3 ms·
By the way, I don't say I never lie, just something that I aspire to. The classic test case is: what if the Nazis are at the door, asking whether you're harbor
by raphlinus 6y ago
By the way, I don't say I never lie, just something that I aspire to.
The classic test case is: what if the Nazis are at the door, asking whether you're harboring a Jewish refugee in your attic. I personally would lie in this case, and I believe most Quakers would as well.
A more subtle example: exaggerating the effects of climate change to motivate people to take action, for example claiming that Miami will be underwater in our lifetimes if we don't act. A lot of people I know do fudge the truth in this way, even if it isn't a conscious act of lying. I personally am not in favor, partly as a matter of faith, partly because I don't think it's an effective longer term strategy, but at the same time I think the argument for it is defensible.
BTW, a very good inquiry using that particular example is Dan Ariely's interview on Amanpour: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aLheBtBpZQw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aLheBtBpZQw ; this example comes up at about 14:10. I can really recommend watching it, as Ariely is really trying to understand human behavior, not just retconning principles to justify his personal positions.
- wtvanhest 6y agoYour Miami example is a very politically charged statement that the left makes in this country while the right makes an opposite statement that there is no global warming at all. Both lies are used to gain political power by Politicians. Both lies cause real harm. Saying the lie about Miami while simultaneously saying you can lie about it due to your faith is as wrong as the right saying there is no chance global warming is real.
- raphlinus 6y agoRight. It is politically charged, and I also think climate change is an important problem which humanity needs to solve. Competing lies is not a good way to do it, but increasingly it seems like that's how a lot of people are approaching it.