U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality > Atheism and Agnosticism
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 03-15-2014, 12:16 PM
 
Location: Mill Valley, California
275 posts, read 393,688 times
Reputation: 243

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by HopOnPop View Post
something tells me, as a story teller, you are much more sought after around Halloween, and not so much around Christmas?
Quote:
Originally Posted by AREQUIPA View Post
I'm not sought after at all- I go around looking for an audience.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grandstander View Post
I think that is why a lot of us are here.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AREQUIPA View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shirina View Post
Actually, I was here looking for a homoeopathic treatment for my neurological condition, but damn ... I guess I had better stick to my regular meds.
Awww, look at all this bonding over our dysfunctions...and I thought I wouldn't fit in. Is it too late to invite you all over for drinks and a tour of my personal dungeon?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 03-15-2014, 04:00 PM
 
Location: OKC
5,426 posts, read 5,732,803 times
Reputation: 1770
I think the answer is that it is better to let the benevolent lie live.

In application, it is still yet to be seen whether religion is (a) a lie, or (b) benevolent. It may be one, both, or neither.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-15-2014, 09:08 PM
 
40,107 posts, read 26,772,494 times
Reputation: 6050
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boxcar Overkill View Post
I think the answer is that it is better to let the benevolent lie live.
In application, it is still yet to be seen whether religion is (a) a lie, or (b) benevolent. It may be one, both, or neither.
Your wisdom has not deserted you, Box.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-16-2014, 07:34 AM
 
39,206 posts, read 10,887,543 times
Reputation: 5096
Quote:
Originally Posted by HopOnPop View Post
Awww, look at all this bonding over our dysfunctions...and I thought I wouldn't fit in. Is it too late to invite you all over for drinks and a tour of my personal dungeon?
That depends... did you have me down for the rack or the thumbscrews?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Boxcar Overkill View Post
I think the answer is that it is better to let the benevolent lie live.

In application, it is still yet to be seen whether religion is (a) a lie, or (b) benevolent. It may be one, both, or neither.
We are willing to do that. What we are not willing to do is to let the benevolent lie claim to be true on the (debatable) pretext that it is benevolent.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-16-2014, 07:52 AM
 
3,404 posts, read 2,252,936 times
Reputation: 1317
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boxcar Overkill View Post
I think the answer is that it is better to let the benevolent lie live.

In application, it is still yet to be seen whether religion is (a) a lie, or (b) benevolent. It may be one, both, or neither.
I tend to agree with Boxacar here, but I want to point out that the original question contained a bit more than, "Should you burst someone's bubble about x?" One of the other points was, should you actively propagate the lie, "For their own good..."?

For me, the line is this:

Barring immediate bodily harm to someone, ( I don't care if you think God wants you or your family on the train tracks, I will try to pull you off! We can talk about it later, when you are still alive!), I see no reason to try to convince someone that they are in the wrong. However, if asked my opinion about something, I will give it as gently and tactfully as possible and I will not lie about. And lastly I will not lie to someone just to make them feel good or to manipulate their actions. I find that well beyond any ethical line.

For me I see this in relation to my family, who are all incredibly religious (somewhere in between Vizio and Eusebius). I absolutely have no need to fight with them about their beliefs. They are more important to me as people than as a collection of doctrines. However, I will not hide my lack of belief from them. I think they have figured it out, and so they don't ask, because they don't want to know. Lastly, I certainly am not going to pretend to return to the faith in order to manipulate them into doing something I think is good for them, or simply to make them happier about my "eternal destination"

So for me the line is at actively decieving them. I will not fight them about their self deceptions, and I will not bring it up unless they want to discuss it, but I will not be something I am not.

-NoCapo
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-17-2014, 01:53 AM
 
7,802 posts, read 5,285,422 times
Reputation: 2973
Quote:
Originally Posted by HopOnPop View Post
That is because moral dilemma thought experiments aren't intended to address the actual reality they portray
Indeed which is why they are not really of much interest to me. I prefer to answer such questions from a real world perspective. Not an unrealistic example limited in time and scope. And here in the real world I think yes, it is very much ethical to dispel false beliefs because I do not agree that such believes "ultimately lead to more good" but that in fact any "good" we attain from them is paid for with a price too high.

Could I, with suitable application of imagination, manage to come up with an example which goes against this? I am sure I probably could. Morality and ethics and subjective and contextual not objective. But a general answer to a general question, for me, is that the price we pay for such lies is to high a price to pay for any perceived benefit.

Quote:
Originally Posted by HopOnPop View Post
The "no" applies to your contention that this scenario could prop up homoeopathy in any significant way
If you assign the credit for any perceived benefit to homepathy then you will prop it up as a whole. It might not be your intention or desire to do so, but you would do so. The purveyors of this particular charlatan woo will latch on to it as a flag ship example of the efficacy of their practice as a whole. And given their current lack of any such examples, they will latch on to it with a fetid zeal and desperation.

These people currently sell their product by simply lying that the products are effective. Give them an example of one that actually DOES have an effect and they will make this their flagship point in any debate on the subject from start to finish. Currently their products do literally nothing, yet they lie to the opposite. We should not give them an actual example to lend credence to their lies. Ever.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-17-2014, 01:59 AM
 
Location: SoCal
5,722 posts, read 4,537,024 times
Reputation: 1865
Quote:
Originally Posted by HopOnPop View Post
SHORT VERSION: This is not asking about what it takes to be moral. It is asking what if a false belief leads totally moral people to act even more moral? Is it still okay to dissuade people of such an untrue belief, if such a belief ultimately is the source for them to act more generous, more charitable, more oriented toward giving, than they otherwise would be without the untrue belief in their lives? Could such acts of dissuasion -- since it ultimately leads to a lessening of over all goodness -- be actually considered unethical?
---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ----------
Honestly, I am not sure that there is a "correct" answer in regards to this in terms of morality. Either of the two sides in this debate might be able to make pretty good points in their favor. Personally, though, I would not try to dissuade such people from such beliefs.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-17-2014, 03:15 AM
 
39,206 posts, read 10,887,543 times
Reputation: 5096
There is a difference between 'dissuade' and 'dispel'. It is the difference between tolerance and what is called 'respect'. Allowing people to believe whatever they like is one thing, but refraining from pointing out in a more general way that they are wrong beliefs because it is 'disrespectful' is going to much the other way.

If there is good reason to see that beliefs are wrong, I believe that there is a moral duty to dispel them. While doing a sort of doorstep visiting programme to 'dissuade' them (which is what missionaries and evangelists are doing all the time) is not what I would advocate.

Even if it demonstrably leads to more good (like for instance kids doing better in faith - schools) it it not ethical to keep quiet about the beliefs taught in those schools being wrong.

Which is pretty much where we came in.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-17-2014, 09:44 AM
 
Location: OKC
5,426 posts, read 5,732,803 times
Reputation: 1770
Quote:
Originally Posted by AREQUIPA View Post
There is a difference between 'dissuade' and 'dispel'. It is the difference between tolerance and what is called 'respect'. Allowing people to believe whatever they like is one thing, but refraining from pointing out in a more general way that they are wrong beliefs because it is 'disrespectful' is going to much the other way.

If there is good reason to see that beliefs are wrong, I believe that there is a moral duty to dispel them. While doing a sort of doorstep visiting programme to 'dissuade' them (which is what missionaries and evangelists are doing all the time) is not what I would advocate.

Even if it demonstrably leads to more good (like for instance kids doing better in faith - schools) it it not ethical to keep quiet about the beliefs taught in those schools being wrong.

Which is pretty much where we came in.
I guess the problem comes because we have two conflicting moral duties in this hypothetical.
First the duty to dispel false beliefs,
Second, the duty not to cause harm.

I would think that it is rather rare that those duties come into conflict, but I can imagine a few instances. Say you have a dying child who is comforted by the thought of going to heaven. In those instances, I think the duty to not to cause harm would supersede our duty to dispel false beliefs and thus I wouldn't tell the child there likely is no heaven.

But in most cases, in the long run people and society are better off with the truth, so those two duties rarely come into conflict.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-17-2014, 11:06 AM
 
39,206 posts, read 10,887,543 times
Reputation: 5096
Yes, of course there are cases where a white lie or at least discreet silence is preferable to brutally telling the exact truth no matter what harm it causes.

That said, suppressing facts and evidence -based conclusion because they may upset the precious beliefs of cultists and the like is not acceptable.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality > Atheism and Agnosticism
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top