Comments

  • Jesus or Buddha
    Sure, so? If he wants to criticise the Christian God on moral matters, then he should take the moral framework that Christians hold to, not one that he has invented. — Agustino

    Then you should adhere to trinitarian theology, heretic.

    Did you get high marks at school just because you had a long time to answer the questions? — Agustino

    I wasn't aware that The Philosophy Forum is the same as school.

    In some regards yes, but not in all of them. With regards to morality - at least the morality we speak about - yes. — Agustino

    Edit: Hmm, gif won't work. So I'll write it out. Fuck you!

    No, you don't control the general tendencies you or your mind has. But you can still choose to give in to them or resist them. For example, if you're a person who is very tormented by lust, you may not choose that, but you certainly do choose whether you give in to it or not. — Agustino

    lolno.

    Let me guess, you also think that narcissists choose whether to lie or not, or that someone suffering from bipolar disorder can pause right before a manic episode whether or not they're going to lose their mind. Sure. Makes total sense, (Y)
  • Jesus or Buddha
    And he's criticising the Christian God based on his belief that we don't have free will? :s That makes no sense, because according to the Christian God, we do have free will. — Agustino

    But he doesn't believe in the Christian God.............................

    I like to keep you in suspense... — Agustino

    I know that bullshitting answers can take some time. I have patience, don't worry.

    I'm not quite sure what God Himself is. The Trinity is a logical contradiction, I'd doubt that our finite human reason could comprehend God. God is unknowable and incomprehensible in Himself. — Agustino

    Yet, you still proclaim to know what he wants of us, and that Beebert and I are wrong and that you (and God) are right.

    Now, being separated from God is being damned - and that's no action of God's, it is what you yourself will. — Agustino

    I think that we have the freedom of choice, but not the freedom to will our will. Because we cannot will our will, we cannot will our will to be, nor even to not be. Presumably only God has the authority to will one's will, which means we've, in fact, no free will in the sense that I can perfectly choose what comes of my being and my will. I don't. And in a world where only God has the authority to will will, we really are just slaves set on a path until our legs tire and we die.
  • Jesus or Buddha
    No, but if he wants to criticise the Christian God for allowing evil, then he cannot deny free will, cause free will is an essential aspect of the Christian framework. This in effect means that he's not even criticising the Christian God. — Agustino

    ?? Beebert doesn't adhere to free will. I don't believe he or anyone else is suggesting that, at the very least, Christians do not believe in free will themselves.

    Ok. — Agustino

    There's just enough substance in this reply for me to in turn write this reply and...nothing more, hmm...this exchange is definitely molto produttivo.

    Well I don't find the video particularly meaningful to the problem of free will and theodicy. I don't feel God asks you to do something that is harmful to you. — Agustino

    Yes, I think he does. He, as being itself, makes you be and then forces you into making the choice of whether you then want to follow him or not. If you say no, you're damned. If you say yes, all's well then, it is hoped. But the key is that you are told that you can choose, but in the end your will won't be done as God's will is above yours. In other words, you choose a choice unwilled.
  • Jesus or Buddha
    I don't see a question. — Agustino

    A man needn't ask outright for a substantive answer, such is a subtle expectation, which is why I asked for more substance, seeing as you didn't understand the video.

    So if you don't believe in free will, then you refuse to accept the Christian conception of the world, and thus you cannot condemn the Christian God in good faith if you don't at least accept the framework of Christianity. — Agustino

    Accepting the "Christian" conception of the world makes you a Christian. Clearly one can condemn the validity of a position without holding to be true the position's framework.

    Yeah, what's bad about punishing immorality? That sounds like something great to me. — Agustino

    Because morality exists as a result of God's existence, his essence which is to create. God facilitates evil's presence in the world, and so he is ultimately responsible for that evil. This does not, however, remove the problem of evil from us - our actions still carry weight, but such weighted actions need not have ever been were God not to be at all.
  • Jesus or Buddha
    ↪Agustino
    I asked you first.
  • Jesus or Buddha
    That's a red herring, since the situation with God isn't the same. Vice is punishment for itself, and virtue is reward in itself. If someone rapes, etc. then he will get punished, by other people, and by the damage his crime does on his own soul. People punish themselves, and its righteous that we are so constituted such that evil leads to destruction. — Agustino

    Way to miss the point entirely, >:O
  • Jesus or Buddha
  • Implications of evolution
    ↪Andrew4Handel
    I'd say that evolution is just the material world's expression of time through physical change. The process that creates trillions of different planets and stars is the same process that, on a more micro level, creates millions of different forms of life - which includes humanity, of course. That said, I think it would be silly for us to judge such a process as being right or wrong, seeing as the world has no intentions. The real question is whether the world creates and consumes itself in a microcosm, or if there is a predicated creator (God) of the world. If the latter is true, then the implications of evolution become rather unimportant compared to that of what a God's existence means. So, the implications of evolution essentially just get you back to core philosophical issues relating to creation, God, existence, and so on.
  • Jesus or Buddha
    ↪Agustino
    That you should get on those white wings of yours and fly to your heavenly homeland, you filthy immigrant.
  • Jesus or Buddha
    ↪Agustino
    You're getting even more confused by the post. Goodness, Agustino. Perhaps you should get back to shoveling shit like the happy serf you are? :-*
  • Jesus or Buddha
    ↪Agustino
    You seem so confused, Agustino. Are you alright? :s :s :s :s :s
  • Jesus or Buddha
    Yes really - you just don't know what you're talking about - there's a difference there.
    https://www.amazon.com/Wall-Street-Bolshevik-Revolution-Capitalists/dp/190557035X     — Agustino

    It's as if you think that Russia just poofed into existence in the year 1918, and that all Western efforts to modernize Russian backwardness for the previous several centuries must therefore be evidences of your "liberals are taking over the world" tinfoil hat argument. Just cut the crap, Agustino. I know you're biased toward Orthodoxy and its traditions in Russia, but please refrain from hamfisting your world view into a history that's never going to agree with you.
  • Jesus or Buddha
    That's a true fact - you book a flight around here and check it out for yourself. And it was as much true today as it was 100+ years ago. The West has sought to influence and control the East for a long time. — Agustino

    No, not really.
  • Jesus or Buddha
    ↪Agustino
    Of course - Dostoevsky was an intellectual and as is usual for the East, there is a very strong tendency to "Westernise" and "Americanise" which usually means taking what is worse from the West rather than what is better — Agustino
  • Jesus or Buddha
    ↪Agustino
    I see that you're trying to get Russian history to fit with your current worldview. zzzzzzzzz
  • Does honesty allow for lying?
    Bloody hell, I have this thing about me that people have this urge to tell me their deepest and darkest secrets and I assure you some things are really :-O worthy, thinking that somehow I am experienced to help them. — TimeLine

    Well, you do present yourself as a no-it-all, :B

    Ever heard of the term 'whipped' where a person is controlled - whether consciously or not - by their partner? I have seen it a number of times and the condescension is so horrible that rather than the relationship being an amicable, mutual love and respect, it is instead prolonging and surviving by committing soul suicide. It is like you change yourself to mould into your environment and lose your own identity along the way. The lying is really to themselves and while it may appear for the right reasons, no one should ever be in a position to sacrifice themselves for the sake of prolonging something wrong in the first place. — TimeLine

    I have, and in my experience the "whipper" isn't always aware of what they're doing, which can be a little strange to navigate as a middleman.

    I agree, but it is really relative both with the transgression and whether the relationship is genuine; there are many men, for instance, that use physical violence against women and say that they did so because they loved them. If love is subjective towards someone that you admire and respect rather than merely dependence and an external show, I would assume that conversely feelings of resentment or no respect for your partner - though not publicly visible - can confirm it is not really genuine. — TimeLine

    Love is as I defined it in my OP. Beating your wife is not loving, so their claiming that it is is just wrong.

    In the instance where it is genuine love, we are all human. We can say and do stupid things, but it really is about whether the person really feels remorse that can make forgiveness possible. — TimeLine

    Remorse requires humility, which is hard to come by.
  • Jesus or Buddha
    ↪Beebert
    Just keepin' you honest, mein Beebert (Y)
  • Jesus or Buddha
    ↪Beebert
    Russian distaste for Western Europe is a lot more complicated than just religion.
  • Jesus or Buddha
    No, your perspective is wrong. There is only one true perspective, and that is God's. — Agustino

    >:O

    Yeah, the one true perspective of God...which is only understood through an untrue perspective...

    whoa-dude.gif
  • Jesus or Buddha
    And perhaps not at all. — Thorongil

    If the truth isn't communicable, then what is Christ's message? If the truth can't be communicated, even by God, then...?

    Let me ask you a question: do you think the truth is capable of being exhaustively expressed in language? If you answer in the affirmative, then, if I asked you to express it and you declined, you would either know the truth and are merely withholding it from us for some reason or you would be obliged to say that we haven't yet discovered it all. But then notice in the case of the latter that it takes a leap of faith to believe that the truth can be exhaustively communicated through language in the future, since it hasn't happened yet. If you answer in the negative, then you already admit the existence of mystery and of the possibility of God, if he exists, to disclose certain truths, such as those about suffering, by means that are not easily or not at all capable of being communicated. — Thorongil

    I don't think capital T Truth is capable of being exhaustively expressed as a certainty through the use of language. I also don't think it can be expressed in any other way, either.

    An odd complaint. Can words ever make anything fully intelligible? All words are generalized, mediated abstractions from perception, not to mention wherever else they may derive. — Thorongil

    If you take away verbal communication, do you really think that the complexities of, let's say in this case Christian theology, could be expressed in an accessible, understandable, and intelligible way? I don't think so. I don't think God would even think so, seeing as he sent a man in Jesus to the world in order to speak the good news, with every Christian afterward also speaking that very same good news.

    If words are required in order to even get across ordinary, lowercase t truths to us mortals, then for God to withhold the reason(s) for his actions without, through words, communicating it, God wouldn't, then, be communicating anything at all.

    But this is incoherent. There couldn't be a will to be or not to be, for that entails that an agent exist before he can decide to exist, which is impossible. — Thorongil

    My point is that if it's logically impossible for there to exist some agent before that agent's existence, then it is equally illogical to suggest that some agent exists after said agent's existence already ceases to be. If you retort with, "one has no knowledge of whether or not one's agent ceases to exist after death!" Well, neither do you have knowledge of whether "you" had agency, or being, before you existed, either, as such can't be verified either. Yet, it would seem that agency after, but not before, is somehow more plausible, why?
  • Does honesty allow for lying?
    Honesty is an end in itself and so can be evaluated as good/bad but lying is a means and is neither good nor bad. — TheMadFool

    Dunno if I agree with this. I think lying is always bad, but that it can be necessarily bad if done out of love for love's sake, which is the end.

    I think you're equating lying with, say, a firearm - both are amoral means toward potentially moral or immoral ends. Have I got that right?
  • Does honesty allow for lying?
    Are you not being dishonest by not saying anything? Inaction is action; witnessing a crime and doing nothing about it is just as terrible as committing the crime; one can answer a question by not answering, that dishonesty becomes necessary as you a caught between protecting the trust of a man who unfairly expressed his wrongdoing to you in confidence and her unfairly pressing to inform her of the truth. Moral dilemmas are never fair. — TimeLine

    I agree with you here, but the bit you quoted from me was the situation where I had no knowledge of any cheating going on. If I don't know there to be cheating going, I definitely wouldn't gossip, instead telling (her) to ask her partner what the truth is, not me.

    For my part, I would tell her but certainly not before I inform him that I will be if he does not because there are a number of principles that I adhere to that far outweigh his trust, and certainly I admire and wholeheartedly respect the courage one has to stand and face your wrongdoing. As I said, moral dilemmas are never fair and I will deflect that unfairness back to the source or the very root cause of the ethical issue even if it means losing a friend or making an enemy. — TimeLine

    Your example can shoot off in a million different ways. To be honest, I think this cheating example is way too hard to think about in an abstract way, seeing as I think we're both, perhaps, thinking of our own real life circumstances where we've been the middleman (or middlewoman, O:)).

    I understand this, but it is a blanket morality. It is trying to shield the guilt in some ways for failing to take the right action at a given moment and make yourself believe that an alternative solution can resolve the problem. All this does is prolong the inevitable. — TimeLine

    I'd say that lying does prolong the inevitability of not lying about "it". I just think that such inevitability may be okay if the issue is prolonged for the right reason(s). For what it's worth, I don't see this decision as being routine or commonplace.

    It is not his partner that he loves but what he attains from having such a partner, a social status, a community of people that congratulate his trophy but that emptiness is hidden. What people don't know does not miraculously make a person moral and a coward or a liar is incapable of loving. It is that subjective intent that matters and I am certain that a man who genuinely loves a woman would not be able to cheat on her, which leads to: — TimeLine

    I'm not so sure. I think one's love of another can be separate from his sin. That is, I can love someone as fully as I am able to, but still make mistakes that threaten that love's future. Making those mistakes doesn't mean I don't love my partner, though, or that I don't want such a love to continue. I mean, just because there is a genuine love between two people doesn't negate the possibility of transgression between them.
  • Jesus or Buddha
    Interesting, thanks. If you want to tell me more, I am open ears! Interesting that you find Nietzsche overrated. I agree that many of his conclusions and ideas were wrong, but I think even there that one must consider the context in which he was writing. And I also believe that he might be the most misunderstood philosopher in history. I like him because his prose was superior to all other philosophers except perhaps Plato. And also because he was funny. — Beebert

    I think Nietzsche is overrated as a philosopher, but not as a social critic. His immense impact on the thinking man and woman in recent history should never be diminished as being unimportant merely because he wasn't much of a philosopher.

    What do you think of christian dogmas such as original sin, salvation by grace through faith, Christ dying for the sins of the world and the last judgement etc? — Beebert

    Dude, read this again and please tell me you're not asking a little bit too much from those questions, >:O
  • Jesus or Buddha
    No, an undisclosed reason and one that is undisclosable in the sense of not being easily communicable to other people, I would say. — Thorongil

    Not easily communicable? Who here is failing to make this communication of the truth, God? If communicating the truth is merely hard and not impossible, then that's some piss poor justification for saying nothing.

    This isn't true. In the history of philosophy, there have been many arguments given in favor of an afterlife, or put differently, the existence and immortality of the soul. You can disagree with them, but only after you've acknowledged and made a charitable attempt to understand them. — Thorongil

    Aye, arguments that are put forward in words that are in favor of something which words can't make intelligible. And whether or not one seeks to acknowledge and understand these arguments does not, therefore, ensure the truth of their claims. The best one will get is a faith in a hopefully well reasoned argument that supposes the validity of itself with conviction.

    No, I don't see that that follows. You'd have to be more specific. God cannot violate a being's will, for example. — Thorongil

    If I understand how you're using "violate", then I'd say that God does indeed violate a being's will, in that he denies one's will to ever be and never to not be. In a way if God is Being then he cannot fully remove the essence of that which he has willed to be, which really is a violation as I understand the word, as the created is thereby shackled to a will and a being that he, obviously, was not privy to when "he" didn't exist.

    ~

    I might add that it's rather funny how a notion of existence before life is categorically rejected as being logically incoherent by you, but it would seem that a system that suggests the truth about some sort of existence/life/presence/soulparty after life is somehow different. If I'm wrong in this characterization, I'm wrong, but I do think that if you rule out talking about unborn children, you ought to rule out the strangeness of talking about "yourself" after you'd already be dead. But perhaps you actually will after acknowledging and understanding those positions that posit such things..? :P
  • Jesus or Buddha
    How do you know that? No reason is given that we know of. There is a reason — Thorongil

    So, an unreasoned reason? Surely there's something rather wrong with that.

    but it will not be revealed to everyone in this life, and to those whom it is revealed, I doubt it could be put in a syllogism that everyone would find convincing. — Thorongil

    Yes, I wouldn't be surprised if someone found a shot in the dark to be unreasonable.

    For everyone else, there is the hope that it will be revealed in the life to come. — Thorongil

    This life after which also is unreasonable and cannot be reasoned to be true or even potentially more true than any other future after death. As I remember telling Agustino some time ago, you end up with faith upon faith upon faith ad near infinitum.

    Secondly, why do you assume God condemns him? In the story, it's Satan who brings about Job's misfortunes, not God. — Thorongil

    If God has the power to remedy, he must also have the power to prohibit, yes? Even a Job who has faith can and will still be brought low and to his knees, whether or not he believes good will come about as a result. Also, I think there's a separation between Job attaining salvation and merely being redeemed on earth. Job is a story of earthly perseverance, not heavenly attainment. Job doubted because he lost his material needs, which still aren't even guaranteed or ensured if the story goes on and on.
  • Does honesty allow for lying?
    ↪Wosret
    lol?
  • Does honesty allow for lying?
    ↪Wosret
    You're really making no sense to me anymore. Are you saying that you're a narcissist or no? If you are, then I dunno why you're disagreeing with me so fervently. You're patronizing yourself.
  • John McEnroe: Serena Williams would rank 'like 700 in the world' in men's circuit play
    ↪Agustino
    They have nothing to do with the OP.
  • Jesus or Buddha
    ↪Thorongil
    God never discloses to Job why shit hits the fan, only demanding that faith in him will ensure that good will come about only after shit hits the fan. Of course Job isn't in a position to doubt God or be in a position of bargaining seeing as he had already lost everything and hit rock bottom for reasons unknown to him. The story reminds me of the old Nonstampcollector videos where, if I remember correctly, Jesus (God) takes a baseball bat to someone's leg and breaks it, and God will only fix it if that person apologizes for God breaking his leg.

    Job is a fine story up until you realize there's no tangible justification on God's part for condemning Job in the first place.

    No, the moral of the story actually amounts to something different. That Job is puny and insignificant, and while he's yelling at God, he doesn't understand this. He lifts himself above God thinking that he knows enough to pronounce judgement on God and his creation. This awareness of one's finitude, and more importantly that one doesn't deserve anything to begin with (so what right does Job even have to demand something of the Creator?). — Agustino

    The God of Job has the sort of personality and communication with its creations that isn't comparable to Jobs like you and me. Again, the circular "logic" here is that one must first have faith in God's existence in order then to have faith in God's will, which really makes no sense at all.
  • Jesus or Buddha
    I think Job is a bit overrated. It's all too often the only go-to Christians have for defending their faith, which becomes rather tedious because the moral of the story amounts to trusting in mystery, which is about as unsubstantial and underwhelming as you can get.
  • John McEnroe: Serena Williams would rank 'like 700 in the world' in men's circuit play
    I wonder what Serena Williams would think if she knew that a thread started about her on a philosophy forum would end up with a dozen plus pages filled with humongous walls of texts saying nothing of import.
  • Does honesty allow for lying?
    No, that isn't at all my concern... it's that lying to oneself makes one an idiot... lying to others makes them idiots... and further, that people that believe absurdities, will commit atrocities.

    I mean... "honest lying" is obvious doubt speak... and "necessary" means that it's impossible that it couldn't happen. These are just clear misuses of words to maintain absurd belief... it's idiocy.     — Wosret

    I'm not concerning myself with whether someone lies to themselves, only when they lie to another in order to be more loving than not lying would be.
  • Does honesty allow for lying?
    It can with self honesty, and self love... but it's to infantilize, and damage anyone else. It's possible to not suffer the physical and mental draw backs... to turn one's back on the holy spirit, as they say, but those are called narcissistic psychopaths. — Wosret

    I'm recently recovering from being woven in a narcissists's web, so I probably empathize with you here, but I think self "love" is the wrong wording. Self esteem isn't the same as love, at least how I've defined here (see the OP again.)

    Lies are what brought them to your door. You further cause, you escalate the problem with more lying. — Wosret

    I dunno about that. Lying might be a problem in itself, but I'm saying that they might be necessary for the good.

    You could come up with different examples, but they'd be less and less persuasive the closer they got to reality. — Wosret

    What about TimeLine's? I answered that if you didn't read my reply to her.
  • Does honesty allow for lying?
    Liars aren't honest ever, regardless of what good intentions, and better future they're selling their souls for. — Wosret

    Well, hold on. I'm not judging who's a liar and who's not, but whether a lie can pair itself with honesty and love.

    The SS (again, a ridiculous example that will never happen to you ever, ever, ever, and just is a wedge rationalization for continuing sociopathic behavior) — Wosret

    What? Clearly this example did happen, so similar examples can happen in future. I don't see how it's not relevant.

    didn't show up to anyone's house thinking themselves to be evil, and there to kill the righteous innocence. It was lies, bullying, indoctrination, propaganda, and other forms of manipulation that brought them to your door to do the "righteous thing", which every act they viscerally knew was wrong, but also had lots of justifications and rationalizations, and the best of intentions. — Wosret

    No idea what you're trying to say here. Please reword and clarify.

    Nazis aren't going to come to your doors, and most strangers don't have much incentive to believe you anyway, let along SS officers... no this is just a rhetorical ploy, and wedge in order to rationalize all of the puppeteering, and manipulation of loved ones and friends, the ones the most susceptible, and at risk of falling prey to you. — Wosret

    The SS example was just that, an example. In principle I can plug in different people with a different setting and the moral paradigm would remain the same, I think.

    suppose the liar in 2.) is afraid that the kidnapper will catch on to the liar's intentions if the original response is given. Suppose he/she therefore answers the question honestly and gives directions that lead to the interstate. But suppose that he/she still tries to trick the kidnapper, this time by giving the longest route to the interstate or a route that will go right by a police station. That is still being deceptive. It is being deceptive about one's intentions. Can it be called honest? — WISDOMfromPO-MO

    I would say that the "liar" is honest in both cases, so long as his intention's are grounded in love.

    Intentions, not words uttered, are probably where honesty and dishonesty are really found. — WISDOMfromPO-MO

    I do think so. Lies depend on active communication, I'd say, whereas honesty and dishonesty isn't quite as superficial.

    Your example of the Nazi camp is a situation or circumstance that is external to you. — TimeLine

    What do you mean?

    For instance, if you were told in confidence by someone who was remorseful about them cheating on their partner as he sought your advice and you told him to be honest, if he fails to be honest and she inquired with you about whether he had cheated on her or not, would you lie and say that you do not know? — TimeLine

    Hmm, it would depend upon whether I knew the cheating partner was cheating before he came to me. If so, then I wouldn't lie to the other partner, I would only tell (her) what I knew beforehand. Had I not known about the cheating, and was asked whether I knew if (he) was cheating, I'd probably deflect and not answer, instead advising her to ask that question to him and not me. It wouldn't be fair for her to put me in the middle, so if I respect her and she respects me, she'd realize that she shouldn't press me about that. But, if she did press me, I'd deflect again and ask her why she suspects (he) may be cheating, as it's more important why she thinks that over me.

    You are caught between your obligation for the trust and confidence he had asked of you despite the wrongdoing of his actions and the deceit she was experiencing by him. Sometimes, by saying nothing at all, you are saying 'yes' and so a lie almost becomes inevitable. — TimeLine

    Well, as I think POMO was trying to get at, one can lie in one moral dilemma but work elsewhere to make sure the good is achieved. So, let's say I don't break confidence, that's just one choice. In future I can still protect both the cheater and the cheated-on by working around the various moral confines in place. In other words, lie in one case but not lie in another cases. Then again, I might not always have to lie and break confidence depending on the situation, as I kinda suggested just above.

    But that really has nothing to do with me, in a sense, it is an ethical problem. Morally, however, it is about being deceptive or lying relating to my own actions and indeed they do cross-over, but not, because I was not the one who committed the wrongdoing itself that led to that ethical dilemma. In the case of the man who cheated, he may have appeared remorseful but he was more afraid and I believe that by remaining dishonest he has no love for his partner. He loves himself more, which is the reason for him cheating and his so-called guilt was actually the fear or risk of losing his reputation, as an example. — TimeLine

    I think it's probably better to say that the man loves his partner less after having cheated. If he loved her not at all, he'd have fucked off and not looked back. That he seemingly has reservations about his decision makes me think he still cares about her, otherwise he'd not think twice about hurting her again, with or without her knowledge.

    Also, with regard to your previous example of a middleman being consulted by both the cheater and the cheated-on, I think it's on the middleman to look out for both parties. Relationship/friendship-wise I've come to know that being a middleman is reeeeally difficult to make work from a moral standpoint because picking a side that, let's say, "receives more of your love" is almost inevitable, which is fucking annoying. I've been in this position myself and it sucks major nips. Regardless of whether they were the right decisions, I think I've always tried to back myself up and get out of the cross-airs, and try to make both parties realize that they need to come together without doing so through me, somehow.

    This is why I said that honesty toward someone you love and care for would always outweigh a lie, you would have absolutely no fear to tell the truth whatever that may be because your moral position outweighs your ego. — TimeLine

    I think I agree on the surface, but my OP really only applies to a three-way moral dilemma. So soldiers - citizens - Jews, or you - me - and the cheater. If it's just me and another person, 1 on 1, I'd probably never lie. But, in the event that I deem it necessary, what I'm trying to get at here is that do so still keeps me an honest and loving person, that a lie for love doesn't rubbish my character.

    I do think that the situation that I refer to in the OP and later on here is indeed pretty rare, and would be an outlying, moral predicament. I think Wosret has been worried about me suggesting that "lying honestly", if possible, should be used at all often, which is not what I'm saying. I'd say that lying out of love would essentially be a last resort, a kind of necessary evil, maybe.

    ↪Cavacava
    One's good intentions must be informed by past, present, and future consequences in order to be most loving, in my opinion. You can't just intend to do the good if you do not first know what the good was, is, or may still be.
  • Jesus or Buddha
    If hell is an eternal separation from the Being of God, then to be completely honest I'd find such an unbeing much more intriguing than any potential heaven. If after I die my being is "condemned" never to be again, then shit, gimme!

    Anyhoo...

    ↪Beebert
    I think it's worth noting that it's not so much Jesus vs. the Buddha that you're asking after, but rather purported teachings of Jesus vs. purported teachings of the Buddha. Neither of them wrote anything down, so judging exactly what they believed in and taught is pretty speculative. The best we can do is piece together a coherent theosophy, which is exactly what all the many Christian sects have attempted to do. Even Buddhism is quite varied and differing in belief and practice.

    That said, I think Jesus, as I've come to understand him, is the more powerful and illuminating figure, though I admit to not having studied the Buddha and Buddhism as closely as Jesus and Christianity.
  • Does honesty allow for lying?
    ↪Wayfarer
    Pleading the fifth usually entails waiting to tell the truth, not that the truth is never given.
  • Does honesty allow for lying?
    What I meant by 'withholding the truth' is not saying anything - maintaining silence. That is not lying. — Wayfarer

    I see. I'd argue that withholding the truth would be a dishonest action, but an action that's not a lie, as you've not actively made the untruth known to the person you're withholding the truth from.
  • Does honesty allow for lying?
    Is there a particular example that you want to discuss? — TimeLine

    Okay, off the top of my head here...consider those during WWII that sheltered Jews and others from being rounded up and sent to work/death camps - when these people told SS officers that, "no, no Jews are here," does that lie mean that they're not being honest to both the Jews and the soldiers? On one hand the lie protects the Jews hiding in the attic, but on the other it protects the soldiers from they themselves committing wrong doing - that is, not acting out of love. Were those who sheltered Jews to say to the soldiers, "yes, here they are, take them to their deaths," is that really good will? They'd be telling the truth, but such a decision would also be the least loving possible, with regard to the Jews in hiding. So, if you were to shelter Jews, and were asked by German soldiers whether you were sheltering Jews, what would you say? Would you tell the truth and send the Jews off to the cattle cars, or would you lie, thus saving the Jews?

    To clarify, I'm not refuting the moral quality of the lie in itself, but whether that lie may or may not facilitate honesty in the individual doing the lying. As I said in the OP, honesty follows from love. If an action is taken that is loving, that wills the good of another or others, then it therefore is honest. So, if you chose to save the Jews by lying, then you'd either say that such a lie is moral (loving) or at best amoral. But if the decision to lie in the Jews/Soldiers example is but an arbitrary, amoral one, then what moral grounds would you have in defending your choice if at the end of the day it doesn't matter?
  • Does honesty allow for lying?
    A rigid approach to morality doesn't allow mercy. — Bitter Crank

    Why is that? How do you define mercy?

    'Withholding the truth' suggests not saying anything - which is not the same as lying. — Wayfarer

    In my first example, when someone lies to me that means that they've told me something that isn't the truth, so they're both lying and withholding the truth.

    Where I would draw a very strict line is 'lying for gain'. — Wayfarer

    But do you think lying out of love is possible, or at least logical as I described it?

    Lying is attacking someones intuition, and infantilizing them. Deciding what is or isnt good for them — Wosret

    Say a dude's going to go murder a bunch of people, but you lying to him can keep him from doing that. Isn't that doing what is loving for both the almost-murderer and those he's saving from not being murdered?

    Surely another individual is capable of deciding what's good for you at least some of the time, right? If I didn't want to eat my fruits and vegetables, then should my parents have just stopped what they were doing and said, "welp, we can't force anything upon Heister 'cause he dun wanna!" Or are parents doomed if they lie to their child about Santa, even though they're being honest with regard to taking care of their child?
  • John McEnroe: Serena Williams would rank 'like 700 in the world' in men's circuit play
    Anyway, that is my two cents that neither of you asked for and if I could get my change, I will be going now. — ArguingWAristotleTiff

    Hopefully not change for the ferryman? O:)
Home » Buxtebuddha