The Depths of Honesty

[Ray]

How does this weigh against your earlier position that there are no shades of grey?

When you put it that way, I am correct: there is a right path and a wrong path.

But, like you said, that is my opinion--and you have a different one. You are welcome to your opinion and I am welcome to mine.

In the hypothetical situation given: to have told a lie to save one Jewish friend from the holocaust and remained silent while millions of other died is wrong. Root Cause Corrective Action is required. The Nazi policy & practice of killing Jews was wrong and that's what should have been fought against.

And could you have saved the Jewish friend, in the hypothetical situation, without telling a lie? When a hypothetical situation is constructed does it mirror reality -- are there only two choices? Hypothetical situations are constructed with only two apparent chioces to try to persuade others - not to explore the gamut of actions available.

A lie is a lie; and a lie is wrong.

 

[raedyn]

A lie is a lie; and a lie is wrong.

I disagree with this. Honesty is the best policy. But policies should not be rules that cannot be broken under any circumstance. There are appropriate times to bend the rules. If lying is going to save someone's life, for instance, then I believe it's justified. I believe there ARE shades of gray.

 

[loki09789]

When you put it that way, I am correct: there is a right path and a wrong path.

But, like you said, that is my opinion--and you have a different one. You are welcome to your opinion and I am welcome to mine.

In the hypothetical situation given: to have told a lie to save one Jewish friend from the holocaust and remained silent while millions of other died is wrong. Root Cause Corrective Action is required. The Nazi policy & practice of killing Jews was wrong and that's what should have been fought against.

And could you have saved the Jewish friend, in the hypothetical situation, without telling a lie? When a hypothetical situation is constructed does it mirror reality -- are there only two choices? Hypothetical situations are constructed with only two apparent chioces to try to persuade others - not to explore the gamut of actions available.

A lie is a lie; and a lie is wrong.

And there is 'cruel/blunt' honesty and there is honesty that is tempered with respect/love for your fellows.

I think it is just as wrong to deliver the 'truth' in a way that is obviously hurtful and insensitive to another person - which could be construed as a 'lie in action' because you 'say you love them' but you 'act like they don't matter' when your 'just being honest' in a way that you know will cause pain strictly for the purpose of 'being honest.'

Now, don't confuse that with a 'tough love' level of honesty. For example:

"Your drug use is killing you and ruining this family."

with being honest at the expense of another persons feelings for no good reason:

"You suck at hockey."

Instead of

"You are still learning and improving, it comes with time and practice."

All those statements are 'honest' but only one of the three really is designed to respect the person recieving the message. It is all about context and intent.

 

[Adept]

A lie is a lie; and a lie is wrong.

Perhaps. But do you really consider lying to be the most wrong thing in all situations?

I mean, you cant really believe there are no no shades of grey, can you? If kicking a puppy is wrong, is it equally as wrong as kidnapping, mulitating, murdering and then raping a dozen young women? Or is one worse than the other?

Surely, if we can accept that some things are worse than others, even if they are both wrong, then we can make choices so that we can generate the best possible, or the least wrong, results.

 

[GAB]

And there is 'cruel/blunt' honesty and there is honesty that is tempered with respect/love for your fellows.

I think it is just as wrong to deliver the 'truth' in a way that is obviously hurtful and insensitive to another person - which could be construed as a 'lie in action' because you 'say you love them' but you 'act like they don't matter' when your 'just being honest' in a way that you know will cause pain strictly for the purpose of 'being honest.'

Now, don't confuse that with a 'tough love' level of honesty. For example:

"Your drug use is killing you and ruining this family."

with being honest at the expense of another persons feelings for no good reason:

"You suck at hockey."

Instead of

"You are still learning and improving, it comes with time and practice."

All those statements are 'honest' but only one of the three really is designed to respect the person recieving the message. It is all about context and intent.

Hi Paul,

Like I have said in the past, you have a good way with words, being able to speak or write them. It is enjoyable to read.

I will say that this is as close to the truth regarding feelings etc. The content has to be truthful but still respectful.

If someone has taken their life and the life of a loved one, you can't tell the family they died in a car accident.

That is a tough situation, to tell the blunt honest truth should be imperative but you still need to find a way of being respectful for the ones hearing this truth.

I think as a nation regarding the Nazi item it is very hard not to condem them as a whole. We need to remember this tragedy always and never go there again.
I believe it is something that happens around the world on a daily basis, we are trying to right wrongs, there is only so much you can do as a seperate power.

I think this is a very good topic and we should be allowed to stray a little.

Regards,Gary

 

[Ray]

Perhaps. But do you really consider lying to be the most wrong thing in all situations?

I mean, you cant really believe there are no no shades of grey, can you? If kicking a puppy is wrong, is it equally as wrong as kidnapping, mulitating, murdering and then raping a dozen young women? Or is one worse than the other?

Surely, if we can accept that some things are worse than others, even if they are both wrong, then we can make choices so that we can generate the best possible, or the least wrong, results.

First, don't kick the puppy and then don't lie about it. Both are wrong.

Have you seriously been in a situation where you had only two choices: 1) to kick your dog and 2) to rape a dozen young women?

I've never been in a situation where I've only had a choice of two wrongs. But there are times when I've chosen to do the wrong things...now that I'm an old man and have reflected on my past, I endeavor to choose the right.

 

[loki09789]

First, don't kick the puppy and then don't lie about it. Both are wrong.

Have you seriously been in a situation where you had only two choices: 1) to kick your dog and 2) to rape a dozen young women?

I've never been in a situation where I've only had a choice of two wrongs. But there are times when I've chosen to do the wrong things...now that I'm an old man and have reflected on my past, I endeavor to choose the right.

Thanks to the quality of life most people live, we don't run into the intensely challengling 'moral quandry' situations all that often. That is why, if you notice, the 'Reality Show' craze is so popular IMO: A group of people that are 'breaking the rules' of society because they are living in a microcosm of a society for the sake of 'surviving the game' (which changes what is and is not 'right' drastically from what we say it is from our cooshy lives back here).

That is why I try to reserve judgement of news about 'attrocities' during war, in third world countries where life is much harder and so on.

If you HAD raped a dozen women, then were being held captive by an old time posse and they said, "Did you do it?" what do you think would be the 'right' thing to do under that circumstance?

Personally (though I have no intention of raping 12 women...) I would find it normal and 'acceptable' from a survival point of view to hear that person lie through his pearly whites...called survival.

It is like the idea that taking any life is a 'crime' yet practice/rehearse behavior (martial arts) that could lead to killing. Obviously the context of a Self Defense situation would change the 'crime' to 'jusitified' in most peoples mind...

 

[Ray]

If you HAD raped a dozen women, then were being held captive by an old time posse and they said, "Did you do it?" what do you think would be the 'right' thing to do under that circumstance?

Certainly someone who has committed the rapes would lie about it to save their own skin. I would be suprised if they didn't. But the rapes are wrong and the lie is wrong

Personally (though I have no intention of raping 12 women...) I would find it normal and 'acceptable' from a survival point of view to hear that person lie through his pearly whites...called survival.

We can rationalize our behavior if we want, but that doesn't make it right. Fifteen years ago I worked as loss-prevention for a department store and arrested shoplifters for a couple years. At first I held the misconception that most of them were forced into stealing - but my opinion changed: not because I became calloused, but because none were forced into it.

In the end, there was one 14-year old boy that I truely felt sorry for. His mom & dad had died and he was living with his older sister (and her husband). When I called to have someone pick up the boy (so the cops wouldn't cart him to detention) the man said "Do I have to? The football game is on." It took some convincing, but he finally picked up the boy. There were other indications that the boy was not properly cared for. The boy may not have known any better.

Nevertheless, it is not my job to judge other people. It is my job to judge the choices that I have available to me and to choose the one that I think is right.

It is like the idea that taking any life is a 'crime' yet practice/rehearse behavior (martial arts) that could lead to killing. Obviously the context of a Self Defense situation would change the 'crime' to 'jusitified' in most peoples mind...

Not all killing is a crime. the context of Self-Defense does not change the "crime" to "justified" since self-defense is not a crime (althought one may still be convicted of a crime).

 

[loki09789]

Certainly someone who has committed the rapes would lie about it to save their own skin. I would be suprised if they didn't. But the rapes are wrong and the lie is wrong


We can rationalize our behavior if we want, but that doesn't make it right. Fifteen years ago I worked as loss-prevention for a department store and arrested shoplifters for a couple years. At first I held the misconception that most of them were forced into stealing - but my opinion changed: not because I became calloused, but because none were forced into it.

In the end, there was one 14-year old boy that I truely felt sorry for. His mom & dad had died and he was living with his older sister (and her husband). When I called to have someone pick up the boy (so the cops wouldn't cart him to detention) the man said "Do I have to? The football game is on." It took some convincing, but he finally picked up the boy. There were other indications that the boy was not properly cared for. The boy may not have known any better.

Nevertheless, it is not my job to judge other people. It is my job to judge the choices that I have available to me and to choose the one that I think is right.


Not all killing is a crime. the context of Self-Defense does not change the "crime" to "justified" since self-defense is not a crime (althought one may still be convicted of a crime).

Personally, if it lieing is 'always wrong' and someone were to ask me if I was a Jew in Nazi Germany... I would sacrifice my immortal soul and say "No, I am not"...at least until I got myself and my family out of the country. It may be 'wrong' as you say, but I can see situations where that level of absolutism is 'wrong' to live by too.

There was a time when the word 'Shifty' didn't have the negative connotation that it does now. 'Shifty' was a complimentary term that originally meant that you could use weapons equally well when you 'shifted' them from your dominate to non dominate hand, therefore making you a 'handy' person to have around because you were so versatile and adaptable.

This literal 'shifty' meaning expanded to mean someone was mentally tricky/crafty and versatile at dealing with people as well....which was considered 'good' at one time.

Now, though, we use the term to mean someone is 'immoral, untrustworthy,..' and so on. The context of the Viking/Scandanavian culture deemed 'shifty' as good while the current day says it is 'bad.'

Context can play a big role in how we set up our 'right' and 'wrong' ideas.

 

[Adept]

Have you seriously been in a situation where you had only two choices: 1) to kick your dog and 2) to rape a dozen young women?

Well, now you mention it...

But seriously, the above was not a hypothetical situation. It was just a comparison. Is one act worse than the other, or are all 'wrongs' equal?

I've never been in a situation where I've only had a choice of two wrongs.

Then I would say you have lead a very lucky life. Because, if all wrongs are equal (as it would seem you maintain) then even the choice between attending a work function (and upsetting your family) or staying at home (and upsetting your boss) might as well be the choice between selling your soul to satan, and some other really bad thing (hey, its 02:39. My brain is tired).

You have really never had to choose the lesser of two evils?

 

[Ray]

Personally, if it lieing is 'always wrong' and someone were to ask me if I was a Jew in Nazi Germany... I would sacrifice my immortal soul and say "No, I am not"...at least until I got myself and my family out of the country. It may be 'wrong' as you say, but I can see situations where that level of absolutism is 'wrong' to live by too.

Are there only 2 choices in your hypothetical situation? Are there only 2 choices in most real life situations?

I believe that you have the right to make your own decisions; and I do too. I will not judge you for your choice - I will only judge the whether an action is right or wrong for me.

I hope, that when it becomes uncomfortable for me to choose the right, that I have the strength to live up to my level of "moral absolutism."

 

[loki09789]

Are there only 2 choices in your hypothetical situation? Are there only 2 choices in most real life situations?

I believe that you have the right to make your own decisions; and I do too. I will not judge you for your choice - I will only judge the whether an action is right or wrong for me.

I hope, that when it becomes uncomfortable for me to choose the right, that I have the strength to live up to my level of "moral absolutism."

It isn't/wasn't hypothetical. It happened then, it happened/happens all over the world: "Are you Croate/Bosniac/Serb?","Are you Hootoo?","Are you Christian/Jew/Muslim?"....

And yes, in some of these situations there are only two choices: Tell the truth with the reasonable expectation that an 'honest' answer of 'yes' will get you killed/assaulted/raped.... and lie to extend a possible escape or avoid the prior consequences. I spent the better part of a year on peacekeeping operations in the Bos because of the epidemic of such situations.

I hope, should a situation that dire come up in my life, I make the 'right choice' that I can live with (should I be able to live) after that moment is over.

The idea that I would be so selfish as to pick 'principle over people' and die for the sake of being 'honest' at the hands of a Nazi/extremist and not survive to provide love/guidance/support/protection to my family/community/country in the future is more 'wrong' to me than the 'wrong' of lieing.

 

[Ray]

I hope, should a situation that dire come up in my life, I make the 'right choice' that I can live with (should I be able to live) after that moment is over..

That much we can all agree on.

The idea that I would be so selfish as to pick 'principle over people' and die for the sake of being 'honest' at the hands of a Nazi/extremist and not survive to provide love/guidance/support/protection to my family/community/country in the future is more 'wrong' to me than the 'wrong' of lieing.

You may want to allow others the option of sacrificing themselves for those causes they deem just.

 

[loki09789]

That much we can all agree on.


You may want to allow others the option of sacrificing themselves for those causes they deem just.

I did and do. When I was in the service, things like the Laws of Land Warfare, Geneva convention and other guidelines helped me consider and outline what was and what was not a 'good death.'

Dying for an ideal is a noble thing. Timing that choice so that you make the most of it is what I think is the struggle.

Someone picks a 'little battle' to die over and is selfish because they are denying their mates the added manpower, firepower, support, laborer to distribute the hard work with over the long haul.

Someone picks a key moment, like to create an opportunity to escape/extend, delay a threat, increase the odds of the survival of others as an expression of their ideals - that is 'selfless service' IMO.

 

[TigerWoman]

That much we can all agree on.


You may want to allow others the option of sacrificing themselves for those causes they deem just.

So what about fanatic extremists who really believe they are right, honest, just...to the extent of blowing themselves up (Mosul) to strike out for their cause. One man's truth is not the same as another's. TW

 

[loki09789]

So what about fanatic extremists who really believe they are right, honest, just...to the extent of blowing themselves up (Mosul) to strike out for their cause. One man's truth is not the same as another's. TW

There is a difference between 'truth' and 'honesty' but you make a good point about how isolating one element of a value system leads to some 'wrong' examples looking 'right' within the discussion context.

 

[PeachMonkey]

So what about fanatic extremists who really believe they are right, honest, just...to the extent of blowing themselves up (Mosul) to strike out for their cause. One man's truth is not the same as another's. TW

What about them?

Many of us see a cowardly terrorist striking freedom loving soldiers trying to take a rest at a mealtime.

He likely saw himself striking a legitimate military target of a nation that has contributed to the starvation of thousands and thousands, perhaps millions of his people through sanctions and bombings, an unwanted invasion, and an occupation that will not end.

 

[loki09789]

What about them?

Many of us see a cowardly terrorist striking freedom loving soldiers trying to take a rest at a mealtime.

He likely saw himself striking a legitimate military target of a nation that has contributed to the starvation of thousands and thousands, perhaps millions of his people through sanctions and bombings, an unwanted invasion, and an occupation that will not end.

And which 'perspective' would be closer to 'supportable reality?'

The US troops are there supporting the establishment of Democratic elections (maybe not perfectly run but at least grassroots) and the 'cowardly terrorist' is supporting a regime that would condone the restriction of feminine rights (arranged marriages, legalized murder by spousal brutallities) and the institution of laws such as mandatory beards for men (offenses punishable by beatings/execution) and the stoning/beating of women that are not escorted by a male companion because, in accordance with the extremist view of Islam - she could 'inspire' a man to do evil simply by being a woman.....

 

[kenpo tiger]

What about them?

Many of us see a cowardly terrorist striking freedom loving soldiers trying to take a rest at a mealtime.

He likely saw himself striking a legitimate military target of a nation that has contributed to the starvation of thousands and thousands, perhaps millions of his people through sanctions and bombings, an unwanted invasion, and an occupation that will not end.

And if the occupation ends, then what? They've destroyed everything in the name of striking a legitimate military target of a nation that has contributed to the starvation of thousands and thousands, perhaps millions of his people through sanctions and bombings, an unwanted invasion, and an occupation that will not end. For what reason? Because there are 1,000 virgins waiting for them in heaven? Because some cleric decides what a good Moslem should/should not do? That cleric is whipping others into a frenzy and surviving -- usually quite nicely and in comfort that the others don't have.

C'mon Peach. We all know that war isn't a good moral choice. Is flying three airplanes into three targets filled with innocent people who never did anything really wrong - other than show up for work, a meeting, or something else -- on the wrong day a good moral choice? Were the World Trade Center towers a legitimate military target? Did those people deserve to die?

Shades of grey.

 

[GAB]

And if the occupation ends, then what? They've destroyed everything in the name ofstriking a legitimate military target of a nation that has contributed to the starvation of thousands and thousands, perhaps millions of his people through sanctions and bombings, an unwanted invasion, and an occupation that will not end. For what reason? Because there are 1,000 virgins waiting for them in heaven? Because some cleric decides what a good Moslem should/should not do? That cleric is whipping others into a frenzy and surviving -- usually quite nicely and in comfort that the others don't have.

C'mon Peach. We all know that war isn't a good moral choice. Is flying three airplanes into three targets filled with innocent people who never did anything really wrong - other than show up for work, a meeting, or something else -- on the wrong day a good moral choice? Were the World Trade Center towers a legitimate military target? Did those people deserve to die?

Shades of grey.

Hi,

Probably from their point of view it was a good thing.

We will never get out of this one. We can't do what we did in Vietnam, that was another time and place.

The reason for this war runs deeper then just the last few years of strife, it literally goes back 1500 years +.

What is the truth and what is honesty, varies with who's God you believe in.

The United States took on the big one this time. (terrorism) It has been going on for so long in other areas and we turned our head many times, but not this
time.

To many persons want the end and what is the 'truth' is when you die it is the end. IMO...

Regards, Gary