Is it morally wrong to Fake your own Death?
- Thread starter Nazaroo
- Start date
Do you think that lying or fabrication is permissible when it doesn't protect people?
How about when it occassions no substantial harm, but provides greatly for my own amusement?
What if it occassions no grave harm, except for the slight inconvenience of my enemies and, in addition, great amusement to myself?
How about to prisoners for the sake of punishing them? "Oh, yeah, you'll be released in a week." A week passes: "Oh, yeah, sorry, your release got delayed. Next week. I promise."
How about lying under oath in order to protect an innocent person from being convicted?
Arthur Brain
Well-known member
Okay, fair enough. Say it's a parent protecting their children. Or say it's a person just protecting a bunch of complete strangers from a lunatic. If someone lies or fabricates in order to quell violence then there isn't anything immoral about it in itself.
It would be measured in itself, or not. Other circumstances leaves too many other possibilities. Think like a scientist, you see what I mean?
Arthur Brain
Well-known member
Like friends banter? Sure, nothing wrong with it.
What 'enemies' exactly and if your emphasis is purely on your own amusement then you should look to that as to why it's so important.
Er, no. Seems to be another case of you imagining something for your own amusement again.
Sure, if you happened to know they were innocent, although I'm not sure how telling the truth on the matter would convict such...
Something tells me you'll be happy enough to invent an elaborate scenario to take that into effect however...
lain:
This may be true; however, let us suppose that the actor is believes he is protecting others, yet isn't. Now let's go further, say he believes he is protecting others, yet in fact, is delusional, perhaps paranoid, yet his acts are harmless to all others. Is it therefore moral, or may he acting on an immoral assumption, or may is be neither moral or immoral?
Arthur Brain
Well-known member
Arthur Brain
Well-known member
Hmm, if they believe themselves to be protecting others through their delusion then I can't see how it could be classed as immoral. For morality to enter the equation the person would have to be lucid IMO.
Arthur Brain
Well-known member
Possibly, as I think the person would need to know exactly what they were doing and not under any delusion of some sort.
:think: Two of these things are not like the other ......................
There is no such thing as well intentions in regards to rapists and serial killers. Neither of these acts could be used to protect of defend.
Well so many of us are privy to minor delusions, For example: Take as a given, 'suicide is wrong'; this is the moral imperative we are working with, not that we must all agree, yet we take it on premise. Then we have an example the case: an old person, over 80 years old has cancer, wants to die, save the family fortune, save taxpayer expense, escape suffering; the person believes the task of life is too defeating and unnecessary, so the life is taken by hand. Now is this moral, given the premise?
What if the premise is 'suicide is only immoral when one forgoes meaningful life'? Then we must ask what is meant by a meaningful life? To say all 'suicide is immoral' is complete, as well 'suicide is not a moral issue' and one must choose by what measure? I would say by knowing. What is this knowing? It is to know without external sources, by what is true, in one's heart, speaks though the soul, speaks true to all of us.
With some things, there will always be exceptions to the rule. Most of the suicides we hear about have to do with individuals who just give up because they are too selfish to think of how their actions will affect their loved ones.
Kurt Cobain comes to mind.
Arthur Brain
Well-known member
I suppose all of us are on any given day. With suicide I think it can be a tough call, at least on the euthanasia side of the debate. I can completely understand why a terminally ill patient may wish to end their life before their illness does, or why someone losing their faculties would wish to do the same. I think the debate surrounding the morality of that will continue for some time but it's hardly black and white IMO.
genuineoriginal
New member
The Bible does not say you should not lie, but it does say you should not commit perjury.
The Pharisees made a lot of claims about the difference between what they did and breaking the commandments, but Jesus condemned them anyway.
Arthur Brain
Well-known member
As a spin off:
Is it morally wrong to make crap threads about people who have obviously died?
Is it morally wrong to make crap threads about people who have obviously died?
Nazaroo
New member
However, in this modern hyper-PC climate,
rumor-mongering, which is indeed condemned as a sin,
can lead to false accusations and convictions and ruin people's lives.
The Biblical law in that regard is to punish those responsible
with the punishment they intended for their victims.
If we DON'T extend that to include people operating behind the scenes
to cause mischief and misery, we miss the real intent of that ancient law.
Similarly, by not upholding the Law of Two Witnesses,
we make it easier for false and unlawful convictions,
for which lawmakers, politicians, and governments must be held accountable.
Another reason not to let liars off quite so lightly,
nor to imply that lying is not a sin.
Yeah, that's fairly disgusting, isn't it?
Opinion noted. I'll return to this later.
Does it matter? It could be anyone. Let us suppose that my neighbor is a constant thorn in my side and constantly gets on my nerves, perhaps even intentionally, on occasion. If I can lie to him and make some minor inconvenience for him, in the process greatly contributing to my own amusement, why shouldn't I?
Why shouldn't I tell him, e.g., that there is a half-off sale on steaks at the local grocery store in full knowledge that, if he believed me, he would rush straightaway to said grocery store in order to buy some? I could even lie again to cover my tracks: "Oh dear me, I was misinformed. It was a different store in a different town. I'm terribly sorry."
Meanwhile, I could be laughing my head off in utter delight.
Why not? If criminals can be imprisoned, subjected to physical torments and even killed, why can't we lie to them?
You think it's OK to commit perjury in that case?
Ultimately, AB, this is what it comes down to. You have three, and precisely three, choices:
1. Lying is always wrong.
2. Lying is never wrong.
3. Lying is sometimes wrong and sometimes not wrong.
You've committed yourself to 3. I'll ask you: "what makes it wrong in one case, but not wrong in another?"
Let us return to the intruders case. Let it be granted that I can lie to the intruders about the whereabouts of the children. Can I lie to them about unrelated things which would neither help nor hinder my safety and the safety of my relatives? For example, can I lie to them about the meat being on sale for half off at the local grocery store? Can I lie to them about the contents of a news story I read earlier in the day?
Granted that I can lie to them about such things, can I lie to other people about the same things? A random passerby has no right to know what is in my pocket. Can I lie to them about this? "I have 2 pens in my pocket" (in fact, there are no pens in my pocket).
What makes it OK to lie in one case, but not the other?
You'll be forced into the following conclusion, I think, if I press you hard enough:
Either:
1. Lying is always wrong.
2. Lying is almost never wrong.
3. Lying is never wrong.