4 ms·

You recognize that the accuracy of a statement is a scalar, and that every statement is part truth and part lie (but often not in equal proportion). So then why

by jd 14y ago

You recognize that the accuracy of a statement is a scalar, and that every statement is part truth and part lie (but often not in equal proportion). So then why obfuscate language by using the same word for a statement that's 95% true and 5% lie as for a statement that's 5% true and 95% lie? You could do the same for morality. Nearly all actions have good as well as bad consequences and nearly all actions have benefits and downsides. You could then decide that every action must be called evil, because the downside of the action is nonzero. You'd also have to defend that position by stating that "Doing evil is good" (for otherwise we'd be paralyzed by inaction). Another person might bend language in the exact opposite way and call nearly every action good. Those people probably would use opposite language to describe the exact same ideas. How convenient! You started the previous post with "Lying is good.". We, of course, have no reason to assume you have a private definition of lying that classifies statements we would consider true (or half-truth at most) a lie. Okay, now we know. But hold on a second! If nearly every statement is a lie, then therefore we should interpret your statement "Lying is good." as "It's okay to speak if you're not 100% certain you're 100% factually correct". Which makes absolutely no sense as a reply to somebody who says "I don't understand lying", because that person clearly uses a more regular definition of lying. Something like "stating falsehood with intent to deceive". We know this, because if the other person also believed that nearly every statement is a lie then, of course lying makes sense (for otherwise we would not be able to speak at all except in mathematics).

klibertp 14y ago
> We, of course, have no reason to assume you have a private definition of lying that classifies statements we would consider true (or half-truth at most) a lie. I am aware that it's my personal definition, but I thought I gave it right away: > We all lie, everytime we open our mouths to say something. Whatever we say it's always biased, subjective, emotional (to varying degrees, ofc) Sorry if that was not clear. Also, I think I have to admit the obvious: "Lying is good" was of course meant to be something akin to "linkbait", something which can kickstart discussion. Which it did, so I'm happy it worked. (Before proceeding, please note that English is not my first language! It's hard to discuss these concepts even in my native language.) Your "morality example" is almost exactly what I wrote a couple years ago in some essay :) But it's not really the same argument, the problem is that the "good" and the "bad" are indeed fuzzy, they mix, they're on the continuum, it makes perfect sense to say that something was more than 50% good and therefore it was good overall. This is not the case when talking about truth. If a sentence is half-and-then-some true and half untrue (@davidhollander, I'll try to avoid the term 'lie' outside of it's original meaning:)) we cannot say that the sentence as a whole is true. It is not 100% untrue, but it cannot be said to be the truth just because of that. At least I think so, am I wrong on this? If I'm right, then "telling the truth, only the truth and nothing but the truth" is impossible, which some of the commenters seem to agree with. And this is where it gets interesting, because I want to tell the truth! Or at least I'd like to transfer the truth I think I know to someone else's head, which is even more of an impossibility. I have basically two choices here: either struggle to maximize the amount of true (like in 100% true) statements in what I say, but this a) still won't make what I'm saying the truth, b) could be counterproductive, because while struggling to tell the truth I'll fail to actually communicate. The second option I see is to lie. Given some knowledge about a person I'm trying to communicate with and some imagination I can craft a lie, that will communicate the truth I know to this person to the greater extent, than the previous option would. Moreover, I think that both options are really similar, in that they are not truth anyway and there is the same intent behind them. So, when I say "lying is good" I mean that often a lie, deliberate untruth, comes closer to the truth than something you struggle to make as true as you can. And this is a response I wanted to give to the person who "doesn't understand lying". In the face of inability to express truth directly lying can be the most effective way of communicating as much truth as possible. I hope that this time I expressed myself clearly, at least as much as possible :)

by jd 14y ago

klibertp 14y ago

> We, of course, have no reason to assume you have a private definition of lying that classifies statements we would consider true (or half-truth at most) a lie. I am aware that it's my personal definition, but I thought I gave it right away: > We all lie, everytime we open our mouths to say something. Whatever we say it's always biased, subjective, emotional (to varying degrees, ofc) Sorry if that was not clear. Also, I think I have to admit the obvious: "Lying is good" was of course meant to be something akin to "linkbait", something which can kickstart discussion. Which it did, so I'm happy it worked. (Before proceeding, please note that English is not my first language! It's hard to discuss these concepts even in my native language.) Your "morality example" is almost exactly what I wrote a couple years ago in some essay :) But it's not really the same argument, the problem is that the "good" and the "bad" are indeed fuzzy, they mix, they're on the continuum, it makes perfect sense to say that something was more than 50% good and therefore it was good overall. This is not the case when talking about truth. If a sentence is half-and-then-some true and half untrue (@davidhollander, I'll try to avoid the term 'lie' outside of it's original meaning:)) we cannot say that the sentence as a whole is true. It is not 100% untrue, but it cannot be said to be the truth just because of that. At least I think so, am I wrong on this? If I'm right, then "telling the truth, only the truth and nothing but the truth" is impossible, which some of the commenters seem to agree with. And this is where it gets interesting, because I want to tell the truth! Or at least I'd like to transfer the truth I think I know to someone else's head, which is even more of an impossibility. I have basically two choices here: either struggle to maximize the amount of true (like in 100% true) statements in what I say, but this a) still won't make what I'm saying the truth, b) could be counterproductive, because while struggling to tell the truth I'll fail to actually communicate. The second option I see is to lie. Given some knowledge about a person I'm trying to communicate with and some imagination I can craft a lie, that will communicate the truth I know to this person to the greater extent, than the previous option would. Moreover, I think that both options are really similar, in that they are not truth anyway and there is the same intent behind them. So, when I say "lying is good" I mean that often a lie, deliberate untruth, comes closer to the truth than something you struggle to make as true as you can. And this is a response I wanted to give to the person who "doesn't understand lying". In the face of inability to express truth directly lying can be the most effective way of communicating as much truth as possible. I hope that this time I expressed myself clearly, at least as much as possible :)