Is lying always wrong?

I'm listening to the audiobook Justice by Michael J. Sandel. Also the philosophy club discussed John Stuart Mill's Utilitarian ethics at the Feb 2010 meeting. Bentham's utilitarian ethics differs from Mill's utilitarian ethics. Mill is more of a humanitarian. His harm principle tempers the apparent callousness of Bentham's the greatest happiness at the cost of the individual.

The following are my interpretations. Just as a warning…..my interpretation might be wrong.

Is lying always wrong? That was one of the topic questions at the philosophy club meeting. Utilitarian ethics says that the result of an action must be taken into account before answering the question of right or wrong. Mill says that you have to take into account long term consequences when you use the utilitarian ethics theory.

At the meeting I said that I would be more inclined to say “lying is always wrong” than “killing is always wrong.” BUT I wonder if I’m getting lost in the forest because certainly I’d rather lie than kill someone if given the choice between those two.

Lying is tempting. Killing isn’t tempting to me. Plus you can set rules as to WHEN killing might be a good idea. I don’t think you can come up with rules as to WHEN lying is OK.

Society and friendships and business relationships and politics all work better if we can rely on what people tell us. Relationships and communication work better if no one lies. IF you can rely on what people tell you, I think life is easier.

Of course life is easier if no one kills you also. :-) BUT you can set parameters for killing. As long as I don’t try to kill someone else, I can be reasonably sure that no one is going to try to kill me. And if someone tries to kill me, they can be reasonably sure that I might try to kill them.

BUT the same isn’t true of lying. Always telling the truth builds character. If you lie once, it’s easier to lie the next time. IF you form the habit of ALWAYS telling the truth, then your character is strengthened.

I worry about someone that is willing to lie to make his life easier.  Can you rely on his word?  Is that someone with whom you'd like to do business?  Is that the person you want as a close friend?  Or would you prefer to have a business associate or a close friend whom you can believe?
 
Of course, you want to know for sure that he won't kill you.  I feel a little silly comparing lying to killing.  BUT that was the question that we pondered at the philosophy club.  And of course if someone asks me "would you prefer to have a friend that you know won't kill you or that you know won't lie to you" then of course I'd pick "won't kill me."
 
So have I changed my mind?  Not exactly.   I think there are times where killing is a good idea like in self defense....but I think that there is never a good time for lying.
 
IF you live your life so that you NEVER need to lie, then you have built a life with the potential to be a life of which you can be proud.
 
Are there exceptions in time of war? If it's a moral war then certainly killing maybe necessary. But I hope that as a species we're moving away from violence as a solution to disagreements. In time of war, would lying be ok?  I ponder it and must conclude that if it is a moral war then the answer is yes.
BUT most of us are not living in war as I'm defining it. A war is something like fighting Hitler NOT just wanting to get your way.

I think perhaps the courts agree with me because they allow us to plead the 5th.   That allows us an out.   It says "I don't want to answer that question."  And I think that's acceptable.  IF someone asks you a question and you feel like lying, just trying saying "I don't want to answer that question."  If you make a conscious effort NOT to EVER lie, you're helping out your subconscious.  Things we do by habit are easier.  Build your character with GOOD building blocks.

Michael Shermer's book "The Science of Good and Evil"

I casually made the comment "the lessor of two evils" around a friend. He pressed me to define evil. I could not. So when I saw Michael Shermer's book, I was intrigued. Could the book help me to define what I mean when I use the word evil. Here are some of my notes: The Science of Good and Evil audio book is divided into three chapters. Chapter Two of audio book: Shermer gives examples on how it’s easier for people to hurt others if there is some distance. And he gives examples on how it’s easier for people to hurt others if the person is "just following orders". And thus we have leaders ordering others to cause harm. Both of them seem to escape internal culpability? Shermer throws around these phrases: Low ethical standards Morally corrupt And he also makes the assertion: “We all have the potential for extreme good and extreme evil.” He states that Roy Bommeister’s book “Evil" attempts to define evil. Shermer states that the myth of pure evil might actually increase violent acts. The myth of pure evil is the belief that evil exists separately from individuals or evil exists within people as something like an evil force driving them to perform an evil act. Shermer states that there is no evil force. Pure evil is just a myth. People choose to cause harm to others. Shermer throws out the hypothesis that it is the myth of "pure evil" that allows the perpetrator of wrong doing to excuse his own behavior. Evil is a description for a range of environmental events that we interpret as Bad Cruel Mean Violent etc Now I'm quoting from chapter 3: Morality involves right and wrong thoughts and behaviors in context of the rules of the social group. Ethics is the scientific study of and theories about moral thoughts and behaviors in the context of the rules of the social group. Thus we may define absolute morality as an inflexible set of rules for right and wrong thoughts and behavior derived from a social group's Canon of ethics.

The Tipping Point

The Tipping Point quote: "what we think of as inner states--preferences and emotions--are actually powerfully and imperceptibly influenced by seemingly inconsequential personal influences." To back up that statement, he gives examples: 1. The ABC Peter Jennings example and 2. the Goetz on the subway example and 3. the Zimbardo/Stanford example and 4. the cheating on a test example and 5. the FAE which is human beings overestimating the importance of fundamental character traits and underestimating the importance of the situation and the context when it comes to interpreting other peole's behavior.I've been watching that in my day to day life. In other words, how are my preferences and emotions influenced by seemingly inconsequential personal influences?Does he give enough evidence to back up his 150 people tipping point theory? Because it seems it's a powerful point especially in regards to smaller schools. someone else commented in an email post: One of the most powerful concepts we humans have is that of understanding the consequences of our decisions. Some people avoid making decisions. We all do it at times. Some more than others.For many people it is not an easy thing and they tend to sit on the fence and complain about bad decisions. Little perturbations in initial conditions can in many cases lead to wildly differing futures. This is something that seems alien to people. Some think it is only a science fiction thing.Sometimes a tiny decision to do good can multiply its effects. Every parent should know this. Their kids are watching them a lot. Every leader knows they are being watched and needs to take responsibility for their actions.People who take responsibility for their actions are acutely aware that their decision making affects others (and themselves) like a scattergun. Claiming no responsibility through denial is short sighted and selfish. It goes against our understanding of human thought and interaction. More of my thoughts on the book:Is there a tipping point to bring more peace and happiness in the world? In other words: if enough of us practice peace within, will that make a difference in the world?Three examples that he offers: 1.hush puppies 2. sexually transmitted disease that increased exponentially after three things happened 3. exponentially increase in drop out rate when role models drop below 5% of the neighborhood Then he discusses 1. The connector 2. The Maven 3. The persuader He explained why Paul Revere's message created a Tipping Point for action because Paul Revere was a connector. The needle exchange program in Baltimore is an example of how the connectors and the mavens and the persuaders help move us to the tipping point. The chapter on Sesame Street dragged on..in my opinion. Maybe others got more out of those chapters. The point of the Sesame Street chapter seemed to be the "stickiness" factor.The chapter about Goetz and the rise and fall of NY City crime seems to have some political implications especially in light of the impending foreclosures because of the subprime interest mtg market. The chapter on cigarette smoking. He seems to make some powerful claims. Nurture vs nature BUT parents may not be the major"environmental influence." Influences outside the family (like our children's peers) may have the greater influence.

Benjamin Franklin

Benjamin Franklin--An American Life--by Walter Isaacson I've had the book (Benjamin Franklin-An American Life) for years. I wish I was a better reader. It's 560 pages and I'm struggling to get thru it. So I rented the book on CD from the library and listened to it in the car on the way down to Miami. I felt like I was hanging out with Benjamin Franklin. I think he is such a cool dude. He loved women. I'm a woman so I like it that he loved women.Walter Isaacson clearly likes Benjamin Franklin also. I think it's a pleasure reading a biography by someone that adores the man while at the same time not being blind to his faults.Listening to the CD in the car on a long drive was easier for me than reading the book. BUT now I can go back to sections of the book. In the "Conclusions" chapter Isaacson talked about critics of Benjamin Franklin. I think of Benjamin Franklin as a visionary. Not a romantic but a visionary. Perhaps the word "visionary" can be interpreted in different ways. Even though I believe that Franklin had a vision of a better world, I don't think that word negates the possibility that Franklin also had the practicality of making that vision come true. Here are some quotes from the "Conclusions" chapter:

On one side were those, like Edwards and the Mather family, who believed in an anointed elect and in salvation through God's grace alone. They tended to have a religious fervor, a sense of social class and hierarchy, and a appreciation for exalted values over earthly ones. On the other side were the Frankins, those who believed in salvation through good works, whose religion was benevolent and tolerant, and who were unabashedly striving and upwardly mobile.Out of this [dichotomy] grew many related divides in the American character, and Franklin represents one strand: the side of pragmatism vs romanticism, of practical benevolence versus moral crusading. He was on the side of religious tolerance rather than evangelical faith. The side of social mobility rather than an established elite. The side of middle-class virtues rather than more ethereal noble aspirations.During the three centuries since his birth, the changing assessments of Franklin have tended to reveal less about him than about the values of the people judging him and their attitudes toward a striving middle class.This Age of Enlightenment, however, was being replaced in the early 1800s by a literary era that valued romanticism more than rationality. With the shift came a profound reversal, especially among those of presumed higher sensibilities, in attitudes toward Franklin. The romantics admired not reason and intellect but deep emotion, subjective sensibility, and imagination. They exalted the heroic and the mystical rather than tolerance and rationality. Their haughty criticisms decimated the reputations of Franklin, Voltaire, Swift and other Enlightenment thinkers. American transcendentlists (such as Thoreau and Emerson) who shared the romantic poets' allergic reaction to rationalism and materialism, also found Franklin too mundane for their rarefied tastes. Franklin's reputation was elevated by the emergence of that distinctly American philosophy known as pragmatism, which holds, as Franklin had, that the truth of any proposition, whether it be a scientific or moral or theological or social one, is based on how well it correlates with experimental results and produces a practical outcome. Disentangling morality from theology was an important achievenment of the Enlightenment, and Franklin was its avatar in America. In addition, by relating morality to everyday human consequences, Franklin laid the foundation for the most influential of America's homegrown philosophies, pragmatism. His moral and religious thinking, when judged in the context of his actions, writes James Campbell, "becomes a rich philosohical defense of service to advance the common good." What it lacked in spiritual profundity, it made up for in practicality and potency.....there's something to be said for Franklin's outlook, for his pragmatism and occasional willingness to compromise. He believed in having the humility to be open to different opinions. For him that was not merely a practical virtue, but a moral one as well. It was based on the tenet, so fundamental to most moral systems, that every individual deserves respect. During the Constitutional Convention, for example, he was willing to compromise some of his beliefs to play a critical role in the conciliation that produced a near-perfect document. It could not have been accomplished if the hall had contained only crusaders who stood on unwavering principle. Compromisers may not make great heroes, but they do make democracies.More important, Franklin did in fact believe, uncompromisingly, in a few high principles--very important ones for shaping a new nation--that he stuck to throughtout his life. He was ever unwavering to his opposition to arbitrary authority. rights and power were based not on the happenstance of heritage but on merit and virtue and hard work.His guiding principle was a "dislike of everything that tended to debase the spirit of the common people". Few of his fellow founders felt this comfort with democracy so fully, and none so intuitively.From the age of 21, when he first gathered his Junto, he held true to a fundamental ideal with unwavering and at times heroic fortitude: a faith in the wisdom of the common citizen that was manifest in an appreciation for democracy and an opposition to all forms of tyranny.