3 ms·

When you treat human beings like objects to be manipulated with lies, you goal is not ethical.

dekhn 5y ago
Is the situation really that simple? Public health officials are working with folks that don't act rationally. Considered from a utilitarian view, if you save more lives by lying, it isn't unethical.
- kian 5y ago
  I believe that the person you are responding to is basically telling you that 'utilitarianism' is an unethical moral view, to them. Either that, or that there is no utilitarian who is capable of competently calculating the cost of eroding public trust on future life loss, and therefor one should not engage in it.
  - jjgreen 5y ago
    Exactly this, I agree with Kant who considered utilitarianism a morality fit only for English shopkeepers.
    - dekhn 5y ago
      unfortunately, if you drop utilitarianism (or generally, any sort of philosophy like consequentialism) you run the risk of making decisions that could lead to massive pain and suffering to be "morally correct". Nearly all modern philosophy is a combination of moral ethics (of which few people can agree on even what morals are right) and consequentialism (make decisions based on what the expected outcome will be) based on wise choices.
      - deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
      - kian 5y ago
        As long as the ends are not the justification for the means...
  - dekhn 5y ago
    I think those utilitarians are called "public health officials" and I do trust their ability to estimate- not fully calculate- those costs.
hyperman1 5y ago
Im a bit in two minds about this one. Our governement has an attitude to say 'everything is fine' when things are clearly not. As a consequence, no one trusts them on anything. There is a clear cost in not being completely truthfull. But as a governemental officer, you know people are going to quote you out of context. You know people are enemies just because of your job, and they are going to make the worst possible version of what you say, and they are then going to pile lies upon it until your policy sounds like a comic book end of world plan. Politics is opera, and the loudest voice wins. Any communication has to be shaped for the specific receiver, and the receiver in this case is nasty. Science gives us reasonable guesses but no absolute clarity, and the vox populi demands a clear course from a clear leader. If you're pretty sure a white lie or oversimplification will save lives, what is ethically the least worst choice? You'll quickly end up with 50 shades of gray.

Is the situation really that simple? Public health officials are working with folks that don't act rationally. Considered from a utilitarian view, if you save more lives by lying, it isn't unethical.

kian 5y ago
I believe that the person you are responding to is basically telling you that 'utilitarianism' is an unethical moral view, to them. Either that, or that there is no utilitarian who is capable of competently calculating the cost of eroding public trust on future life loss, and therefor one should not engage in it.
- jjgreen 5y ago
  Exactly this, I agree with Kant who considered utilitarianism a morality fit only for English shopkeepers.
  - dekhn 5y ago
    unfortunately, if you drop utilitarianism (or generally, any sort of philosophy like consequentialism) you run the risk of making decisions that could lead to massive pain and suffering to be "morally correct". Nearly all modern philosophy is a combination of moral ethics (of which few people can agree on even what morals are right) and consequentialism (make decisions based on what the expected outcome will be) based on wise choices.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
    - kian 5y ago
      As long as the ends are not the justification for the means...
- dekhn 5y ago
  I think those utilitarians are called "public health officials" and I do trust their ability to estimate- not fully calculate- those costs.

hyperman1 5y ago

Im a bit in two minds about this one. Our governement has an attitude to say 'everything is fine' when things are clearly not. As a consequence, no one trusts them on anything. There is a clear cost in not being completely truthfull. But as a governemental officer, you know people are going to quote you out of context. You know people are enemies just because of your job, and they are going to make the worst possible version of what you say, and they are then going to pile lies upon it until your policy sounds like a comic book end of world plan. Politics is opera, and the loudest voice wins. Any communication has to be shaped for the specific receiver, and the receiver in this case is nasty. Science gives us reasonable guesses but no absolute clarity, and the vox populi demands a clear course from a clear leader. If you're pretty sure a white lie or oversimplification will save lives, what is ethically the least worst choice? You'll quickly end up with 50 shades of gray.