Subject:
|
Re: Customs question...
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 14 Nov 2001 04:13:28 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
906 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Eaton writes:
> > But you would probably argue that you are *moral*, while dishonest, or at
> > least "not immoral", I'm guessing? Or at least that you would argue that one
> > could *be* dishonest (by marking "gift") and yet still be moral, even though
> > maybe you're not in this case?
>
> No, I would argue that it is *not* dishonest to lie to someone or something
> that has first lied to me. Which is why I put "honest" in quotes because the
> definition of honesty that would require me to sacrifice myself at the whim
> of a government in answering a question that is none of their business, is
> not one I accept.
So it's only being honest when the other person hasn't lied to you? What if
you don't *know* that they've lied to you? Or that you don't know that they
*haven't* lied to you? Nah, I completely disagree. If someone's been
dishonest to you and you lie right back in their face, you're equally
dishonest. Just because they were dishonest to you doesn't absolve you of
the ability to be dishonest.
To put it another way, let's suppose I lie to you. Are you now incapable of
being dishonest back to me? What if you started it? How long does the
initial dishonesty block out further dishonesty in the opposite direction?
It just doesn't seem to work for me.
Although, I would still say that because they've lied to you, they no longer
have a "right" to being told the truth-- at least to the same degree.
Basically, from a moral perspective (the justice side of morality, not the
charity side), you can be dishonest to them and be none the less immoral.
But I still would say that it's being dishonest. They've just earned that
dishonesty from you.
Personally, I think you're trying to combine the moral side and the action
side. I think you want to get away with still calling yourself "honest" when
being treated dishonestly, while lying to those who are dishonest to you. Or
at least you don't want to be deemed "dishonest", not to be confused with
"immoral". You're associating the two necessarily, when there isn't a
necessary association. At least, such is my guess.
DaveE
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Customs question...
|
| (...) I think the problem here is the definition of "honest". It doesn't only cover truth (and lies). Check out the dictionary.com definition: hon·est (adj). 1. Marked by or displaying integrity; upright: an honest lawyer. 2. Not deceptive or (...) (23 years ago, 14-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Customs question...
|
| (...) No, I would argue that it is *not* dishonest to lie to someone or something that has first lied to me. Which is why I put "honest" in quotes because the definition of honesty that would require me to sacrifice myself at the whim of a (...) (23 years ago, 13-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
64 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
