Position:Home>Philosophy> What might be considered the ethics of this situation?
Question: What might be considered the ethics of this situation!?
What would be the ethics of a situation in which one could tell a lie so convincingly and with such effect as to make a majority believe in the same (to a greater or lesser extent depending upon the individual and collective groups of the same)!?
The one who begins the lie gains nothing but a reputation as the one who did begin the lie (which is not known as a lie to those who accept it as the truth)!.
The lie actually leads many people to attempt to be lead lives which are more beneficial to themselves and to others in general!. In many aspects, the whole of societies who accept the lie improve with a more equitable distribution of wealth, the socially needy and impoverished , as well as the ill being treated more humanely, the oppressed being less so, etc!., at least for a time until after successive generations and millennium, the lie becomes so distorted that it then leads those who follow the same to close their minds, preach and practice hateful and abhorrent manners, customs and lived personal philosophies which leads to wars, persecutions, fear, disunity and disharmony!.
A deliberate lie promotes general welfare and well being!.
The liar does not materially prosper although subsequent liars do prosper materially, politically and socially!.
The welfare and well being of the acceptors of the lie is bought at the price of their intellectual development, limits verifiable, reliable and quantifiable knowledge and eventually leads to the exclusion, persectution and fear of those who do not and have not accepted the lie yet, in many aspects they often work for the common good!.
What is the ethics of this situation!?
This one thanks all thoughtful, sincere respondents, as well as all others!.Www@QuestionHome@Com
Best Answer - Chosen by Asker:
"In this post, this one says that the majority accept the lie believing it to be the truth and only a thousand years later or maybe two thousand years later begin to clearly demonstrate a loss of connection with the original ideal of the lie as it was first presented!. those who eventually do the persecuting, who spread the fear, hatred and social unrest are those who still hold to the lie, still believing the unbelievable is true!."
I found it a fascinating premise and read; Christianity fits inside it very snugly!.
Martin Luther: What harm would it do, if a man told a good strong lie for the sake of the good and for the Christian church!.!.!.a lie out of necessity, a useful lie, a helpful lie, such lies would not be against God, he would accept them!?
~Www@QuestionHome@Com
I'm not positive how to answer that, but it sure sounds like politics to me!.Www@QuestionHome@Com
Kant already answered this, and because I'm too lazy to write it out myself, I'll just let wikipedia say it for me in a nutshell:
On the Supposed Right to Lie Because of Philanthropic Concerns
Published as a supplement to the Groundwork, On the Supposed Right to Lie because of Philanthropic Concerns [5] Kant examines again the example of lying!. Let us determine if this behavior is immoral, according to Kant's contradiction test!. If the behavior leads to a contradiction (is internally incoherent or cannot be willed by an agent) then the behavior is immoral!. Lies only work in an overall environment of truthfulness!. One still wants everyone else to tell the truth, since if everyone else were to lie then no one would believe anything anyone said, and lies would no longer be effective!. Thus, we cannot will that our subjective maxim of lying be universalized without self-contradiction; if everyone were to do it then the behavior would not work!. Thus, in this system lying is immoral!.
kant's contradiction test is the categorical imperative, again, something you can look up yourself and do your own research on!. Www@QuestionHome@Com
there can be the selfish ones or the protective one's, protective of themselves or of others!.
even great leaders come to the point that they need to lie to save their people!.!. they make the decision, because we cant accept the truth!.
people lie so they can make the judgement for other people, if you are good enough to make a good convincing lie, then you might just as well be good enough to lead for them, we are only human, and we are just playing with what we have!.
If everyone can accept the truth and have perfect judgement, then nobody has to lie anymore, not every lie has bad intentions like you think it hasWww@QuestionHome@Com
Kisshomaru-san
The ethics of the situation might be determined by the motivation of the liar!.
Such a lie is internally inconsistent, and if it were to have such sweeping social impact, would have ripples of unintended consequences!.
Remember that Satan, the master of lies, does not out and out lie, but subtly distorts the truth!. The best lies are 98% truth!.
The scenario you are alluding to had immediate ramifications almost immediately!. Most people recognized the lie and rejected it!. Those who did so publicly were assassinated!. Others were forced to pay lip-service to the lie and bribed with wealth!. If you drill down and examine the history closely, this lie seemed to promote general well-being most of the time, but served the needs and desires of the liar ALL of the time!. In today's vernacular, we call this a cult!.
The cult of this lie held together very well until the original liar died, and almost immediately it shattered into a bloody civil war!. Once the power struggle was more or less decided, the followers fo the lie took the lie on the road, causing widespread death and suffering!.
"You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can never fool all of the people all of the time!." - Lincoln
Conclusion: It is never ethical to lead people with a lie!. People must have the freedom to choose what is best for them!. To promulgate a lie abrogates that freedom by denying the population one of the basic tools it needs to determine what's best!.Www@QuestionHome@Com
It sounds like the typical, poor rhetoric, argument used by the standard anti-theistic bigot
"people corrupt, therefore a philosophy is untrue"
"origins are unknown, therefore its a lie"
Its not even deductive!.
====
How am I being biased!? I merely told you the truth!.!.!. that is what the typical anti-religion bigots say!. Im not upset!. I am merely pointing out a similarity between your argument and others!.!.!. and demonstrated how its not exactly deductive, but emotionally polarized to the point of being convincing to those with a predetermined ideology, looking for yet another rationale!.
Does this upset you!? I mean, if you feel as though Im calling you out, its probably because you know Im right and have been "coincidentally" fitted into the appropriate little box!. Id be offended, too, if I thought others found me so transparent!.
I dont mean to call you a bigot!.!.!. but if you are closed off to what Im saying!.!.!.Www@QuestionHome@Com