5 ms·

than someone who simply answers to their own morals and principles. So let me understand this correctly -- it's okay to lie and be two-faced with both yourself

by kirse 18y ago

than someone who simply answers to their own morals and principles. So let me understand this correctly -- it's okay to lie and be two-faced with both yourself and others for the sake of gaining trust (on false premises) from others? Nice system of morals you have there.

alexandros 18y ago
It's a selection bias. The ones who are willing to lie and be two-faced with others for the sake of gaining false trust, are the ones who will be successful. The ones who are willing to be open about their humanism (i despise the word atheist as it signals the lack of something) are pushed aside. (And apparently end up in academia?).
mechanical_fish 18y ago
Without going into the issue of whether or not it's okay to lie... there's nothing "false" about the trust it gains you. If I ask you to tell a lie that I specify in order to prove your loyalty to me, and you do it, I gain more trust in you than if I'd just asked you to tell the truth. What does your loyalty to rational truth tell me? Only that you're smart, and paying attention, and that you don't necessarily care what I think. Your willingness to conform to my arbitrary set of "lies", on the other hand, speaks volumes about your loyalty to me. That's why hazing rituals tend to involve pain, embarrassment, lawbreaking, or all of the above.
- kirse 18y ago
  I would agree that the trust is not "false" and is authentic, but all this other malarky about "loyalty" still ignores the underlying issue - and that is a complete failure in this system of "intelligent" morality that rationalizes being two-faced for the sake of winning over more people. I know my system of morality values establishing trust in relationships by telling the truth, not through deception. If a little less success and loyalty is the result, I am more than willing to be "less successful".

by kirse 18y ago

alexandros 18y ago

It's a selection bias. The ones who are willing to lie and be two-faced with others for the sake of gaining false trust, are the ones who will be successful. The ones who are willing to be open about their humanism (i despise the word atheist as it signals the lack of something) are pushed aside. (And apparently end up in academia?).

mechanical_fish 18y ago

Without going into the issue of whether or not it's okay to lie... there's nothing "false" about the trust it gains you. If I ask you to tell a lie that I specify in order to prove your loyalty to me, and you do it, I gain more trust in you than if I'd just asked you to tell the truth. What does your loyalty to rational truth tell me? Only that you're smart, and paying attention, and that you don't necessarily care what I think. Your willingness to conform to my arbitrary set of "lies", on the other hand, speaks volumes about your loyalty to me. That's why hazing rituals tend to involve pain, embarrassment, lawbreaking, or all of the above.

kirse 18y ago
I would agree that the trust is not "false" and is authentic, but all this other malarky about "loyalty" still ignores the underlying issue - and that is a complete failure in this system of "intelligent" morality that rationalizes being two-faced for the sake of winning over more people. I know my system of morality values establishing trust in relationships by telling the truth, not through deception. If a little less success and loyalty is the result, I am more than willing to be "less successful".