BlackProteus (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)

deinse81 - Lying about the puppy forces me to misperceive reality to your advantage ... even if your advantage is frivolous and pathological. It is therefore wrong. But if your end is to somehow save a factory full of Jews from Nazi genocide, then it justifies the lie. Why are we arguing this? And what is your point, really, about ends and means? Somehow this has a bearing on whether or not the current economic troubles are due to market deregulation?

deinse81 (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)

And just to end a conversation I'm getting tired of, here's why lying is fine in your Nazi example: When Hitler came to power in Germany, and first started attacking Jews,then everyone else, every person in that country had a decision to make: they could either support him, or do the moral thing and oppose him. As a result, from that point on moral, anti-Nazi Germans were at war, and could do anything to any Nazi they saw, including kill them, and such an act would've been perfectly moral.

deinse81 (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)

It's irrelevant what objectivists believe. The point is that someone claiming to be qualified to pass judgement over an entire philosophy should've been able to understand what lying is and what it isn't: Let's say I lie to you about having a puppy here in the room with me. What power does that give me over you, and what does that force you to do against your will, if your idea that lying is coersion is true?

BlackProteus (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)

deinse81 - This is not such a controversial point, I didn't think, even for Objectivists. And we are far away from the issues, but I'll play along. Lying is, as I wrote, an expression of power over someone by misleading them. It is an intellectual form of force or coercion. Just like physical violence, it is generally wrong and immoral. However, one's purpose -- or end -- can make it ethical. For example, self-defense.

deinse81 (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)

Allright, now we're getting somewhere: we established that lying means misleading someone. However, you declared a moral principle: "Lying is wrong." Now it's your turn to prove this principle, derive it from some fundamental truth, or at least another, higher principle. So far all you have offered is that it's generally accepted: well guess what, so was slavery at one time: that doesn't make it right. Why is the principle "Lying is wrong." true?

BlackProteus (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)

deinse81 - I have already explained it. The example of a game is different because both sides, by virtue of playing a game, already know that they will be withholding information from each other. They have, on equal ground, agreed to do that at the outset. Same with fiction, etc. Lying, on the other hand, is when there is no such agreement, and you are not just withholding, but misleading.

deinse81 (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)

If lying meant "depriving of correct information to one's advantage", we would constantly be lying. Are you suggesting that Bill Belichick (head coach, Patriots) is a liar, because he doesn't brief the opposition before every game, even though they clearly need the correct information on what tactics he will use? So let's start at the beginning: What is lying, and why is it wrong? I feel like we're learning something other than Latin terms here:).

BlackProteus (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)

deinse81 - I really have to explain to you why lying is generally wrong? That's surprising. Well, lying is wrong because it is an expression of power over someone else, by depriving them of correct information to your advantage. That is a kind of abuse. The Latin and Greek I'm using can be found in your standard English dictionary, I assure you. These terms are part of the English language, which is a syncretic tongue. And my use of them has meaning. Don't be so proud: look them up.

deinse81 (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)

Well, since you can't even answer a simple question: "Why is lying wrong?", I don't see what I could possibly get out of talking to you, so go spew unrelated Latin and Greek terms and other nonsense some place else. By the way, lying isn't abuse, so how did you start with "lying to A" and arrived at "abuse A in any way you want"?

BlackProteus (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)

deinse81 - Lying is an abstract concept, and we generally consider it wrong. However, I am saying it is situationally right or wrong -- based on the end result, or telos. You are -- perhaps because of Rand's ad hominem-based, fallacious ideology -- using the men involved in the example as the measure. By your logic, the maliciousness of Nazis makes any abuse of them ipso facto ethical. That's faulty logic.