Have you actually read it, or are you just trying to write a tongue twister as a joke?
Do you think lying is a joke?
–
2 minutes later:
It’s no wonder some people don’t understand the moral value of not lying.
They might never find out, especially if they lie.
I get attacked with lies all the time for over 35 years, even in courts.
So much so they want me to go to an international military law school for it.
Im sorry, but this sounded so much like what I would expect to find in a Terry Pratchett novel.
1 Like
Yeah, yeah, yeah…
So… have you read it or not?
You know, that’s funny, I read what I write when I write it usually.
For instance,
even if the system switches my words from
what I write
to
that I write…
My reading skill can detect it, and it can also find out how it happened.
I also read patents and other intellectual property related to it and systems related too as well.
The meaning is changed, for instance, if it was not good for me,
I also have ways to read it and integrate it so that I can use it to protect my family from damage related and so on.
I also analyze the risk and design ways to prevent intended potentially prolonged damage from it for life or in subsequent generations.
Not all misleading is good, and, if some misleading were meant to be done against me, I might have a duty to God to report it to the proper authorities.
Maybe how I read it would be more accurate and less misleading than,
… “have I read it or not?”.
I also included what I do with my readings and copyright I register related to them, and how the copyright office misleads my work as to be misrepresented as not including programs when it’s also about programs.
It seems it’s less diverting from the fact(s) and more intended to prevent losses and forfeiture from other facts and so on.
Maybe even detect how it would be sought and if it were and so on.
–
16 minutes later:
I also read trade secrets and ,
how my work is sometimes made to look weird and which goals are intended from those systems and entities who try to implement this propaganda against my work, and how they seek to forfeit my intellectual property against my rights to credit themselves and how they try to credit themselves while trying to justify to discredit me, and I report them to the Pentagon Chaplain’s office for attacks against moral rights of others and for misrepresentation of facts against morality and what is just and fair and honest and good for mankind.
Have you read it?
I’m sure I don’t and won’t lie for Philanthropic Concerns or try to justify lying for Philanthropic Concerns, or try to get a right or a Supposed Right for lying for Philanthropic Concerns either.
Yes, we call them liars.
It simply means they don’t tell truth and lose contact with the truth of reality.
It means that their mental state is such that they lose contact with reality and try to justify to lie to scramble from losses of being out of contact with reality in lies.
It also means that liars are not in contact with reality to the extent they lie, both logically, and spiritually.
What about you?
What kind of morals your moral levels of mental health, offered you as far as contact with reality goes, or were you mislead into lies and justification of those lies?
It might be just lower than military grade mental health.
Maybe not quite meet the test of truth for logic and spirit.
–
1 hour later:
One more thing.
If mental health is a myth, and the reality is that everyone is crazy,
some more than others, then,
how does the reality of the myth which is not real, since it’s only a myth,
relates to the reality of the fact that everyone is crazy,
and not how much they are crazy,
but how does the myth is out of contact with reality ?
Once more, have you read Kant’s Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals?
I read the title(s) and I had the time to write about it too.
[(on a Supposed Right to Lie because of Philanthropic Concerns) .]
So you haven’t actually read the book? You just read the title in my post? You responses lead me to think that you haven’t actually read the book.
No, I don’t have the book, so I could not read it.
(…Not couldn’t not read it, thanks to double negative, false negative, system error.)
What you’ve written gives the impression that you think the book is about justifying lying. It’s not.
One of Kant’s main principles is the categorical imperative. The simple version is that an action is either universally good or bad. So, lying is never ok. Since it’s wrong for others to lie, it’s also wrong for me to lie. Either it’s ok for everyone, or ok for no one.
He was asked if it was wrong to lie to a murderer at your door looking for your friend to kill. This essay was his response. Most of the book is about duty, a “good will”, and the categorical imperative.
…
Ah , but that depends on the prosecution, the judge, and the lawyer, as well as the system, and the society too.
Not all good for one army is not damaging to the other, because they also have the same interest to attack the other, both of which are for self-defense.
1 Like
Yep. An excellent moral philosophy, in my opinion.
It may be better than nothing, but, I presume some morals may be higher.
When it comes to moral philosophy, I’ll take Kant’s intent based philosophy over the results based philosophy of the consequentialists(utilitarians) any day.
Yes, but morals are not only about philosophy.
There are moral rights for copyright related to intellectual rights and intellectual property rights, moral reasons for business, and more moral systems existing, most of which are not used by most, even though most are related to them.
You may also notice that is also not the 20-80 rule, that 20 percent of those who pay pay for 80 of the system, and that 80 percent of those who pay, pay for 20 percent for the system.
That also explains difference in income and assets.
–
5 minutes later:
Yes, from reading more about the
Categorical imperative ,
I found that it suggests concepts to base judgment on,
however, it is not without suggestion and tends to be with risk of errors, and little be done once those errors are in play.
In other words, comparatively, it may be used to achieve goals which are rather not moral and made to be seen as such, if not directly so against morals, to further mask and mislead other people into similar problems they already made others in from the first case and so on.
obligation,
again, the same concept again.
–
–
As for your mention about :
Maybe it’s not so much about lying to a murderer whose morals may not be as good as required to be able to tell him the truth.
Why would you give him information which he would abuse , such as a name, a place, or other, when in fact, the point of the communication with the murderer is not about those info, but about the risk that he poses, and how to mitigate it, so as to arrest him, to be tried, or, stop him from murdering, and so on.
You don’t really have to lie to him, and, you don’t have to lie to him, so that he goes on to murder people.
–
17 minutes later:
If you tried to cause stress and misrepresent the fact as if some kind of obligation under threats of death, the case may even become a military situation, whereas the communication with the immoral killing, which is not a killing in justifiable self-defense, or, defense of allies, is more about life than other truth.
Just because something is true doesn’t mean that it’s true in all context, and that it doesn’t have an integrity ratio, which, when that integrity is attacked, if it doesn’t have ways to detect the level of attacks against that integrity, it will not remain true, so as coercion into loss of contact with reality, such as in military diversion.
–
In other words, how does not telling someone who wants to commit an immoral actions against the moral right of the person he wants to get the moral right to live away from him the location of the prey that he wants to kill illegally, without a license, or justification, not in self-defense, not in defense of allies, and not in national defense, immoral, or, a lie.
Or is a lie which is not a lie being misinterpreted as a lie when it is not immoral and wrongfully so misinterpreted as something immoral, such as a lie, and abusing the sense of duty and morality, when that is also not related, and other facts that his logic does not meet the requirements of, and that government base their money on?
That is ridiculous in fact, and both him the victim and the officials there can be solved for their immoral suggestions…
–
When he states:
“because moral actions do not derive their worth from the expected consequences.”
it is a fallacy,
because he misinterprets the fact that he misleads what morals are and what morals are about,
and tries to imply that morals do not derive their worth from the expected consequences, which is false,
and he also states before that
"not lying to the murderer is required "
which is also false, and that,
he does in fact imply that he could give info to a murdered to kill,
which he tries to immorally misrepresent as not making him liable for,
especially not if he knew,
and,
also and additionally,
especially not if he tried to create false sense of lack of knowledge,
such as by stating that morals should not require the knowledge of the results as being moral,
so as to create an immoral result by misinterpreting the use of other moral duty,
which are in fact not related in the case of misrepresenting moral duty in the case of committing an immoral act, which is therefore an accessory to the fact, if not a principle.
There are so many things wrong and flaws that is not even funny.
You don’t want to have that guy working on your ballistic defense system, that’s for sure.
He wouldn’t last 0.1 second.
–
43 minutes later:
As for :
Consequentialism (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
I don’t know them.
I’m not sure what is meant by result based philosophy, but,
that also is not what it is about.
No, it has to do with the rights and how those rights are being abused and misinterpreted by others with different level of contact with reality.
If science is true, you want to get the knowledge of that truth, so that you can not only stay in contact with reality, but, also, get a better understanding of that reality, and, also, be better organized to put it in practice better.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/consequentialism/#ClaUti
If a judge caused eternal moral wrongdoings to my family and mankind, against God, it would not be moral.
It doesn’t mean I don’t have the moral means to hold him liable for the equal eternity not different than a single iota of the law.
Maybe his decision was based on lies and misleading misrepresentation of the prosecuting attorney and the responsible associated with their administration, and think that I have a right to lie to my family about their abuse, or to anyone else.
Their admin is also immoral.
If a judge caused eternal moral wrongdoings to my family and mankind, against God, it would not be moral.
It doesn’t mean I don’t have the moral means to hold him liable for the equal eternity not different than a single iota of the law.
Maybe his decision was based on lies and misleading misrepresentation of the prosecuting attorney and the responsible associated with their administration, and think that I have a right to lie to my family about their abuse, or to anyone else.
Their admin is also immoral.
Consequentialism = whether an act is morally right depends only on consequences (as opposed to the circumstances or the intrinsic nature of the act or anything that happens before the act).
Actual Consequentialism = whether an act is morally right depends only on the actual consequences (as opposed to foreseen, foreseeable, intended, or likely consequences).
Direct Consequentialism = whether an act is morally right depends only on the consequences of that act itself (as opposed to the consequences of the agent’s motive, of a rule or practice that covers other acts of the same kind, and so on).
Evaluative Consequentialism = moral rightness depends only on the value of the consequences (as opposed to non-evaluative features of the consequences).
Hedonism = the value of the consequences depends only on the pleasures and pains in the consequences (as opposed to other supposed goods, such as freedom, knowledge, life, and so on).
Maximizing Consequentialism = moral rightness depends only on which consequences are best (as opposed to merely satisfactory or an improvement over the status quo).
Aggregative Consequentialism = which consequences are best is some function of the values of parts of those consequences (as opposed to rankings of whole worlds or sets of consequences).
Total Consequentialism = moral rightness depends only on the total net good in the consequences (as opposed to the average net good per person).
Universal Consequentialism = moral rightness depends on the consequences for all people or sentient beings (as opposed to only the individual agent, members of the individual’s society, present people, or any other limited group).
Equal Consideration = in determining moral rightness, benefits to one person matter just as much as similar benefits to any other person (as opposed to putting more weight on the worse or worst off).
Agent-neutrality = whether some consequences are better than others does not depend on whether the consequences are evaluated from the perspective of the agent (as opposed to an observer).
If that’s what you believe, or you think that consequentialism(or utilitarianism) is a valid moral philosophy then I don’t see a point in continuing the conversation.
Why do you write that I think that consequentialism(or utilitarianism) is a valid moral philosophy when I explained you why it isn’t and that I have to write to police and the army because of fraud related to morals?
I don’t see the point you try to converse when it’s not to be .
It’s the same difference I told you.