Skeptic Friends Network

Username:
Password:
Save Password
Forgot your Password?
Home | Forums | Active Topics | Active Polls | Register | FAQ | Contact Us  
  Connect: Chat | SFN Messenger | Buddy List | Members
Personalize: Profile | My Page | Forum Bookmarks  
 All Forums
 Interactive SFN Forums
 Polls, Votes and Surveys
 Name your price
 New Topic  Reply to Topic
 Printer Friendly Bookmark this Topic BookMark Topic
Previous Page | Next Page
Author Previous Topic Topic Next Topic
Page: of 5

Dave W.
Info Junkie

USA
26012 Posts

Posted - 05/29/2008 :  13:59:07   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Dave W.'s Homepage Send Dave W. a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by Simon

In fact; I'd say drunk on power to be Lawful Evil; because you still abide be the rules even if you do so in your own self-interest.
Drunk on power can definitely not be lawful. There's a great "Kids in the Hall" sketch in which a corporate employee is given a slight promotion, to being the office manager for his little cubicle farm. He instantly goes mad with the new-found power. Later, his boss comes back to see him. What follows is from memory:
Boss: Unfortunately, you've abused the small amount of power I gave you.
Manager: I think I've been tough but fair.
Boss: But you shot Wilkinson!
Manager: He wouldn't stay under his desk!
Randomness like that is certainly "chaotic."

- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too.
Go to Top of Page

bngbuck
SFN Addict

USA
2437 Posts

Posted - 05/30/2008 :  01:03:47   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send bngbuck a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Coat of Arms.....

Is it possible to change the meaning of being honest to justify a double standard?
Your question assumes that "being honest" has some sort of absolute meaning. Honesty, like many other subjective terms, is entirely relative to the context of the particular situation. Would it be honest to take the Casino's money if your children were starving? Technically no, but it certainly would be justified, and very few people would put the welfare or even lives of their children below "honesty" in a situation such as this. Feeding your hungry children would be a much higher ethical act than giving the money to a city who had no more claim to it than you did!

There is not only a double standard, there are multiple standards for honesty, dependent on the specific situation requiring an evaluation of the concept.

If you had taken the drug money you mentioned in another post and saved a young person's life with it by providing needed medical care, (just as one of innumerable examples), the money would have been far better used and a higher good would have been served!
Should a Casino be treated with the same morals and principles as other groups or individuals?
Of course not! Taking money from a Casino because one of their one-armed bandits is malfunctioning is an entirely different ethical issue than stealing grocery money from a stone-poor ditchdigger's family of eight! Taking the slot machine money and giving it to the poor family would be the highest ethical act!
Is it possible to change the meaning of being honest to justify a double standard?
It is not only possible, it is done a million times a day in a million different ways all over the world - mostly to the benefit of mankind. I doubt that society could function if this was not true!
Or is it, cognitive dissonance, a conflict resulting from inconsistency between one's beliefs and one's actions
Only if one's beliefs are foolish enough to hold "honesty" as some sort of God-Given Absolute!
Is it possible for a person to justify the contradiction between the two opposing beliefs.
There is no need for contradiction if you do not create one!
Or is it an attempt to change a standard of belief by pretending to have qualities or beliefs that you do not really have.
Why not simply establish a flexible, workable belief system to begin with, and avoid all these moral dilemmas?



Go to Top of Page

Coat Of Arms
Skeptic Friend

USA
58 Posts

Posted - 05/30/2008 :  17:10:48   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send Coat Of Arms a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by bngbuck

Coat of Arms.....

Is it possible to change the meaning of being honest to justify a double standard?


Your question assumes that "being honest" has some sort of absolute meaning. Honesty, like many other subjective terms, is entirely relative to the context of the particular situation
.

You are either honest or dishonest; I believe it does have an absolute meaning. Being subjective is an emotional experience, not based on fact.
The more dishonest someone is, the less likely they are to understand honesty and to characterize their behavior as wrong. Honesty requires an unbiased approach to the truth. SOME people do not want to be accountable for their actions. If there are no absolute standards, no absolute truth and all things are relative, . Stealing is just as right as not stealing.

Would it be honest to take the Casino's money if your children were starving? Technically no, but it certainly would be justified, and very few people would put the welfare or even lives of their children below "honesty" in a situation such as this. Feeding your hungry children would be a much higher ethical act than giving the money to a city who had no more claim to it than you did
!

There is not only a double standard, there are multiple standards for honesty, dependent on the specific situation requiring an evaluation of the concept.

A double standard is a set of principles permitting greater opportunity or liberty to one than to another,I believe you are creating a double standard to a favorable or acceptable double standard.


If you had taken the drug money you mentioned in another post and saved a young person's life with it by providing needed medical care, (just as one of innumerable examples), the money would have been far better used and a higher good would have been served
!

Taking the drug dealers money for personal justifications. Doesn't absolve me from my responsibility. acting above the law is abuse of power . Using illegal money for a legitimate purpose makes me a hypocrite and a thief trying does justify my actions for all the wrong reasons.
I think you might be attaching emotions to beliefs TO JUSTIFY actions which can't be justified based on what a person thinks is right. It takes far less effort for a person to consider a belief and accept it than to consider a belief and rate its chances of being correct.


Should a Casino be treated with the same morals and principles as other groups or individuals?
Of course not! Taking money from a Casino because one of their one-armed bandits is malfunctioning is an entirely different ethical issue than stealing grocery money from a stone-poor ditchdigger's family of eight! Taking the slot machine money and giving it to the poor family would be the highest ethical act!

It's implying a double standard is to be used for personal gain. . Stealing from a Casino or a grocery clerk still constitutes the crime of larceny.

Is it possible to change the meaning of being honest to justify a double standard?
It is not onl

Paul C.
Go to Top of Page

bngbuck
SFN Addict

USA
2437 Posts

Posted - 05/31/2008 :  11:14:18   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send bngbuck a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Coat of Arms.....

You state:
You are either honest or dishonest; I believe it does have an absolute meaning.
What is the tested evidence that demonstrates that the quality of "honesty" is an absolute, demonstrable thought, belief, and behavior quality that exists in the thought, beliefs and behavior of all human beings - in other words is a "fact", that can be repeatedly tested and shown to predictably exist and govern certain ideation and actions of all humans?

Can you describe the exact experimental process that can be used to confirm the existence of the phenomenological concept "honesty" as a repeatedly demonstrable fact that does, in fact, exist?
Go to Top of Page

bngbuck
SFN Addict

USA
2437 Posts

Posted - 05/31/2008 :  11:29:09   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send bngbuck a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Coat of Arms......

Being honest is telling the truth. Stating facts, giving opinions and views as best one truly believes them to be
This statement assumes completely that "the truth" is absolute. As regards testable facts, this is valid. But with respect to that which is opinion or "views as best one truly believes them to be", is wildly subject to variance of interpretation, bias, distortion, and all that affects opinion as differentiated from fact.

Fact can be scientifically demonstrated by carefully proscribed methodology, and remains exactly the same every time it is properly tested. Opinion is guesswork, until tested as above.
Go to Top of Page

Dave W.
Info Junkie

USA
26012 Posts

Posted - 05/31/2008 :  12:20:23   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Dave W.'s Homepage Send Dave W. a Private Message  Reply with Quote
The smallest particle of matter was once the atom. Then, it was electrons, protons and neutrons. Then, a whole slew of even smaller particles were discovered.

Facts change as our ability to measure reailty improves. To come at the same idea a different way, what "properly tested" means changes over time.

To make matter worse, we have to assume that reality isn't changing as we speak. If it is, we can't do science. Assuming it isn't, then reality is the only truth that there is. What we learn through science is simply an approximation of reality, and our science gets modified when our interpretations and biases (and all that) change due, perhaps ironically, to us doing science.

- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too.
Go to Top of Page

bngbuck
SFN Addict

USA
2437 Posts

Posted - 05/31/2008 :  22:37:50   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send bngbuck a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Dave....

To come at the same idea a different way, what "properly tested" means changes over time.
There are those who would "come at" many ideas by the way of God. Not I! Of course reality changes as we learn, and there is nothing yet discovered that has even hinted that there even is such a thing as an immutable reality!

But we must deal with the highest, most-recently-discovered version of reality that we can discern, at the moment. This is "truth". Of course it will change. Tomorrow. Even tonight! As we speak! But it is all we have right now! And it is not opinion!
Go to Top of Page

Coat Of Arms
Skeptic Friend

USA
58 Posts

Posted - 06/01/2008 :  10:00:02   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send Coat Of Arms a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by bngbuck

Coat of Arms.....

You state:
You are either honest or dishonest; I believe it does have an absolute meaning.
What is the tested evidence that demonstrates that the quality of "honesty" is an absolute, demonstrable thought, belief, and behavior quality that exists in the thought, beliefs and behavior of all human beings - in other words is a "fact", that can be repeatedly tested and shown to predictably exist and govern certain ideation and actions of all humans?

Can you describe the exact experimental process that can be used to confirm the existence of the phenomenological concept "honesty" as a repeatedly demonstrable fact that does, in fact, exist?

It is not a concept. Relative or otherwise. Honesty or lack of it is a basic ingredient in every human being. Its demonstrated and repeated every day by millions of people. Honesty is a character element we choose it, rather than being born with it. By choosing it consistently we raise the moral standard of behavior for ourselves and those we interact with.


Paul C.
Go to Top of Page

Coat Of Arms
Skeptic Friend

USA
58 Posts

Posted - 06/01/2008 :  10:05:30   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send Coat Of Arms a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by bngbuck

Coat of Arms......

Being honest is telling the truth. Stating facts, giving opinions and views as best one truly believes them to be
This statement assumes completely that "the truth" is absolute. As regards testable facts, this is valid. But with respect to that which is opinion or "views as best one truly believes them to be", is wildly subject to variance of interpretation, bias, distortion, and all that affects opinion as differentiated from fact.

Fact can be scientifically demonstrated by carefully proscribed methodology, and remains exactly the same every time it is properly tested. Opinion is guesswork, until tested as above.

Telling the truth is being honest. You are either telling someone what they want to hear or something they don't wish to know. It's a conscious demonstration of consistent answers given when asked for an honest opinion. An honest person tells the truth. Truthful people are honest. Honesty is absolute it, can be placed in its proper class or identified as being what it is, it eliminates deceit.


Paul C.
Go to Top of Page

Kil
Evil Skeptic

USA
13467 Posts

Posted - 06/01/2008 :  10:31:53   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Kil's Homepage  Send Kil an AOL message  Send Kil a Yahoo! Message Send Kil a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by Coat Of Arms
By choosing it consistently we raise the moral standard of behavior for ourselves and those we interact with.

Mostly.

But I have learned, after two marriages and my seven year relationship with Michelle, that if my significant other asks me if she looks fat in a dress, there is usually only one correct answer, and it's not necessarily the honest answer.

If someone, lets say the person behind the counter at a store, asks me how I'm doing as small talk, I doubt that they care enough about me to hear about my sore feet, or my frustrations with my job or what have you.

Absolute honesty is reserved for Vulcan's, and even they lie by omission if it is the most rational course of action to take at the time.


Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.

Why not question something for a change?

Genetic Literacy Project
Go to Top of Page

Dave W.
Info Junkie

USA
26012 Posts

Posted - 06/01/2008 :  12:13:36   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Dave W.'s Homepage Send Dave W. a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by bngbuck

There are those who would "come at" many ideas by the way of God. Not I!
That's relevant how?
Of course reality changes as we learn...
No it doesn't. Our understanding of reality changes. Reality stays as it is.
...and there is nothing yet discovered that has even hinted that there even is such a thing as an immutable reality!
There cannot be any such thing, which is why we have to assume that there is, or forget about doing science.
But we must deal with the highest, most-recently-discovered version of reality that we can discern, at the moment. This is "truth". Of course it will change. Tomorrow. Even tonight! As we speak! But it is all we have right now! And it is not opinion!
You're still coming at the metaphysics backwards.

- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too.
Go to Top of Page

Coat Of Arms
Skeptic Friend

USA
58 Posts

Posted - 06/01/2008 :  15:39:43   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send Coat Of Arms a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by Kil

Originally posted by Coat Of Arms
By choosing it consistently we raise the moral standard of behavior for ourselves and those we interact with.

Mostly.

[quote]But I have learned, after two marriages and my seven year relationship with Michelle, that if my significant other asks me if she looks fat in a dress, there is usually only one correct answer, and it's not necessarily the honest answer.

You are simply stretching your honest opinion to fit the dress. Being to honest can be painful.

Paul C.
Go to Top of Page

Kil
Evil Skeptic

USA
13467 Posts

Posted - 06/01/2008 :  19:54:03   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Kil's Homepage  Send Kil an AOL message  Send Kil a Yahoo! Message Send Kil a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by Coat Of Arms

Originally posted by Kil

Originally posted by Coat Of Arms
By choosing it consistently we raise the moral standard of behavior for ourselves and those we interact with.

Mostly.

[quote]But I have learned, after two marriages and my seven year relationship with Michelle, that if my significant other asks me if she looks fat in a dress, there is usually only one correct answer, and it's not necessarily the honest answer.

You are simply stretching your honest opinion to fit the dress. Being to honest can be painful.
Being too honest can also be illogical. For example, when I was studying for the contractors licensing test I found that some of the information I was going to be tested on was not correct. I don't know if the info hadn't been updated or if it was a mistake. What I did know is that if I answered honestly and correctly, the computer that I took the test on would score my answer as incorrect. In order to not lower my score, I answered some questions incorrectly, even though I knew the correct answer. It would have been illogical for me to answer those questions honestly and correctly.

There are other situations that require something less than total honesty in order to proceed.

Another example is a ticket I received for driving without a seatbelt on. The officer was just plain wrong. It was on when I was pulled over, for a late registration as it turned out, and I detached my seatbelt before he got to the window. I don't know why but I just did. So instead of the reminder to get my registration (it wasn't very late) I got a ticket for driving without a seatbelt. I told him I just took it off but he would have none of that and wrote me up.

Flash forward to my court appearance after forgetting about my assigned appearance date. Duh! (Normally I would have paid the ticket in the allotted time just to get it over with. Another dishonesty, if you think about it.) There were three choices for pleas that I could make. Not guilty, no contest or guilty. Not guilty meant the judge set a trial date and I would have to come back and possibly loose. No contest meant I pay, but admit no guilt. Guilty meant I pay.

I saw how it was going for the people in front of me. Not guilty was not an option because it cost me more to be there than the face value of the fine would have been. And then there was the fine for failing to appear. The no contest pleas people were getting reamed for failing to appear. Especially if the person tried to explain why they weren't really guilty of the original violation. This was an arraignment and the judge did not want to hear the case. However, the folks who plead guilty were paying significantly lower fines. Probably because the judge found it refreshingly honest. Sizing up the situation, I came to the conclusion that I would do best by admitting to something I didn't do. I made the rational choice and plead guilty. Honesty would not have paid that day but pretending to be honest did. I paid the ticket but was not fined for failing to appear. (I told the judge that I simply forgot and had no excuse. That part was honest.)

I value reason over all else. And in some situations, reason trumps honesty. Being painfully honest would have also been painfully stupid in the above situations…

Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.

Why not question something for a change?

Genetic Literacy Project
Go to Top of Page

marfknox
SFN Die Hard

USA
3739 Posts

Posted - 06/01/2008 :  21:09:49   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit marfknox's Homepage  Send marfknox an AOL message Send marfknox a Private Message  Reply with Quote
For me it depends on the product. If the amount of harm the product does and the amount of harm it will do to my reputation is seemingly much less than the amount of good I can do with the amount of money, I'm tempted to take the money. But there is a line where that balance ends; If the product does serious harm to people, I'd say I can't be bought.

"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong

Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com

Go to Top of Page

bngbuck
SFN Addict

USA
2437 Posts

Posted - 06/02/2008 :  19:19:46   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send bngbuck a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Dave.....

Dave said
Facts change as our ability to measure reailty improves. To come at the same idea a different way, what "properly tested" means changes over time.
bng said
There are those who would "come at" many ideas by the way of God. Not I!
Dave said
That's relevant how?
The discussion point is gnosiological - what is the nature of "reality"? There are those, like Bishop Berkeley, that would come at a demonstration of the validity of the very concept of "reality" by the argument that God must exist or there would be no reality. Not the Cartesian cogito ergo sum, but rather Deum cogit, ergo sum!

Neither I, (nor you, I gather,) buys that nonsense, yet there remains a sense that "reality" truly exists as something that is independent of perception. That cannot be demonstrated either logically or empirically. I am not saying that the concept is disproved by lack of a proof (prove a negative?), only that it cannot be proved, as the good Bishop demonstrated.

However, your statement that "reality stays as it is" contradicts your position that "there cannot be an immutable reality". Reality staying as it is is the logically definitive example of an immutable reality.

My position is that there is no reality per se, only what we make reality out to be via our perceptions. As those perceptions change; improve in definition perhaps, or are altered by new developments; reality becomes a quite different thing than it was before the perceptive changes changed it!

Berkeley suggests that this would describe a world in which matter popped in and out of existence depending on whether it was being observed or not. The "tree in the forest" conundrum. Silly as it sounds, it is a difficult epistemological trap to really reason one's way through. I know that, years ago, we spent weeks in an old philosophy class nit-picking the nature of reality. Wrote a term paper on it!
which is why we have to assume that there is, or forget about doing science.
Why? Science will continue to work irrespective of what you may assume or not assume, as long as insightful hypotheses are properly tested. Or GIGO. In either case, assumptions about the nature of reality will not prevent attempts to ever refine it into a more perfected 'understanding' - substitute "perception" - a process called "science"!

I think that "reality" is perception, as highly refined as possible. An extremely useful and productive way to refine perception is by proper application of the Scientific Method and application of Critical Thinking - as highly, and properly, revered in these quarters.

However, there is no rationale that can demonstrate that "reality" - as differentiated from perception - has been cast into stone by application of the SM or CT. Because, as you point out, "reality" constantly changes as more and different information is added to our databases.
BNG said But we must deal with the highest, most-recently-discovered version of reality that we can discern, at the moment. This is "truth". Of course it will change. Tomorrow. Even tonight! As we speak! But it is all we have right now! And it is not opinion!
You're still coming at the metaphysics backwards.
Still? Don't know that I ever did! What's backwards? Opinion should trump experimental evidence? COA feels that "honesty" has an absolute meaning. His, and others, opinion. I, perhaps you, and others have another opinion. But can anyone's opinion on anything scientifically demonstrate such a premise? I think not. Nor can the premise of "reality" be anything but an article of faith.

The perceptions exercised by God, of course, are irrelevant as he does not exist - at least in the sense of a percieving entity. "God is always about in the quad" is a massive religious cop-out substituted for thinking the problem through without inserting superstition!
Edited by - bngbuck on 06/02/2008 19:27:03
Go to Top of Page
Page: of 5 Previous Topic Topic Next Topic  
Previous Page | Next Page
 New Topic  Reply to Topic
 Printer Friendly Bookmark this Topic BookMark Topic
Jump To:

The mission of the Skeptic Friends Network is to promote skepticism, critical thinking, science and logic as the best methods for evaluating all claims of fact, and we invite active participation by our members to create a skeptical community with a wide variety of viewpoints and expertise.


Home | Skeptic Forums | Skeptic Summary | The Kil Report | Creation/Evolution | Rationally Speaking | Skeptillaneous | About Skepticism | Fan Mail | Claims List | Calendar & Events | Skeptic Links | Book Reviews | Gift Shop | SFN on Facebook | Staff | Contact Us

Skeptic Friends Network
© 2008 Skeptic Friends Network Go To Top Of Page
This page was generated in 1.03 seconds.
Powered by @tomic Studio
Snitz Forums 2000