Drawing the Line Between Truth and Lie

[Matt Gregory]

Does persuasion and salesmanship count as lying? Where can you draw the line? If instead of a car salesman saying, "We got a new blue Cadillac in today", he said "We got a beautiful new blue Cadillac in today", did he turn that statement into a lie? Would it be different if the salesman's intentions were different? If he thought of saying "beautiful" as nothing more than stating his opinion and expecting his customer to take it as him expressing his opinion, would that be a lie? If he thought of "beautiful" as his opinion and expecting his customer to take it as a fact, that would have to be considered a lie, I guess, but what if he really believed that the car was beautiful and thought it was a fact?

An example of stating a philosophical truth might be better, but I think this is clear enough for now.

[Ryan Rudolph]

Matt,

I guess, but what if he really believed that the car was beautiful and thought it was a fact?

Yes, as long as the salesman is giving the customer the best knowledge he has, and not withholding information as a means to profit. For instance: Suppose this salesman actually thought the car was beautiful, but he was stretching this point because he also thought the car is mechanically inferior to many other cars, so he wants to emphasize the sensual aspects of the car to enchant the seller into buying it, by appealing to the emotions. Salesmen do this all the time….

They stress one less important quality to hide many other more important qualities that they hope the buyer will miss or forget to ask about….

[Matt Gregory]

Of course.

I guess I need to explicitly phrase this in a philosophical context to get my question across. I think it will work better.

One time I was talking to a waitress who was older, like 60-65, and she was babbling on quite a bit and she mentioned that her son died at 18 years of age and that she misses him terribly. I couldn't help but feel for her. She said something about God, so I was like, "You just gotta have faith that God knows best," even though I know the idea of God is bullshit. I didn't feel it would be appropriate nor effective to try and engage in a philosophical inquiry with her, so I just took her idea of God and tried to work with it. So, is that lying and does it harm the pursuit of truth (either hers or mine or anyone's)?

[Matt Gregory]

I do think that what I said to that waitress was true in the sense that I was suggesting to her that there's something higher than animal instinct, but the aspect about God was false. On the other hand, when I think about this, it occurs to me that there will always be some aspect of a spoken statement that can be falsified because the context is always there in the background complicating it. So, I'm not sure I believe in a 100% true statement.

[Jason]

Does persuasion and salesmanship count as lying? Where can you draw the line? If instead of a car salesman saying, "We got a new blue Cadillac in today", he said "We got a beautiful new blue Cadillac in today", did he turn that statement into a lie?

What if the salesman was colour blind and he said "We got a new grey Cadillac in today." Hmmm!?!?!?

[Leyla Shen]

Of course it's a lie, and it will only harm your (and her) pursuit of truth to the degree that you don't know and understand the reason/s you told it.

[DHodges]

I just took her idea of God and tried to work with it. So, is that lying and does it harm the pursuit of truth (either hers or mine or anyone's)?

Yes, that is lying.

It's also lying when you say something that is technically true, but said in a way meant to deliberately mislead someone. ("The dinosaurs have been extinct for hundreds of years.")

[BMcGilly07]

A good salesman underpromises and overdelivers, but behind that worm's a hook.

[monk frost]

Truth is the fact we all have lied and still do !

[Matt Gregory]

Let me frame this a little differently. If I have an understanding of something and someone else has a different understanding of it, which I think is wrong, and I want to say something to direct them towards the understanding that I have, then I don't think that's lying. Now if they are simply not prepared to understand what I understand, then why would it be more dishonest to make a little effort, than to just say nothing? I think it's actually more honest to make a little effort, even if I fail in the attempt.

[Leyla Shen]

I assume that you mean to say your "you just gotta have faith that God knows best" says something about the Totality and/or causality to a theist, implying that if they don't get what you mean, it's because they're "not prepared" (how do you mean that, exactly?) to understand.

I think you're lying, Matt!

[tek0]

Morality is a great idea until you look at the realities of those who would have you condemned for not following a sense of morality.

The uppermost elites in this world sacrifice morality every single day for ideas that will ultimately benefit only themselves and their supporters.

It would appear to me that although morality is real and useful for anyone in our current evolutionary state.

The concept bears enormous flaws and as the US DOD would say "We do not want a fair fight".

Taking a supercomputer and running a simulation of the current condition of Earth and it's occupants would tell you a whole lot about who is truly their brothers keeper on this planet.


Take the UFO/alien issue we unofficially face for example and factor that into your simulation.

Most of us are aware of the limitless possibilities for such a scenario and yet one cannot help but realize that the self centered domineering approach to controlling ours or any species will likely be the winning formula.

Since the "winners" know they will win the grand prize of controlling the kind of technology that would have give Eienstein and Tesla wet dreams.

Obviously they will tailor their plans to reach the goals they have aquired through wrecks and and offensive planetary defense maneuvres.

The UFOs aliens or whatever they are if they are not supra "human" or AI controlled craft do not seem too morally interested in stopping anything on our surface or location in space for moral reasons.

Big brother sees this type of behavior not fitting human psychology and seeks to reach such a point of being as a matter of logic knowing full well that the sacrifice is the rest of us to one degree or another.

Assasinating rivals, running covert operations involving any known type of crime up to and including hijacking entire sovereign nations through coercion and force.


Genetically engineering their offspring to become dominant after centuries of procuring the best educations, materials, and minds for upkeeping their loosely united empires mostly through unsavory means.


The rest of us will almost certainly be kicked off the cliff of this reality like lemmings who denied their true identities for mere "moral" ideas that have no bearing in this reality of only the fittest survive.

It would be something to see humanity have any kind of coherence in ideas or actions let alone any type of moral standard that ultimately unites us all and solves the problems we face.



As for the great minds out there working every single day towards resolution of the ills of mankind I do salute them.

Whether they are involved on the deepest levels of the owners plans or simply doing what they can for the benefit of our entire species I do not blame them.


One world government and one AI to rule them all.


One thing they never talk about is how succeptible would a human AI system or artilect be to external threats from other species.

Or is the universe some big huggy lovey place where once you advance your species far enough everyone gets to share in the wealth of knowledge?

[Matt Gregory]

I assume that you mean to say your "you just gotta have faith that God knows best" says something about the Totality and/or causality to a theist, implying that if they don't get what you mean, it's because they're "not prepared" (how do you mean that, exactly?) to understand.

No, what I'm saying is that you can't just say anything to anybody and think they'll understand you.

I think you're lying, Matt!

I know I was lying. That was a bad example because I didn't do a very good job, but I think the effort was honest. I mean, I wasn't deliberately trying to deceive her, but I just couldn't think of anything appropriate to say at the time. I could have sat there and said nothing, but I don't think that's very honest either.

[Leyla Shen]

MG:

No, what I'm saying is that you can't just say anything to anybody and think they'll understand you.

OK, and agreed.

That was a bad example because I didn't do a very good job, …

OK.

…but I think the effort was honest.

Well, I’m not sure exactly what you mean by an honest effort. To my way of thinking, an honest effort occurs when one is uncertain of a truth themselves rather than when one is involved in some sort of conundrum over imparting it. Therefore, your honesty here has more to do with being concerned about how she felt rather than with imparting truth, considering truth itself to be inappropriate.

I can, of course, relate to that. But I tend to discipline myself toward silence in such circumstances whenever possible, which--in terms of truth--I think is more appropriate than telling a lie. Lying to her might seem to make her feel better, but it doesn't (all you did, really, was avoid something you thought would make her feel worse). It doesn’t really change anything, whereas truth can---but there is an art to it. Some call it wisdom. In the meantime, sometimes the truthful thing to do, therefore, is just listen---I mean, really listen rather than being self-serving with your sympathy (in that case). I get lazy on that score, myself. :)

I could have sat there and said nothing, but I don't think that's very honest either.

See above. I think when one really listens, an appropriate moment for an appropriate (level of) truth reveals itself.

[Jason]

Let me frame this a little differently. If I have an understanding of something and someone else has a different understanding of it, which I think is wrong, and I want to say something to direct them towards the understanding that I have, then I don't think that's lying. Now if they are simply not prepared to understand what I understand, then why would it be more dishonest to make a little effort, than to just say nothing? I think it's actually more honest to make a little effort, even if I fail in the attempt.

To be more honest, perhaps you could preface what you said to this person with something along the lines of what you've said above. A meta-conversation of sorts.

[Jason]

I think you're lying, Matt!

Lies! All lies!

[Matt Gregory]

Leyla,

…but I think the effort was honest.

Well, I’m not sure exactly what you mean by an honest effort. To my way of thinking, an honest effort occurs when one is uncertain of a truth themselves rather than when one is involved in some sort of conundrum over imparting it.

Why do you separate the two? Do you think imparting truth is not part of one's own journey to truth? See, I think it is. It's about tearing down walls that the ego naturally wants to construct between yourself and other people. We naturally want to hide our differences from groups that we want to fit in, for one.

Therefore, your honesty here has more to do with being concerned about how she felt rather than with imparting truth, considering truth itself to be inappropriate.

I did impart a truth, though. It was just a little, subtle truth. And yeah, I do admit I was looking at how she felt, not because I valued her feelings more than her understanding of truth, but because a person's feelings determine what they're able to take in. Feelings act like mental blocks. If I were to say, "In the grand scheme of nature, your son is no different to a fly on a windshield . . . splat!" or something like that, I don't think it would have been effective, and what's more, it would have had serious consequences in regards to my future service at the diner!

I can, of course, relate to that. But I tend to discipline myself toward silence in such circumstances whenever possible, which--in terms of truth--I think is more appropriate than telling a lie.

I don't see the difference because the lie actually came from her and I added a little something truthful to it and gave it back to her. The lie is still there in either case.

Lying to her might seem to make her feel better, but it doesn't (all you did, really, was avoid something you thought would make her feel worse). It doesn’t really change anything, whereas truth can---but there is an art to it. Some call it wisdom.

But I wasn't concerned with making her feel better, I was concerned with making her think. I was trying to point out that the problem lies with her and not with the ultimate, which in her view is God.

In the meantime, sometimes the truthful thing to do, therefore, is just listen---I mean, really listen rather than being self-serving with your sympathy (in that case). I get lazy on that score, myself. :)

I think silence can be just as self-serving as lying.

[Ryan Rudolph]

Matt,

I didn't feel it would be appropriate nor effective to try and engage in a philosophical inquiry with her, so I just took her idea of God and tried to work with it. So, is that lying and does it harm the pursuit of truth (either hers or mine or anyone's)?

A decision not to engage someone with the truth can be the mark of good judgment, meaning that perhaps this woman had absolutely no potential for enlightenment or rational thought, so to engage with her would be to inflict negative karma on her without any sort of growth.

It would be like trying to force a down-syndrome child to learn calculus by invading their personal space. Sometimes one must make the judgment as to when truth-speaking has absolutely no positive affect on certain personalities.

However, on the other hand, sometimes one may avoid speaking the truth to someone because they do not desire to feel the negative karma of the other person, so one must be honest in accessing the root motives for not wanting to engage, and whether or not those motives are sincere.

[brokenhead]

I did impart a truth, though. It was just a little, subtle truth. And yeah, I do admit I was looking at how she felt, not because I valued her feelings more than her understanding of truth, but because a person's feelings determine what they're able to take in. Feelings act like mental blocks. If I were to say, "In the grand scheme of nature, your son is no different to a fly on a windshield . . . splat!" or something like that, I don't think it would have been effective, and what's more, it would have had serious consequences in regards to my future service at the diner!

The reek of self-importance here is overwhelming. You "admit" to looking at how she felt. Empathy is what then, a crime? A sin?

"Not because I valued her feelings more than her understanding of the truth" No, you wouldn't want that to happen, god forbid.

Maybe you just had a flash of humanity, a moment of true insight. Maybe you realize that it is totally preposterous that you should think you know what the truth is, or that you are in any position whatsoever to judge her view of the truth. You are only assuming that you have anything to "impart."

First, do no harm. If getting good service in the future is what kept you from unloading your fly-on-the-windshield philosophy on her, that's fine. Maybe you could even take the occasion to consider that you don't have all the answers.

You managed to perform an act of kindness and now you seem to think you have to rationalize it or justify it somehow. This almost sounds like you're confessing to a misdeed. That should tell you something.

[brokenhead]

It would be like trying to force a down-syndrome child to learn calculus by invading their personal space. Sometimes one must make the judgment as to when truth-speaking has absolutely no positive affect on certain personalities

This is the most hilarious analogy I have ever seen, Ryan. How does one go about invading the personal space of a Down's syndrome child? Assuming you are able to accomplish this, I'm unclear as to how it would impart advanced mathematical skills.

I think what you are going for here is something along the lines of "Cast not your pearls before swine..."

[kissaki]

Morality is a great idea until you look at the realities of those who would have you condemned for not following a sense of morality.

The uppermost elites in this world sacrifice morality every single day for ideas that will ultimately benefit only themselves and their supporters.

There have been plenty of super 'elites' who have tried to spread their morality at a great cost to themselves. It's dishonest to simply think of all such individuals as caricatures of evil. I'm not saying they are necessarily good, just that no one is pure evil. There are plenty of elites who wish to use their wealth or powers for 'good.' Whether they actually do it wisely or simply pave the road to hell with their good intentions is a different matter.

It would appear to me that although morality is real and useful for anyone in our current evolutionary state.

The concept bears enormous flaws and as the US DOD would say "We do not want a fair fight".

Not fighting fair is a good strategy. The problem is that the US DOD is not run by wise philosophical individuals. Even in war the knowledge of the nature of reality has benefits, especially in deciding when and how to wage it.

Taking a supercomputer and running a simulation of the current condition of Earth and it's occupants would tell you a whole lot about who is truly their brothers keeper on this planet.

No need to perform such a computation. People demonstrate who or what they are the keeper of every moment of every day.

Take the UFO/alien issue we unofficially face for example and factor that into your simulation.

Most of us are aware of the limitless possibilities for such a scenario and yet one cannot help but realize that the self centered domineering approach to controlling ours or any species will likely be the winning formula.

Since the "winners" know they will win the grand prize of controlling the kind of technology that would have give Eienstein and Tesla wet dreams.

Obviously they will tailor their plans to reach the goals they have aquired through wrecks and and offensive planetary defense maneuvres.

The UFOs aliens or whatever they are if they are not supra "human" or AI controlled craft do not seem too morally interested in stopping anything on our surface or location in space for moral reasons.

Big brother sees this type of behavior not fitting human psychology and seeks to reach such a point of being as a matter of logic knowing full well that the sacrifice is the rest of us to one degree or another.

Assasinating rivals, running covert operations involving any known type of crime up to and including hijacking entire sovereign nations through coercion and force.


Genetically engineering their offspring to become dominant after centuries of procuring the best educations, materials, and minds for upkeeping their loosely united empires mostly through unsavory means.


The rest of us will almost certainly be kicked off the cliff of this reality like lemmings who denied their true identities for mere "moral" ideas that have no bearing in this reality of only the fittest survive.

It would be something to see humanity have any kind of coherence in ideas or actions let alone any type of moral standard that ultimately unites us all and solves the problems we face.



As for the great minds out there working every single day towards resolution of the ills of mankind I do salute them.

Whether they are involved on the deepest levels of the owners plans or simply doing what they can for the benefit of our entire species I do not blame them.


One world government and one AI to rule them all.


One thing they never talk about is how succeptible would a human AI system or artilect be to external threats from other species.

Or is the universe some big huggy lovey place where once you advance your species far enough everyone gets to share in the wealth of knowledge?

Your conspiracy mind is showing. None of those things would be fundamentally disconnected from the universe. The earth was at one point long ago a very violent place with massive earthquakes, floods, and volcanic activity, and look at what it caused. Violence and chaos is not separate from what gave rise to you, me, or anything around us.

Suppose sometime way down the road the entities formerly known as humans become super wise and super powerful with all the energy of the universe at their disposal. Perhaps having completely fleshed out this universe they decide to play the game again and suddenly boom ... violence and chaos in the most primordial sense. You see, even in what could be termed the 'best case scenario' the possibility of violence and chaos is not completely ruled out. Your paradise is simply impossible.

[Matt Gregory]

I did impart a truth, though. It was just a little, subtle truth. And yeah, I do admit I was looking at how she felt, not because I valued her feelings more than her understanding of truth, but because a person's feelings determine what they're able to take in. Feelings act like mental blocks. If I were to say, "In the grand scheme of nature, your son is no different to a fly on a windshield . . . splat!" or something like that, I don't think it would have been effective, and what's more, it would have had serious consequences in regards to my future service at the diner!

The reek of self-importance here is overwhelming. You "admit" to looking at how she felt. Empathy is what then, a crime? A sin?

"Not because I valued her feelings more than her understanding of the truth" No, you wouldn't want that to happen, god forbid.

Maybe you just had a flash of humanity, a moment of true insight. Maybe you realize that it is totally preposterous that you should think you know what the truth is, or that you are in any position whatsoever to judge her view of the truth. You are only assuming that you have anything to "impart."

First, do no harm. If getting good service in the future is what kept you from unloading your fly-on-the-windshield philosophy on her, that's fine. Maybe you could even take the occasion to consider that you don't have all the answers.

You managed to perform an act of kindness and now you seem to think you have to rationalize it or justify it somehow. This almost sounds like you're confessing to a misdeed. That should tell you something.

Your ideas about empathy and morality are stupid and solve nothing. You're the kind of person who would rather let his children run out in the street because he feels too guilty to punish them. And then, when one of them gets killed, you would weep, "Oh why did this happen? I'm so confused!"

[brokenhead]

Your ideas about empathy and morality are stupid and solve nothing. You're the kind of person who would rather let his children run out in the street because he feels too guilty to punish them. And then, when one of them gets killed, you would weep, "Oh why did this happen? I'm so confused!"

Ah, I see I've hit a nerve. You are responding with rancor because you have been criticized. This is good! Not very enlightened, but good.

But your characterization of the "kind" of person I am does not follow from what wrote in my post. And it is silly as well. For one thing, I do not have any kids of my own. But I do have a bunch of nieces and nephews, with whom I am quite willing to be a hardass. And you know what? They love their Uncle Brokie all the more for it. No one is getting killed on my watch. There will be no weeping or "confusion."

By the way, from your posts in this thread, it sounds as if you are the confused one. You can't do a simple act of kindness without second-guessing it and running to the thought police here at GF for some kind of twisted validation.

So I guess if my ideas about morality are stupid and solve nothing, that your ideas about the same are actually solving things? Let's examine that. If I had said what you did to that waitress, I would not be "lying" or going against some deeply held bit of nonsense. I would merely be offering comfort, a little thing from one human being to another. You know, just in case it made her stay on this mortal coil a bit less painful.

You, on the other hand, seem to know that you were dishing out "bullshit" about God. If it were truly bullshit, then you should have known a truthful thing to say that would have been equally effective. Instead you said the right thing with the wrong reasoning. You should be wondering why you feel the need to question your own motivation. If I had said what you did to the waitress - and I have been in that situation countless times - I would have not thought twice about it. Yet here you are, still attached to what should have been the briefest of experiences. So is your approach truly more enlightened than mine?

[Leyla Shen]

MG:

L: Well, I’m not sure exactly what you mean by an honest effort. To my way of thinking, an honest effort occurs when one is uncertain of a truth themselves rather than when one is involved in some sort of conundrum over imparting it.

M: Why do you separate the two?

Fair question.

In order to distinguish between being aware of your own specific uncertainty and being embroiled in the conundrum of that uncertainty.

Do you think imparting truth is not part of one's own journey to truth?

If that’s what you’re doing—imparting truth—what’s left of one’s own journey to truth?

I did impart a truth, though. It was just a little, subtle truth.

I disagree. You imparted more of the same poetry she’s used to hearing. What indication was there that she actually received even a modicum of the truth you claim to have imparted? Or, are you 1) satisfied with having achieved imparting something to her that she already knew ("God knows best"); or maybe, do you 2) consider the sounds of your words alone as an imparting of the truth about which you spoke/were pointing to?

That’ll have to do for now. I’ve had a a long day at work, an obligatory function, a few reds and am a bit mellow and tired and really looking forward to hitting the sack before another 5.00 a.m. rise in the morning…

[Leyla Shen]

And yeah, I do admit I was looking at how she felt, not because I valued her feelings more than her understanding of truth, but because a person's feelings determine what they're able to take in. Feelings act like mental blocks. If I were to say, "In the grand scheme of nature, your son is no different to a fly on a windshield . . . splat!" or something like that, I don't think it would have been effective, [snip]

Well, I just so happen to think that humans are different to flies. :)

Could the solution to truth v. formidable mental blocks be that simple? (Remember: what you said to her is something brokenhead would've easily said!)