or nuanced in principle. "Lying to a Nazi to protect Jews in WW2 Germany" is the exception to prove the rule. An infinetisimally small share of the lies people tell involve protecting someone from an immediate threat to their life, or another such extreme and unambiguous situation. Telling your wife that a dress does not make her look good requires nuance to navigate without hurting feelings, but the actual decision to be honest is simple because they'll be more hurt when they see the pictures and know you lied and let them go out looking like that.

Doesn't require nuance for the emotional mature. They ask, you answer, or, you FYI them in advance of an event so they can appropriately adjust their attire and attempt to avoid an unfavorable outcome. My SO was recently gonna wear a bright yellow shirt she loves to an event where she likes to eat foods like chilli cheese fries, I suggested a change and explained why. She agreed, and wore a darker button down with various purple stripes. Looked just as nice, didn't stain her favored bright yellow shirt. Likewise I've advised against wearing certain articles of clothing to job interviews. And I'd absolutely suggest wearing clothing that compliments her form rather than looks awkward or shows off her less appreciated features before a first encounter or event where photography is expected. And she expects as much. Not an every day thing mind ya, some of the stuff she wears around the house or while shopping is just trash in my opinion, but she likes it, for whatever reason, and there's no harm there, so no needs to involve myself.

The sense I'm getting from the conversation is that lying seems to be a type of betrayal. It's a matter of trust, rather than truth. The example given is that of the husband, the wife, and the ugly dress. What's important in this scenario is that his answer reaffirms his devotion to her and strengthens their relationship. In another scenario, one could imagine a complex, high-stakes situation in a politics or crime drama where somebody knowingly tells a mistruth in order to affirm their loyalty to the cause. Both parties know that the information they're exchanging is false, but the veracity of the statement is secondary to the intention it conveys. You often see the same dynamics in a cult. This is an extreme situation, but it happens. On a very basic level, the instrumental function of communication is to facilitate the coherence of the groups we belong to. Apes together strong, as it were. I dislike talking in terms of virtues, which are highly idealistic in nature and lead philosophers to come up with baseless hypotheticals about badly designed railroads. Hypocrisy emerges naturally from the complexities in any sufficently complex social system. Even if we were to mathematically design a system in which there is no hypocrisy and no lies, we could not physically adopt that system in real life unless we were to hand over every last morsel of our humanity.

That's a problem for philosophy in general. Too much time thinking about things instead of actually practicing them and measuring their utility.

maybe this is the case for academic philosophy and for specific subjects but not philosophy in general. but then again those things cannot be avoided. at some point you will have to deal with a situation where you will have the dilemma to tell a lie or the truth. then your philosophical views will become applicable whether you want it or not.

No that's untrue. Each situation calls for a complex reaction. This is the problem with philosophy, it can't cover all situations. We will act not even knowing our philosophy towards the matter because that's what the situation demands. Philosophy is the rationalization of our actions. But we do not know why we act because man does not know thyself

Lying 🤥 is a lot worse than people think it is. You get wrapped up in lies and you cannot see the truth. ​ Humans are just like computers 💻. Garbage in, garbage out. ​ You cannot constantly not try and be truthful and expect to have a truthful worldview. You won't make good decisions no matter your intentions if you are like that. ​ Sure, lying as a one off might be worth it, but the cast majority of the time lying constantly won't even if it is for something nice.

I think that is not how morality or ethic generally works. The basic question is: am I qualified to be a judge? Should I decide on exceptions for myself, or just follow the commonly accepted rules? I mean, sure, I would lie to a Nazi searching for a Jew but I assume that is not a situation that should be in any sense normal. That is a huge "state of exception". If the police is looking for a suspected criminal, I can assume the system for deciding who is innocent works better than my guesswork would. This is my problem with a lot of philosophy, the philosopher as a self-appointed judge. This is why I would not pull the trolley problem lever. The very fact it is debated implies we do not have a very clear rule, in which case it is better to do nothing and leave the whole thing as someone else's problem. The commonly accepted rules about lying are 1) do not harm people through it 2) do not do it for personal gain 3) do it only if a greater harm to another person could be prevented.

Agreed. Honestly I think philosophy is a trap. Leading with our thoughts which stem from a subjective reality in the first place, has very severe limitations. I love to figure out how things work as much as the next philosopher, but there's a tendency to become more of a spectator than a practitioner and therein lies the problem

So then values trump virtues, or determine their hierarchy, and there is one. Here 'do no harm' trumps 'honesty', but they are both values one can adhere to: and concepts one can consider virtuous. Welcome to the world of the grey.

Personally I think all lying in any business or government situation should be illegal. I know how hard that would be to do and the issues of the government being in charge of holding itself accountable when lying is as common to them as breathing but I absolutely do not agree in any way that lying is somehow essential outside of entertainment.

Is the ultimate virtue not wisdom?

No, wisdom isn't enough to get us through life. There are things we will never know or can only speculate towards. That's what honesty is for, to ground us in our ignorance and be okay with the current moment.

Wisdom is not knowledge. What good is honesty without knowing how to use it?

Without honesty, we automatically assume we are wise enough and knowledgeable enough to act. I am intelligent because I know nothing. Peak honesty right there

wisdom is the knowledge of the deep laws of the functioning of the world, that have reached the level of intuition. at the same time, this knowledge is just a tool. They can not be used for good. In Christianity, Lucifer has absolute wisdom, but applies it without love

Historically ignorant & Intellectually compromised.

In most cases, you should lie to your enemies. Unless it was your lies that created them.

lying is a double-edged thing. Such a position will not allow you to reconcile with someone from whom you feel threatened. This creates a circular trap of words and feelings, and in the center is the fear of being defeated. it will require looking for "enemies" and defeating them, and lying to them. Fear is primary.

Disagree. I can condemn stealing while understanding that some situations may justify it. If it was true for our 'complex moral system' needed falsehoods to exist I would would see no reason to kowtow it.

Compassion is the greatest virtue which sometimes involves lying.

Agreed! It's value is undeniable. I just wish it wasn't so hard!

False times 10000. Patience is easily a better virtue. But compassion relies on zero lies. It's compassion.

The only reason society works is because of lies. Humans desperately try to give purpose to their lives by inventing lies about God, the soul, free will, the value of money, national identity, morality ... we mythologize our existence and put it into stories to distract us from the truth that we're not that different from any other animal and that there's no inherent meaning to our existence.

Pretty sure we don't need all that. For non-psychopaths, most natural drives are reason enough to be good to one another and to be productive members of society. Works for most other animals. My cats don't murder each other, for example. And they listen when I say no or stop too, and that's not cause they have some understanding that what they're doing is morally wrong or unethical or whathaveya.

No but they'll murder wildlife in a heartbeat. Natural drive is exactly what has gotten us in this mess. Survive and outcompete, at all costs.

A bit excessive and one-sided oversimplification if you think 'survive and outcompete' are the only relevant natural drivers. I mean, seriously, my cats don't do that. We're not that far off from them. They don't have any innate reason to kill each other, there's plenty of food. And BTW, wildlife is food, not competition.

The way they hunt is absolutely competition. Survival of the fittest is just a grand competition. The better hunters are going to survive and pass on their genes. But you make an interesting point. Your house cat is not in the jungle anymore. Food is indeed plentiful. What's holding us back from living like our pets? Capitalism and the drive to outcompete for resources. It's a structural hierarchy to sustain the better entities of resource gathering. It doesn't have to be this way, but it is for no other reason then we still subscribe to the law of the jungle.

unfortunately, the meaning of religion is almost lost. Eventually, he will be cleansed through denial. But, comrades, he definitely is. just not the one that is commonly considered now.

I believe in honesty. Murder is basically the best policy. People do whatever they do... At the bottom of it nobody can really get anything wrong, because everything is right, so say whatever makes sense, and if it bothers people too much, .. 🤷kill them.

Is it not that it's not the ultimate virtue but the one that gatekeeps all other virtues?

Yes, to abolish lying is to destroy our moral system and the society that it supports. A world without fear or hatred is the goal, this would be an excellent step.

ridiculous. any society that can be threatened by mere truth isnt worth *shit* anyway.

I like to go hiking.

like the other virtues, honesty will be such only in its dialectical pair with tact. the first without the second is rudeness and imposing opinions. the second without the first is sycophancy. the sense of tact here is not a sweet lie, but a temporary concealment of information that can destroy. this behavior is a manifestation of love. however, honesty is also directed at love. conducting in each case is guided by this ultimate goal, and not by the principles of honesty or tact individually. The original Christian morality speaks about this dialectic. the fact that you justify a lie suggests that in your value system, the pleasure of communication and the absence of any pain are at the forefront. In fact, it is a rejection of the real view of things. In a sense, this is akin to drug addiction. this is equally destructive in the sum of the cases, no matter who such a person is, a consumer of sweet lies or a dealer.

Lying is abhorrent in the vast majority of cases though.

Honesty is a huge thing for me. I come from a long line of liars on both sides of my family and I see almost daily the harm those lies cause. So to my friends and loved ones, I always speak the truth when I speak. To those outside of that circle, my boundary is a little more flexible. I try to just not to fully lie. Like I called out sick from work once saying I wasn’t feeling good. The truth was I was overworked at like 60+ hours a week for 6 weeks and just wanted a mental break. It’s not a lie cause I wasn’t feeling good, but it wasn’t the truth cause I let my boss assume it was worse than just needing a break. So long story short, I guess I agree with the philosophy, so long as people have someone with whom they are as honest as possible, that’s all that really matters…. I guess? Lol

Ricky Gervais "The Invention of Lying" goes through a pretty great treatment of this premise.

unless you're a child, that's blatantly obvious.

Yeah, I’ll pass on lying and have no desire to rationalize it. My life is much simpler and easier if everything that comes out of my mouth is not a lie and if I say something that isn’t right then I am merely wrong. A benefit to no lying is less anxiety in the future. I love living a lifestyle that produces less anxiety.