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.
I assume that, given the nature of the question and the fact that it was posed on this particular board instead of the Philosophy or Politics board, that the OP had in mind primarily, a hypothesis of a religion whereupon being introduced to a population of people, resulted in that society being a better one that existed/ would exist in its absence.
This scenario while not actually existing in real life, is the assumption of many societal leader, king, politician throughout world history. It is the reason that even today in the 21st century, some seriously misguided right wing American politicians and even clerics rationalize their pandering to creationism despite not really privately believing it.
If that argument is unconvincing, consider a non-religious one. Say that a popular homoeopathic practitioner who unknowingly produces a truly effective oral flu vaccine. Moreover, he sells thousands of his remedy to his credulous clientèle who are also 'anti-vax', opposed to anything pharmaceutical, and are weary of modern "western" medicine in general (an all too common lethal trifecta of woo). As long as the drug remains disguised as homoeopathic, these users become vaccinated (the false belief being promoted here, incidentally, is not homoeopathy itself, but the belief that a real vaccine is homoeopathic). If we impose the truth upon them, however, the distributor will be labelled as a "big-pharma" shill, losing his status among his vast followers, and many less people will become vaccinated for the flu.
Can people actually ethically support a lie that is evidently false, if the results of belief in the lie virtually always results in a benefit that otherwise would not exist? More controversial still -- could it not be a moral imperative, in fact, to spread such a lie, and conversely, unethical to attempt to dispel such a lie?
In this particular example, the truth is of better long term benefit to society. In the short term, some may reject the remedy due to their irrational aversion, but people learn and change through trial and error. It is more important to society in the long run to know what does & does not work, and why. If some have an irrational aversion to modern medicine, it is best for them and society in general that experience (even harsh experience) teaches them to modify their perceptions.
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?
No, it is not OK to dissuade people of an untrue belief unless you believe that belief is causing them to act improperly.
For example, if a religious belief is causing a friend to give 10% of their money to a church, I would not say anything.
If a religious belief causes your friend to ignore reasonable medical care for their family, then it is OK to convince them to get medical care.
If a religious belief inspires your unmarried and childless friend to handle dangerous snakes, I would not say anything. Snakes need to eat just like we do.
I am going to go with a "yes" to the opening Title of the thread. I can understand the OP tending towards a "No" however when using isolated examples.
Just to waylay your fears -- I currently don't know where I am on this issue. I was, like you, a firm "Yes" up until about a week ago. If my opening gives the impression than I have taken a particular side, its only because I wished to particularly push the anti-religious among us (of which I am one -- or was until a few days ago) the most, to consider this dilemma. I ask this dilemma because I kind of hope someone can pull me back from the cliff....
Quote:
When we look at isolated examples in the short term, or in an isolated context, we can easily argue a "no" position.
But that's precisely all we need in this situation -- a single viable example that illustrates an ethical need to propigate a lie -- to demonstrate the "no" position here. Issues of limited scope, both temporally and in the question set, thus do not really apply. I fully agree, the majority of situations still demand the truth as the only ethical response, but as your #2 point below surmises, this one exception I am looking for may be of particular interest to atheists and agnostics.
Quote:
1) ....we have to look at the knock on effects too. Not just the isolated example. Here we would be lending credence to homoeopathy as a whole due to supporting the lie of one actually effective medicine And supporting that lie is a bad thing overall. So even if there is an isolated benefit within the entire network of lies.... the harm of supporting that network just to support one beneficial effect is highly questionable.
Its a fine distinction (and why I chose this example) -- the particular lie doesn't directly endorse or support homoeopathy, because the example is actually a lie about the lie that is homoeopathy,....and it does so in a way to carefully not promote the lie that is homoeopathy in the process. If people already are going to a homoeopathic practitioner for a flu cure, they already believe in the lie that is homoeopathy, so this hypothetical merely inserts true effectiveness to the existing expectations of the anti-vax people who have already bought into the fake modality. My lie, in fact, can go entirely unnoticed altogether -- unless a researcher actually does some kind of chemical analysis on the proposed homoeopathic vaccine == and it is thus only with that individual where my proposed ethical dilemma lies. Can s/he ethically share the truth s/he discovered generally with the world (and the homoeopathic & anti-vax communities)? Or is it more ethical for him/her to hide it? Here I think you agree there is a moral imperative to hide such a truth, no? Moreover, if we accept the implausibility of anti-vax people ever turning around and becoming sane about modern medicine (a likely conclusion), can one also be justified in promoting this particular flu vaccination among other anti-vax communities around the world without endorsing the entire homoeopathic modality itself? I think there is something to that, even though that conclusion runs strongly contrary to every human instinct I have.
Quote:
2) Point 1 is about the problem of the limited scope of our question set. Point 2 is about the limited scope in our temporal view. Lies and falsehoods over time almost invariably lead to harm. A lie about there being a god for example might cause a few people to act more morally as the OPs thesis suggests. But eventually a differences of opinion about this god will lead to irreconcilable opinions and arguments. And one of the, if not the biggest, beefs I have with religion is that it leads to irreconcilable differences of opinion and therefore a break down in the most important tool we as a species have for our continued well being: Discourse.
This is precisely where I think this discussion is supposed to lead!
I agree with you, and since you argue that "almost" all religions lead to harm this implies we also agree we might discover a religion that doesn't eventually slide to disaster over time. I would argue that the assumption that "over time...[religions] invariably leads to harm" (which is the classic anti-theist position), ignores the nature of liberal faiths. find only religions that make the singular mistake of placing dogma in primacy -- allowing dogma to dictate to everything else in a person's life including their human instincts that balks when religions tell us to kill/maim/hate/etc, -- to be the only dangerous forms. The ability to do the opposite -- to allow common-sense and social pressure stand in primacy over dogma -- is precisely the trait that defines "liberal theologies" as liberal. Thus I am now beginning to wonder if liberal theologies are, in fact, merely "different" from humanism or another secular philosophy, rather than inferior by their very nature. I cannot intellectually see how anyone who is willing to default to human instincts in the end, can hold any belief no matter how silly, that can ever become much of a threat.
Quote:
3) Lying and dishonesty we view as a moral "wrong"....I support honesty where at all possible and dishonesty only where the context for it is not just beneficial, but powerfully so....
I think the moral issues of lying lies specifically with the selfish motivations (which is not what we are discussing) behind certain kinds of lies -- not with the concept of lying itself. Contrary to your claim about only lying when we are faced with a powerful benefit, I provide you with the following counter-examples: How does a spouse answer the question "Do I look fat in this?", why don't we simply tell people aloud what we think all the time, etc. It would seem lying without any moral consideration at all, but merely as a instinctual tool to avoid unnecessary conflict, is a commonplace event for most people, no?
Quote:
For this reason I propose the motion.
Well, I hope I have given a critical analysis here to your concerns, so that you might reconsider that position -- I very much enjoyed your comments. They were very insightful and well articulated.
Quote:
On a side note to the OP: Sam Harris wrote a book called "Lying" which I have not had time yet to read but I believe your question is one that he deals with within it. If you read it do report back. If I get around to reading it I will adumbrate his views on the matter on this thread some day.
That would make another good thread (if many people have in fact read it). Its not an easy issue to summarize, despite the brevity of his book. This issue, however, is not really addressed by his book.
... since you argue that "almost" all religions lead to harm this implies we also agree we might discover a religion that doesn't eventually slide to disaster over time. I would argue that the assumption that "over time...[religions] invariably leads to harm" (which is the classic anti-theist position), ignores the nature of liberal faiths. find only religions that make the singular mistake of placing dogma in primacy -- allowing dogma to dictate to everything else in a person's life including their human instincts that balks when religions tell us to kill/maim/hate/etc, -- to be the only dangerous forms.
I'll admit that it's hard to imagine one of the kum-by-yah, politically correct Christian denominations like the Unitarians mounting a religious war or something. But in my view, the harm that even relatively benign religion leads to is a disconnect from reality. Even if dogma is not rabidly defended against facts that contradict a literal interpretation, it is only kicking the can down the road. At some point, to be a religion you have to embrace, at a minimum, unseen immaterial realms and usually some kind of god(s) or demigods, using faith (fact-free belief). Even if this doesn't result in controlling behavior, sectarian strife, or outright violence, it causes one to make decisions based on wishful or even magical thinking, and such decisions cannot in the long run be sound ones for any given individual or society -- even if you can contrive examples where it appears to do more good than harm.
A false-hood that produces only positive consequences? Believing a false-hood is bound to make you fall off a cliff sooner or later.
That's a fairly impossible point to actually prove, is it not? I believe I did give an example in the OP on homoeopathy that did have only positive consequences (and further clarified in the above response I made to Nozzferrahhtoo).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grandstander
...I would ask you to provide an example of a falsehood imposed upon a society which has only a positive side.
I believe I gave one in the OP on homoeopathy (and further clarified in the above response I made to Nozzferrahhtoo).
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheArchitect
In this particular example, the truth is of better long term benefit to society.[...]It is more important to society in the long run to know what does & does not work, and why. If some have an irrational aversion to modern medicine, it is best for them and society in general that experience (even harsh experience) teaches them to modify their perceptions.
Why is truth, as an absolute rule, always better? Doesn't this proposition presuppose people are perfectly rational beings and can handle the truth in a predictable way? I agree that self-interested lies that unfairly benefit individuals at the expense of others is ethically wrong, but I am asking about a lie that has only benefits for a greater swath of people and no discernible self-interest benefit. If anyone can circumnavigate human irrationality in some way with a lie (or series of lies), for any solution, short- or long-tern, and does soully for the purpose of getting people to happily do things that better social survival, does it not ethically justify such a deception?
Quote:
I assume that, given the nature of the question and the fact that it was posed on this particular board instead of the Philosophy or Politics board, that the OP had in mind primarily, a hypothesis of a religion whereupon being introduced to a population of people, resulted in that society being a better one that existed/ would exist in its absence.
Yes -- and also my perceptions that I don't particularly find the greater general audiences at CD that also hang out at the political and philosophy boards to be quite as insightful as I do atheists and agnostics, especially on an issue of this nature.
Quote:
This scenario while not actually existing in real life, is the assumption of many societal leader, king, politician throughout world history. It is the reason that even today in the 21st century, some seriously misguided right wing American politicians and even clerics rationalize their pandering to creationism despite not really privately believing it.
I agree that pandering to religion, esp. in some grand sweeping ecumenical fashion, is fool-hearty at best, but when done for political purposes is down right unethical. But that is a side issue. I am merely searching for a single example (like my homoeopathy example in my OP) upon which to hang the basic thesis I propose here. What entails, thereafter, is probably left to another thread....
Quote:
Originally Posted by hiker45
No, it is not OK to dissuade people of an untrue belief unless you believe that belief is causing them to act improperly.
For example, if a religious belief is causing a friend to give 10% of their money to a church, I would not say anything.
If a religious belief causes your friend to ignore reasonable medical care for their family, then it is OK to convince them to get medical care.
If a religious belief inspires your unmarried and childless friend to handle dangerous snakes, I would not say anything. Snakes need to eat just like we do.
So, you are firmly on the side that says "religion does not poison everything" (to bastardize Hitchens). That's the point I am coming to believe myself, with the help of discussing it at length here with others. Thanks for your support. (I am beginning to think) I agree with you.
I believe I gave one in the OP on homoeopathy (and further clarified in the above response I made to Nozzferrahhtoo).
I suspect that there are ways for your example to backfire and produce negative results, the most obvious is that it is a system predicated upon a coverup, which if unraveled, would certainly cause undesired consequences and a great deal of anger. The very justification for the deception which you provided:
Quote:
If we impose the truth upon them, however, the distributor will be labelled as a "big-pharma" shill, losing his status among his vast followers, and many less people will become vaccinated for the flu.
...shows the fragility of the approach and apparently your awareness of the possible negative consequences.
If we pretended that there was no possibility of that sort of meltdown/fallout, we still have the issue which I previously identified. Does someone have the right to deceive other people because that person determines it is for the good of the deceived? I asked if you would be willing to be among those being deceived in such circumstances and you replied:
Quote:
Like you, I probably would not be appreciative anyone else making that call for me
So, it appears you wish to assert a right to deceive but not to be deceived.
It reminds me of a question I heard long ago; if there is a free drug that provides happiness to healthy people with no negative side-effects, is it okay to regularly take the drug? I would think that it would not be okay, but I can't come up with a reason why it wouldn't be. I should say that if religions did not in any way suppress the believer, nor be a source of bigotry or prejudice socially, I would probably not be something of an outspoken atheist.
It reminds me of a question I heard long ago; if there is a free drug that provides happiness to healthy people with no negative side-effects, is it okay to regularly take the drug? I would think that it would not be okay, but I can't come up with a reason why it wouldn't be. I should say that if religions did not in any way suppress the believer, nor be a source of bigotry or prejudice socially, I would probably not be something of an outspoken atheist.
That is not quite the same thing. The drug is real.the effects are true. It is not telling people that they have to take the drug otherwise the tree spirits will be angry and will send hurricanes - and they then collect money. I would have a problem with that- as I do with the claims of religion. Even if it makes people feel happy.
I am in fact rather like you in that I can be tolerant of those who 'take the drug'. Provided that they do not inflict their delusions on the rest of us- which religion does. I oppose and contest the claims made for religion including its right to instruct us how to live.
If it doesn't press its claims as anything but faith-based and does not try to inflict is authority on the rest of us, then I can be as tolerant as you about it.
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.
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.
