Comments on: The Virtues: Be Truthful http://www.daylightatheism.org/2007/02/be-truthful.html NIGHTTIME IS FOR DREAMING. DAYLIGHT IS FOR ACTION. Tue, 6 Jan 2009 22:33:38 +0000 By: chronomitch http://www.daylightatheism.org/2007/02/be-truthful.html#comment-15443 chronomitch Sat, 17 Feb 2007 16:13:33 +0000 http://www.daylightatheism.org/2007/02/be-truthful.html#comment-15443 Ebonmuse: I am glad that you stressed the point of being truthful to oneself, for that seems to be far more difficult than being truthful to others and is often overlooked by society as well as by the religious, despite the Ten Commandments (Thou shalt not lie). Ebonmuse:

I am glad that you stressed the point of being truthful to oneself, for that seems to be far more difficult than being truthful to others and is often overlooked by society as well as by the religious, despite the Ten Commandments (Thou shalt not lie).

]]> By: Matt R http://www.daylightatheism.org/2007/02/be-truthful.html#comment-15441 Matt R Sat, 17 Feb 2007 16:07:12 +0000 http://www.daylightatheism.org/2007/02/be-truthful.html#comment-15441 Alex Weaver, I know of Ayn Rand's answer to Relativism. Are there any other atheist systems of thought which attempt to provide an objective answer to morality? Thank you, M.R. Alex Weaver,

I know of Ayn Rand's answer to Relativism. Are there any other atheist systems of thought which attempt to provide an objective answer to morality?

Thank you,

M.R.

]]> By: Matt R http://www.daylightatheism.org/2007/02/be-truthful.html#comment-15440 Matt R Sat, 17 Feb 2007 16:05:06 +0000 http://www.daylightatheism.org/2007/02/be-truthful.html#comment-15440 Ebonmuse, I swear that one of us is mistaken regarding who he is. Either you are not an atheist, or I am not a theist, because we think in such similar ways. I have said it before in the Internet Infidels' Discussion forum that it seems that I think more like an atheist than a theist. In any case, I could not possibly agree more with you. Things must be objective. We must not go about asserting that things are "so" because "I say so". Empirical evidence must be present within our system of truth to justify our assertions. To the rational person "just believing" is the unforgivable sin. I think that God is not happy that people "just believe" when there are so many reasons to believe. In any case, I do have one question for you. You say that sometimes truthfulness is evil. This makes truth a relative, as opposed to absolute, virtue. I find relativism unconvincing in the areas of morality and virtue, therefore this presents a problem for me. If truthfulness can sometimes be morally wrong then either truthfulness is not an absolute virtue or the measure of morality is not absolute or is flawed in some way. In essence, if truth is relative, how can it be a virtue in any meaningful way that shapes the behavior of a person? Cheers, M.R. Ebonmuse,

I swear that one of us is mistaken regarding who he is. Either you are not an atheist, or I am not a theist, because we think in such similar ways. I have said it before in the Internet Infidels' Discussion forum that it seems that I think more like an atheist than a theist.

In any case, I could not possibly agree more with you. Things must be objective. We must not go about asserting that things are "so" because "I say so". Empirical evidence must be present within our system of truth to justify our assertions. To the rational person "just believing" is the unforgivable sin. I think that God is not happy that people "just believe" when there are so many reasons to believe.

In any case, I do have one question for you. You say that sometimes truthfulness is evil. This makes truth a relative, as opposed to absolute, virtue. I find relativism unconvincing in the areas of morality and virtue, therefore this presents a problem for me. If truthfulness can sometimes be morally wrong then either truthfulness is not an absolute virtue or the measure of morality is not absolute or is flawed in some way. In essence, if truth is relative, how can it be a virtue in any meaningful way that shapes the behavior of a person?

Cheers,

M.R.

]]> By: Nicogo http://www.daylightatheism.org/2007/02/be-truthful.html#comment-15151 Nicogo Fri, 16 Feb 2007 14:52:00 +0000 http://www.daylightatheism.org/2007/02/be-truthful.html#comment-15151 Atheist Ethicist just wrote a closely related <a href="http://atheistethicist.blogspot.com/2007/02/sophistry-engineering-false-beliefs.html" rel="nofollow">post</a> on "sophistry," or "engineering false beliefs." Atheist Ethicist just wrote a closely related post on "sophistry," or "engineering false beliefs."

]]> By: James Bradbury http://www.daylightatheism.org/2007/02/be-truthful.html#comment-15139 James Bradbury Fri, 16 Feb 2007 13:45:08 +0000 http://www.daylightatheism.org/2007/02/be-truthful.html#comment-15139 Alex, Surely the "greatest good for the greatest number" or "minimising suffering" would trump this rule in some cases? If you tell a psychopathic gun-fanatic that X is sleeping with his missus, you're being truthful but not compassionate. Alex,

Surely the "greatest good for the greatest number" or "minimising suffering" would trump this rule in some cases?

If you tell a psychopathic gun-fanatic that X is sleeping with his missus, you're being truthful but not compassionate.

]]> By: Alex Weaver http://www.daylightatheism.org/2007/02/be-truthful.html#comment-15132 Alex Weaver Fri, 16 Feb 2007 12:51:06 +0000 http://www.daylightatheism.org/2007/02/be-truthful.html#comment-15132 This is kind of my point: how do we distinguish between what a person *wants* to know, and what a person actually has a good reason to know? I'm thinking specifically of things people may wish to know for purposes such as quasi-voyeurism, schadenfraude, or control-freak-ism, but which have no tangible effect on their lives and therefore are arguably, in a meaningful sense, none of their business. How does Adam suggest we deal with these issues? This is kind of my point: how do we distinguish between what a person *wants* to know, and what a person actually has a good reason to know? I'm thinking specifically of things people may wish to know for purposes such as quasi-voyeurism, schadenfraude, or control-freak-ism, but which have no tangible effect on their lives and therefore are arguably, in a meaningful sense, none of their business. How does Adam suggest we deal with these issues?

]]> By: valhar2000 http://www.daylightatheism.org/2007/02/be-truthful.html#comment-15118 valhar2000 Fri, 16 Feb 2007 11:39:08 +0000 http://www.daylightatheism.org/2007/02/be-truthful.html#comment-15118 I don't think there can be any definition of that better than "What they may have an interest in knowing". You would have to come up with a statistical model that woudl allow you to assign to any given notion a probability that a particular person may be interested in it at a particular time. Or, you would have to "get to know them". Alternatively, you can tell them whatever would be of interest to you if you were in a situation similar to theirs, and hope that there will be sufficient correspondence between the two to make your advice worthwhile. I don't think there can be any definition of that better than "What they may have an interest in knowing".

You would have to come up with a statistical model that woudl allow you to assign to any given notion a probability that a particular person may be interested in it at a particular time. Or, you would have to "get to know them".

Alternatively, you can tell them whatever would be of interest to you if you were in a situation similar to theirs, and hope that there will be sufficient correspondence between the two to make your advice worthwhile.

]]> By: Alex Weaver http://www.daylightatheism.org/2007/02/be-truthful.html#comment-15049 Alex Weaver Fri, 16 Feb 2007 03:53:00 +0000 http://www.daylightatheism.org/2007/02/be-truthful.html#comment-15049 Oh, another question: how do we define what a person does or does not have a reasonable interest in knowing? Oh, another question: how do we define what a person does or does not have a reasonable interest in knowing?

]]> By: Alex Weaver http://www.daylightatheism.org/2007/02/be-truthful.html#comment-15048 Alex Weaver Fri, 16 Feb 2007 03:44:06 +0000 http://www.daylightatheism.org/2007/02/be-truthful.html#comment-15048 I recall observing at one point that Postmodernism is at its core the application of the fallacious premises of Moral Relativism to empirical truth. Would you say that's more or less accurate? I recall observing at one point that Postmodernism is at its core the application of the fallacious premises of Moral Relativism to empirical truth. Would you say that's more or less accurate?

]]>