I recall one day when my daughter was in the hospital, she was 2yrs old at the time, and a christian friend of mine told me that she prayed for her. I'm not religious but I appreciated the sentiment, until the friend elaborated - she did not pray that my daughter would get better, she prayed for her to become a christian.
I've heard of people pray for that all the time - that others will adopt their own belief system. I believe it stems from insecurity - it's easier to feel better about one's own religious choices if others join you. I would guess that prayers for others to join one's own belief system outweighs the number of prayers for the welfare of others quite heavily.
Or maybe it's because your friend believed God will help you out if you become a Christian? Or maybe because your friend believes that, if your daughter was to die due to whatever landed her in the hospital, she would go to heaven if she became a Christian before dying?
2) Because it makes sense. People are selfish. People are more likely to pray for what they want, not what others want. And if you're one of those people who think that its bad to pray for your own wants, it's easy to spin that as a selfless prayer by claiming that it is what is best for the other person, when really it is only serving your own interests.
What if the interests of you and the others are the same? Suppose my mom got sick and I prayed for her to get better. Obviously I'm praying partly for selfish reasons- I don't want to deal with the pain of losing my mother. And my mom also prays for herself to get better.
My reasoning is self evident. If someone truly wants to help others, they will get off their butt and do it, not talk or pray about it. And when they do, they will get the sense of satisfaction that comes from helping others. But when people pray, they accomplish nothing for others but they still get some sense of satisfaction as though they helped them. Laziness is rewarded. If you get the same sense of satisfaction from helping others as you do for praying, religious people will often go with the easier option.
And if there are passages that tell them that prayer should not be a substitute for action - who cares? There's passages that promote slavery too - ignoring inconvenient passages is standard behavior.
Sort of like those "raising awareness" things like the ice bucket challenge a while back?
I actually heard some sort of ad on the radio recently, encouraging people to raise awareness by tweeting and doing those challenges and *****. Apparently those will make a positive change to the world.
Sort of like those "raising awareness" things like the ice bucket challenge a while back?
I actually heard some sort of ad on the radio recently, encouraging people to raise awareness by tweeting and doing those challenges and *****. Apparently those will make a positive change to the world.
I was baffled.
Not sure if you're being sarcastic, but the ice bucket challenge increased ALS foundation's donations by a pretty absurd margin. A lot of people just poured water on their heads, but that was still a huge amount of money compared to years prior.
Source (see impact section): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_Bucket_Challenge#Impact
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Proving god exists isn't hard. Proving god is God is the tricky part" - Roommate
Or maybe because your friend believes that, if your daughter was to die due to whatever landed her in the hospital, she would go to heaven if she became a Christian before dying?
Then that person's a dick, because she told the parent of a two-year-old girl in the hospital that she prayed for his child and didn't even pray for the child to NOT DIE.
Sort of like those "raising awareness" things like the ice bucket challenge a while back?
I actually heard some sort of ad on the radio recently, encouraging people to raise awareness by tweeting and doing those challenges and *****. Apparently those will make a positive change to the world.
I was baffled.
As Quirkiness pointed out, the awareness campaign brought a great deal of awareness, publicity, and money to the cause of fighting an overlooked illness.
Not sure if you're being sarcastic, but the ice bucket challenge increased ALS foundation's donations by a pretty absurd margin. A lot of people just poured water on their heads, but that was still a huge amount of money compared to years prior.
Source (see impact section): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_Bucket_Challenge#Impact
Both, actually.
I didn't know it raised that much money; it's quite impressive. I am curious whether people will remember what ALS is this year.
The problem with Heroin is not that it feels good. The problem is that it's addictive and harmful in other ways.
No, that is a false distinction. The reason why heroin causes its characteristic high is the same reason it also has horrific consequences upon the body: the effect of the chemicals that make up heroin upon the human body. That which causes the high also ravages the body. These are not separate.
Likewise, if one is receiving joy from deception, whether it be self-deception or deception from another, then one is being harmed, and is being harmed by the same thing that one receives pleasure.
Right, the biochemical problem with heroin comes from opiod receptors being agonized to a degree the human body wasn't designed to tolerate. In the particular case of heroin, the same biological mechanism is responsible for both the "good" and "bad" effects.
What's the biochemical mechanism for "deceptive joy" being harmful whereas "true joy" is not harmful?
How do you even draw a principled distinction here? For example, you believe in God, right? And you probably get some kind of joy or positive feelings out of "knowing" that God exists. But you can't supply a proof that demonstrates God's existence with 100% certainty, can you? In fact, many strong atheists would go so far as to say that the idea of God is pernicious lie. Is your joy about the existence of God "true joy" or "deceptive joy?" We should be able to test this, right, since one type of joy is helpful and the other is harmful?
The placebo effect is a real effect that has measurable benefits for people. It can actually help people feel better. Who cares if it's "real" or not if it really helps you?
Because it is based upon deception. It is lying to a person that he is taking medicine when he is not.
If the lie has tangible negative consequences, such as preventing a person from taking real medicine that would be more helpful to them, then this is obviously an identifiable harm. On the other hand, if there are no negative consequences to anyone, only positive consequences, how is it bad?
If something makes people feel better and does them no harm, it is a good thing.
Let me ask you this: Even if Scientology demanded no money from its followers, performed no acts of coercion, nor ran its campaign of harrassment, would it not still be harmful?
If we stipulate that Scientology causes no harm to its practitioners (could we even still call it Scientology?), then it's not harmful.
How do you even draw a principled distinction here?
One is true and the other is false.
For example, you believe in God, right? And you probably get some kind of joy or positive feelings out of "knowing" that God exists.
Why is know in quotes?
But you can't supply a proof that demonstrates God's existence with 100% certainty, can you?
I can't supply a proof that demonstrates anything's existence with 100% certainty. At least I don't think I can.
That's not me being ironic either, I legitimately don't know anything about epistemology.
In fact, many strong atheists would go so far as to say that the idea of God is pernicious lie.
If God didn't exist, their position would be correct.
That's what I've been saying. If there is no God, prayer to God is useless and has no value. The value of prayer to God is in there being a God to answer it.
Is your joy about the existence of God "true joy" or "deceptive joy?" We should be able to test this, right, since one type of joy is helpful and the other is harmful?
Well you're welcome to prove God's nonexistence. Somehow I doubt you'll make much headway with that.
If we stipulate that Scientology causes no harm to its practitioners (could we even still call it Scientology?), then it's not harmful.
No, that's not what I said.
Let me phrase this another way: Why do you believe Scientology is harmful?
How do you even draw a principled distinction here?
One is true and the other is false.
For example, you believe in God, right? And you probably get some kind of joy or positive feelings out of "knowing" that God exists.
Why is know in quotes?
Because, as you admit, you cannot know with 100% certainty that God exists. So let's say you think there's a 99% chance God exists and a 1% chance he doesn't. That means there's a 1% chance the joy you're experiencing is what you call "deceptive joy" and a 99% chance it's "real joy."
Now, just sit back and feel that joy for a second. Does it feel real or deceptive? I bet it feels the same either way. It's just plain old joy. "Real joy" and "deceptive joy" are indistinguishable from each other to the person experiencing them.
Unless there's a point where the lie causes harm, then the joy is just joy (i.e. like your example where a psychic tells someone their child is alive and it's revealed later to be false). But if God is a lie, you will never know. Either you die and find out God is real, or you die and your existence just ends, meaning you never realize God was a lie.
As long as you believe in God and receive joy from that belief, the experience is exactly the same for you whether that belief is true or false..
If we stipulate that Scientology causes no harm to its practitioners (could we even still call it Scientology?), then it's not harmful.
No, that's not what I said.
Let me phrase this another way: Why do you believe Scientology is harmful?
Because it commits something like fraud against its members. It promises certain rewards in exchange for certain sacrifices, then takes the sacrifices and never delivers the rewards. It requires the members to pay money and make other changes to their life, but then gives little if anything useful in return.
Prayer, on the other hand, requires basically zero sacrifice, only a small amount of quiet time. It also doesn't promise any rewards (God can say "no" if your request isn't part of his plan) yet still delivers some, such as peace and motivation (see my discussion above). These benefits happen whether God exists or not. So there's nothing fraudulent about prayer. It asks basically nothing and delivers a benefit in return.
Because, as you admit, you cannot know with 100% certainty that God exists.
I don't know if anything can be proven with 100% certainty is what I said, yes.
So let's say you think there's a 99% chance God exists and a 1% chance he doesn't. That means there's a 1% chance the joy you're experiencing is what you call "deceptive joy" and a 99% chance it's "real joy."
No, that's ridiculous.
I most certainly do not think there is a 99% chance God exists. I am certain God exists. Insofar as it is possible for a human being to know anything, I know God exists.
More importantly, there is not a 99% chance that God exists. God either exists or he does not. Percentages do not enter into this. Probability does not enter into this. God exists or he doesn't.
Now, just sit back and feel that joy for a second. Does it feel real or deceptive? I bet it feels the same either way. It's just plain old joy. "Real joy" and "deceptive joy" are indistinguishable from each other to the person experiencing them.
That's what the word "deceptive" means, yes.
Unless there's a point where the lie causes harm,
It is a lie. All lies cause harm by their being lies.
(i.e. like your example where a psychic tells someone their child is alive and it's revealed later to be false).
That is the height of cruelty. I am flabbergasted that you would believe that telling a parent whose child has gone missing that you know said child is alive when you do not causes no harm.
Especially when you say Scientology is harmful in the same post. How the hell does that make sense?
But if God is a lie, you will never know. Either you die and find out God is real, or you die and your existence just ends, meaning you never realize God was a lie.
False dichotomy. There could be an afterlife in the "without God" scenario.
By your logic, if I steal from you and you never find out, have I harmed you or haven't I?
As long as you believe in God and receive joy from that belief, the experience is exactly the same for you whether that belief is true or false..
Except if God does not exist, my joy is predicated on a belief about reality that is not real. And was a lie. For you to state this is somehow not harming me is baffling.
Because it commits something like fraud against its members.
... What?
You just got through saying it's not wrong to lie to people as long as it makes them happy, and now you're accusing Scientology of fraud? How does that make any sense?
It promises certain rewards in exchange for certain sacrifices, then takes the sacrifices and never delivers the rewards.
How do you know? Can you prove with absolute certainty that Thetan-levels don't exist? Can you disprove the existence of Xenu?
And many Scientologists seem to find Scientology rewarding and fulfilling. So what's the harm? They're receiving joy, aren't they?
It requires the members to pay money and make other changes to their life, but then gives little if anything useful in return.
By what metric are they given little in return?
Prayer, on the other hand, requires basically zero sacrifice, only a small amount of quiet time.
[quote]It also doesn't promise any rewards
It promises communion with a deity. Which you seem to believe doesn't exist.
(God can say "no" if your request isn't part of his plan) yet still delivers some, such as peace and motivation (see my discussion above).
Scientologists would argue the same about Scientology.
These benefits happen whether God exists or not.
Communion with a deity cannot happen if the deity does not exist.
Second, how is this different from Scientology? Scientology proponents discuss the benefits Scientology gave them. By what measure are they wrong?
So there's nothing fraudulent about prayer.
Of course prayer is a fraud. If there's no deity to commune with, then communing with a deity is a fraud by definition!
It asks basically nothing and delivers a benefit in return.
What benefit? Feeling good about oneself? Why is Scientology different?
You seem to regard these things as different, but you're not making the case for them being different. You're saying one delusion (prayer to commune with a god that doesn't exist) is fine and the other delusion (Scientology) is harmful, but I'm not seeing the case for the distinction.
(i.e. like your example where a psychic tells someone their child is alive and it's revealed later to be false).
That is the height of cruelty. I am flabbergasted that you would believe that telling a parent whose child has gone missing that you know said child is alive when you do not causes no harm.
Especially when you say Scientology is harmful in the same post. How the hell does that make sense?
I'll admit the way I wrote that sentence wasn't clear, but it's amazing how quickly and thoroughly you embraced the wrong interpretation. My "i.e." is an example of when a lie does cause harm. The crushing emotional blow of finding out your child is dead after being given false hope is unquestionably a harm.
But a person who believes in God and prayer will not suffer a crushing emotional blow if their belief in God turns out to be false. If they die and are wrong, they will never find out.
Unless there's a point where the lie causes harm,
It is a lie. All lies cause harm by their being lies.
In order for your position to be coherent, you need to justify this statement.
I'll certainly concede that the act of telling a lie is morally wrong. Thus, telling a lie causes harm to the teller of the lie.
I won't concede that hearing and believing a lie is morally or ethically wrong. I don't think there's anything blameworthy about being lied to. And I also won't concede that hearing and believing a lie always causes harm. It certainly does in some cases. But I assert (and have given examples) that there are also cases where hearing and believing a lie is neutral or even beneficial.
You need to prove it is always harmful to hear and believe a lie.
Then, if you're successful, you need to prove that the harm(s) associated with hearing and believing a lie always outweigh the benefit(s).
But if God is a lie, you will never know. Either you die and find out God is real, or you die and your existence just ends, meaning you never realize God was a lie.
False dichotomy. There could be an afterlife in the "without God" scenario.
By your logic, if I steal from you and you never find out, have I harmed you or haven't I?
Yes, because I lost something of value. The total value of the things I currently own is now less. That's an easily identifiable harm.
A better analogy might be if you walk into a room where no one can hear you and you proceed to insult me. Even though insulting someone is bad (just like telling a lie is bad), there's absolutely zero harm to me because you were in a place where no one could hear you.
Also, the idea that there might be an afterlife without God is something you're going to need to justify if you want to invoke it. I view this notion as beyond absurd and completely incongruous with everything we know about the universe.
So there's nothing fraudulent about prayer.
Of course prayer is a fraud. If there's no deity to commune with, then communing with a deity is a fraud by definition!
It asks basically nothing and delivers a benefit in return.
What benefit? Feeling good about oneself? Why is Scientology different?
You seem to regard these things as different, but you're not making the case for them being different. You're saying one delusion (prayer to commune with a god that doesn't exist) is fine and the other delusion (Scientology) is harmful, but I'm not seeing the case for the distinction.
Prayer does not take anything from you, except perhaps a negligible amount of time. Without a taking or a loss, it's not fraudulent.
Generally speaking, prayer and Scientology offer the same benefit: feeling good about yourself. The difference is Scientology couples that benefit with harm (taking your money, causing you to sever social ties, etc) whereas prayer doesn't couple the benefit with harm.
I'll admit the way I wrote that sentence wasn't clear, but it's amazing how quickly and thoroughly you embraced the wrong interpretation. My "i.e." is an example of when a lie does cause harm. The crushing emotional blow of finding out your child is dead after being given false hope is unquestionably a harm.
But a person who believes in God and prayer will not suffer a crushing emotional blow if their belief in God turns out to be false. If they die and are wrong, they will never find out.
So if those parents never found out their child was dead, it wouldn't be wrong to lie to them about that child being alive?
In order for your position to be coherent, you need to justify this statement.
I'll certainly concede that the act of telling a lie is morally wrong. Thus, telling a lie causes harm to the teller of the lie.
That doesn't make an ounce of sense. You are calling into question that lies cause harm in and of them being lies, and yet you, in the next sentence, say that lying is morally wrong.
Ok, so why do you believe lying is morally wrong?
And I also won't concede that hearing and believing a lie always causes harm. It certainly does in some cases. But I assert (and have given examples) that there are also cases where hearing and believing a lie is neutral or even beneficial.
Now you're making less sense.
Why is lying morally wrong in your opinion anyway? You just said lies can benefit people. How is benefiting people morally wrong? By your logic, we should maximize the number of non-harmful lies we tell. We should seek to optimize ourselves to be as dishonest as possible.
Then, if you're successful, you need to prove that the harm(s) associated with hearing and believing a lie always outweigh the benefit(s).
What benefit is there in believing something untrue?
Yes, because I lost something of value. The total value of the things I currently own is now less. That's an easily identifiable harm.
But you don't know that you lost something of value. You will never find out. So by your logic, what harm has been done?
Even though insulting someone is bad (just like telling a lie is bad),
Why?
there's absolutely zero harm to me because you were in a place where no one could hear you.
Then why is it bad?
You're contradicting yourself. You say that someone believing a false truth is only bad if that person finds out, because that person feels a sense of hurt as a result. Thus, you set up a metric that person feeling harm = bad. But now you're saying insulting someone is bad even if that person never realizes that he's been insulted. How does that make any sense when you said earlier that a person who never finds out he believed something false makes his believing something false not bad?
Or are you willing to acknowledge by this that maybe betraying someone's trust might be a bad thing even if they never find out, thus making it wrong even without a "crushing emotional blow?"
Also, the idea that there might be an afterlife without God is something you're going to need to justify if you want to invoke it.
Maybe some other god exists to create an afterlife. Maybe people continue to exist somehow after they die. Maybe we wake up and realize we've all been in the Matrix this whole time.
Now, let's switch this back to you: can you demonstrate that it's impossible to have an afterlife without God?
Remember, I'm not saying that there is one, I'm saying it's possible there might be one. In order to say it is impossible that there might be an afterlife without God, you must demonstrate how lack of God must mean a lack of an afterlife. Otherwise, you must at least concede its possibility.
"Fraud" has a specific meaning. Fraud doesn't just mean "lying." It means "a deception deliberately practiced in order to secure unfair or unlawful gain." In other words, it's a lie plus a taking of some kind. Scientology commits fraud by lying to you in order to take your money.
Problems with you saying this:
First of all, how do you know the people perpetuating Scientology are deliberately doing it? Maybe they genuinely believe it.
Second, how do you know that Scientology isn't true? Can you prove with 100% certainty that Thetan-levels don't exist? That Xenu doesn't exist? That everything in Scientology is false? If you can't, why do you say that Scientology is false.
Third, why does it matter even if it is a lie in the first place? You just said it doesn't matter if someone believes in a lie as long as it makes them happy.
Fourth, by what metric is this a crime? You're saying that all that matters is what people feel, right? If people feel happy, that's a benefit, right? So if someone does something to benefit someone else, and that benefited person gives that person money as a donation of their own free will, then where is the crime? Hell, even if that person has to pay the money up front to get the thing that brings the happiness, they still end up feeling happy, they're still benefited, and it's certainly not fraud to make someone pay up front for something that benefits them. That's how trade works. I don't get food from the grocery store for free. I don't get gas to pump in my car for free. I don't get to watch a movie in a theater for free. I have to pay for that stuff.
So where's the fraud? You cannot say that they're offering them nothing, because by your own words Scientologists are offering at least some of their followers a sense of happiness or fulfillment. If they get that, that's a benefit. So by your own logic, people are benefiting from Scientology. So with that in mind, why is Scientology wrong or fraudulent for asking for money?
Prayer does not take anything from you, except perhaps a negligible amount of time. Without a taking or a loss, it's not fraudulent.
They ask you to believe a lie if the god you're praying to is a lie.
The difference is Scientology couples that benefit with harm (taking your money, causing you to sever social ties, etc) whereas prayer doesn't couple the benefit with harm.
So if, hypothetically, Scientology did all of its stuff pro bono, asking for no money or anything other than to believe Scientology, it would be perfectly fine?
I'll admit the way I wrote that sentence wasn't clear, but it's amazing how quickly and thoroughly you embraced the wrong interpretation. My "i.e." is an example of when a lie does cause harm. The crushing emotional blow of finding out your child is dead after being given false hope is unquestionably a harm.
But a person who believes in God and prayer will not suffer a crushing emotional blow if their belief in God turns out to be false. If they die and are wrong, they will never find out.
So if those parents never found out their child was dead, it wouldn't be wrong to lie to them about that child being alive?
It would be wrong to lie to the parents, because telling a lie is morally wrong.
The parents would not be harmed, however, unless the lie caused them some kind of harm. Either emotional harm (e.g. finding out about the lie), financial harm (e.g. continuing to spend money on search efforts after the police say it's hopeless), etc.
If none of those kinds of harms happen to the parents, then they are not harmed.
In order for your position to be coherent, you need to justify this statement.
I'll certainly concede that the act of telling a lie is morally wrong. Thus, telling a lie causes harm to the teller of the lie.
That doesn't make an ounce of sense. You are calling into question that lies cause harm in and of them being lies, and yet you, in the next sentence, say that lying is morally wrong.
Ok, so why do you believe lying is morally wrong?
Asking "why" questions about morality is going to lead us down a rabbit hole debating the philosophy of morals and ethics.
For supposes of this debate, I don't care why telling a lie is morally wrong. I assert that it is, and offer as evidence the fact that our society condemns the act of telling a lie as morally wrong and most moral authorities are in agreement on the subject (e.g. "Thou shalt not bear false witness"). If you wish to argue that lying is morally acceptable, we can have a debate on that subject.
And I also won't concede that hearing and believing a lie always causes harm. It certainly does in some cases. But I assert (and have given examples) that there are also cases where hearing and believing a lie is neutral or even beneficial.
Now you're making less sense.
Why is lying morally wrong in your opinion anyway? You just said lies can benefit people. How is benefiting people morally wrong? By your logic, we should maximize the number of non-harmful lies we tell. We should seek to optimize ourselves to be as dishonest as possible.
How on earth would that be in line with "my logic?" As I've repeatedly said, telling lies is morally wrong. On the other hand, I'm unaware of any moral authority condemning those who hear lies or believe lies to be true. There's nothing morally wrong with being the recipient of a lie, but there is something morally wrong about being the teller of a lie.
Then, if you're successful, you need to prove that the harm(s) associated with hearing and believing a lie always outweigh the benefit(s).
What benefit is there in believing something untrue?
For example if it motivates you to accomplish something you otherwise wouldn't. If it gives you happiness or hope. Those things are benefits.
If those benefits are not coupled with harms, then there is a net positive benefit.
Yes, because I lost something of value. The total value of the things I currently own is now less. That's an easily identifiable harm.
But you don't know that you lost something of value. You will never find out. So by your logic, what harm has been done?
I understood the hypothetical to mean I was aware something had been stolen, but I didn't know it was you.
If I'm never aware you stole anything, it still might cause a harm to me by, e.g. diminishing the value of the estate I'm able to leave in my will. If you stole something worth $100, my beneficiaries will receive $100 less than they were entitled to. That's a harm.
If it's something of basically $0 value and no one ever finds out about it (like you steal trash out of my garbage can or something), then I agree there's no harm.
Even though insulting someone is bad (just like telling a lie is bad),
Why?
there's absolutely zero harm to me because you were in a place where no one could hear you.
Then why is it bad?
Again, the "whys" of morality are irrelevant to my argument. If you agree that insulting people is morally wrong, then you agree with me on this point and we can move past it.
You're contradicting yourself. You say that someone believing a false truth is only bad if that person finds out, because that person feels a sense of hurt as a result. Thus, you set up a metric that person feeling harm = bad. But now you're saying insulting someone is bad even if that person never realizes that he's been insulted. How does that make any sense when you said earlier that a person who never finds out he believed something false makes his believing something false not bad?
An act can be morally wrong even if the ultimate results are neutral or positive.
If someone had shot Hitler in cold blood when Hitler was just a young child, that act would be morally wrong. Presumably you agree that murdering an innocent child is one of the most morally reprehensible things a person can do. However, this morally terrible act would have resulted in incredibly positive consequences for all of humankind.
Likewise, the act of telling a lie or of insulting someone is morally wrong, even though the results may be neutral or positive.
Or are you willing to acknowledge by this that maybe betraying someone's trust might be a bad thing even if they never find out, thus making it wrong even without a "crushing emotional blow?"
The act of betraying someone's trust (i.e. telling a lie) is morally wrong.
The "victim" of that betrayal is often harmed, but not always. If you never find out and it never affects you negatively in any way, then it's not harmful to you.
"Fraud" has a specific meaning. Fraud doesn't just mean "lying." It means "a deception deliberately practiced in order to secure unfair or unlawful gain." In other words, it's a lie plus a taking of some kind. Scientology commits fraud by lying to you in order to take your money.
Problems with you saying this:
First of all, how do you know the people perpetuating Scientology are deliberately doing it? Maybe they genuinely believe it.
This is why I said "something like fraud" in my earlier post. And whether they believe it or not isn't relevant to my argument about Scientology.
Second, how do you know that Scientology isn't true? Can you prove with 100% certainty that Thetan-levels don't exist? That Xenu doesn't exist? That everything in Scientology is false? If you can't, why do you say that Scientology is false.
For a variety of reasons I think it's highly unlikely to be true. But I cannot prove it to be 100% false, and if it in fact turned out to be true then it would not be fraudulent or harmful.
Third, why does it matter even if it is a lie in the first place? You just said it doesn't matter if someone believes in a lie as long as it makes them happy.
I never said that. I said it's beneficial to believe a lie if the total benefits outweigh the total harms. "Making someone happy" is one type of benefit. But that's not the end of the story. You have to look at all benefits and all harms together.
Fourth, by what metric is this a crime? You're saying that all that matters is what people feel, right?
I'm not claiming they're committing the actual crime of fraud (again, I said "something like fraud").
And I definitely never said "all that matters is what people feel." Positive feelings are just one type of benefit, an emotional benefit. You can have all kinds of benefits and harms: emotional, social, financial, physical, etc.
If people feel happy, that's a benefit, right?
Yes, that is one type of benefit.
So if someone does something to benefit someone else, and that benefited person gives that person money as a donation of their own free will, then where is the crime? Hell, even if that person has to pay the money up front to get the thing that brings the happiness, they still end up feeling happy, they're still benefited, and it's certainly not fraud to make someone pay up front for something that benefits them. That's how trade works. I don't get food from the grocery store for free. I don't get gas to pump in my car for free. I don't get to watch a movie in a theater for free. I have to pay for that stuff.
So where's the fraud? You cannot say that they're offering them nothing, because by your own words Scientologists are offering at least some of their followers a sense of happiness or fulfillment. If they get that, that's a benefit. So by your own logic, people are benefiting from Scientology. So with that in mind, why is Scientology wrong or fraudulent for asking for money?
They believe they will get happiness plus a bunch of other things (removal of thetans or whatever). They only get the happiness (presumably), and nothing else. If Scientology delivered what it promised to deliver, there wouldn't be a problem.
It's like if I said "give me $100 and I'll let you stay at my house and use my car this weekend." After you give me the money, I only let you use my car but not stay at my house. That's fraud. We made a deal and I cheated you on the deal.
Prayer does not take anything from you, except perhaps a negligible amount of time. Without a taking or a loss, it's not fraudulent.
They ask you to believe a lie if the god you're praying to is a lie.
What is the harm?
The Scientologist took your money. They psychic made you believe your kid was alive, leading to later emotional harm when the lie was discovered. These all have easily-identifiable harms.
The difference is Scientology couples that benefit with harm (taking your money, causing you to sever social ties, etc) whereas prayer doesn't couple the benefit with harm.
So if, hypothetically, Scientology did all of its stuff pro bono, asking for no money or anything other than to believe Scientology, it would be perfectly fine?
And it doesn't ask you to cut social ties or incur any kind of emotional, physical, financial, or moral costs or harms? Then yes, it's perfectly fine to believe in Scientology.
It would be wrong to lie to the parents, because telling a lie is morally wrong.
Why? You repeat this without justification.
The parents would not be harmed, however, unless the lie caused them some kind of harm. Either emotional harm (e.g. finding out about the lie), financial harm (e.g. continuing to spend money on search efforts after the police say it's hopeless), etc.
So putting your trust in someone who is betraying you is only harmful to you if you find out, but not before you find out? Meaning as long as you are still deluded in falsehood, you are not harmed?
If none of those kinds of harms happen to the parents, then they are not harmed.
Apparently so.
Asking "why" questions about morality is going to lead us down a rabbit hole debating the philosophy of morals and ethics.
Correct.
For supposes of this debate, I don't care why telling a lie is morally wrong. I assert that it is, and offer as evidence the fact that our society condemns the act of telling a lie as morally wrong and most moral authorities are in agreement on the subject (e.g. "Thou shalt not bear false witness").
Nope. "Other people say it is so," is not a reason. Justify why lying is wrong.
If you wish to argue that lying is morally acceptable, we can have a debate on that subject.
No, but I am wondering what your justification for someone lying being wrong is. Demonstrate this.
Because your answer to that question (or lack of an answer to that question) has everything to do with the topic at hand.
How on earth would that be in line with "my logic?" As I've repeatedly said, telling lies is morally wrong.
But you haven't said WHY. And you definitely said lies can be beneficial. Why would it be immoral to lie if it benefits someone? By your logic, unless you believe benefiting others is morally wrong, we should lie in a manner to benefit others all the time.
For example if it motivates you to accomplish something you otherwise wouldn't. If it gives you happiness or hope. Those things are benefits.
If those benefits are not coupled with harms, then there is a net positive benefit.
So, between someone learning something vs. choosing to remain ignorant, we should choose ignorance?
I understood the hypothetical to mean I was aware something had been stolen, but I didn't know it was you.
Well, that in itself creates another interesting hypothetical. Suppose you did find out someone was stealing from you but did not know who. It's me, and I know that you finding out it's me would cause you great emotional pain at my betrayal of your trust. Am I behaving morally in not admitting it and leaving you to never find out who stole from you, or should I instead come forward and admit my betrayal of your trust?
If I'm never aware you stole anything, it still might cause a harm to me by, e.g. diminishing the value of the estate I'm able to leave in my will. If you stole something worth $100, my beneficiaries will receive $100 less than they were entitled to. That's a harm.
No, by your logic, it would not be a harm, because you're dead. You never found out, and now you never will, because you died before you ever found out. Never once did the realization that you were harmed come to you.
By your logic, you ever never harmed.
Even though insulting someone is bad (just like telling a lie is bad),
Why?
Again, the "whys" of morality are irrelevant to my argument.
No, without "whys" you have no argument.
That's what an argument does: it explains why. Without why, your argument is, "Just cuz," which is not an argument at all.
If you agree that insulting people is morally wrong,
Suppose someone came along who didn't. How would you answer him?
An act can be morally wrong even if the ultimate results are neutral or positive.
So what makes it morally wrong?
You're changing standards left and right. You're first saying that something is fine to do as long as it results in someone feeling good, and wrong to do if it results in someone feeling bad. Then you said that something is morally wrong regardless of whether or not the person finds out. Now you're saying that something is wrong even if it makes someone else feel good?
Help me out here, bitterroot, I'm lost.
If someone had shot Hitler in cold blood when Hitler was just a young child, that act would be morally wrong.
Why? Because it would make young child Hitler feel bad, or for some other reason?
Likewise, the act of telling a lie or of insulting someone is morally wrong, even though the results may be neutral or positive.
Why?
The act of betraying someone's trust (i.e. telling a lie) is morally wrong.
Ok, so if I tell a lie, it doesn't matter whether or not someone is benefiting from it, that lie is still wrong?
The "victim" of that betrayal is often harmed, but not always. If you never find out and it never affects you negatively in any way, then it's not harmful to you.
Then why is it wrong to lie to someone?
Problems with you saying this:
First of all, how do you know the people perpetuating Scientology are deliberately doing it? Maybe they genuinely believe it.
This is why I said "something like fraud" in my earlier post.
It cannot be both fraud and not-fraud. It has to be one or the other.
And whether they believe it or not isn't relevant to my argument about Scientology.
It's COMPLETELY relevant. If they believe what they're saying, they're not lying. If they don't, they are. That is very relevant to an accusation of fraud.
For a variety of reasons I think it's highly unlikely to be true.
Highly unlikely does not mean it is proven 100% false.
Can you prove 100% that Scientology is a "pernicious lie"?
But I cannot prove it to be 100% false, and if it in fact turned out to be true then it would not be fraudulent or harmful.
Then if you cannot prove that they are wrong, by what measure are they fraudulent?
Besides, why does it even matter if they're wrong or right? You said it yourself: "As long as you believe in God and receive joy from that belief, the experience is exactly the same for you whether that belief is true or false." So why is it different for Scientology? Why does it matter whether Scientology and its claim of the existence of Thetans are correct or not?
I never said that. I said it's beneficial to believe a lie if the total benefits outweigh the total harms. "Making someone happy" is one type of benefit. But that's not the end of the story. You have to look at all benefits and all harms together.
What harm is there in believing Scientology?
I'm not claiming they're committing the actual crime of fraud (again, I said "something like fraud").
If "something like fraud" is not-fraud, then how is it "like fraud"? I'm missing the similarity.
They believe they will get happiness plus a bunch of other things (removal of thetans or whatever). They only get the happiness (presumably), and nothing else. If Scientology delivered what it promised to deliver, there wouldn't be a problem.
You just said you could not prove the lack of existence of Thetans or Thetan-levels. You said yourself that you cannot prove Scientology's claims to be false.
So by your rationale, since you cannot prove that Thetans don't exist, what is the basis for saying that Scientology gives them nothing?
Besides, even if they didn't, they give at least some of their followers a sense of fulfillment, happiness, and motivation to start life anew. Those people might even accomplish great things. So isn't that enough of a benefit to justify Scientology?
Again, when presented with the scenario of people praying to a deity that does not exist, you say that prayer does no harm, even though those people are not receiving what actually was promised (communion with a deity who actually exists). Why then are the existence of Thetan-levels relevant to Scientology? By your own logic, it doesn't matter at all whether or not Scientology's claims of Thetan-levels are true, right? After all, to the followers of Scientology, their own subjective experience is the same whether Thetan-levels exist or do not exist, right?
So why the double-standard between Scientology and prayer to a non-existent god?
It's like if I said "give me $100 and I'll let you stay at my house and use my car this weekend." After you give me the money, I only let you use my car but not stay at my house. That's fraud. We made a deal and I cheated you on the deal.
But we can easily prove you violated the deal. Can you easily prove there are no Thetans?
What is the harm?
Let me answer your question with another question. Follow me on this, because it will come back to what we're discussing: If I am delusional, but my delusions are nicer and more pleasant than facing reality, am I better off going toward my delusions, or facing reality? Should I do the former, or the latter?
For supposes of this debate, I don't care why telling a lie is morally wrong. I assert that it is, and offer as evidence the fact that our society condemns the act of telling a lie as morally wrong and most moral authorities are in agreement on the subject (e.g. "Thou shalt not bear false witness").
Nope. "Other people say it is so," is not a reason. Justify why lying is wrong.
If you wish to argue that lying is morally acceptable, we can have a debate on that subject.
No, but I am wondering what your justification for someone lying being wrong is. Demonstrate this.
Because your answer to that question (or lack of an answer to that question) has everything to do with the topic at hand.
Even though insulting someone is bad (just like telling a lie is bad),
Why?
Again, the "whys" of morality are irrelevant to my argument.
No, without "whys" you have no argument. That's what an argument does: it explains why. Without why, your argument is, "Just cuz," which is not an argument at all.
Ok, Highroller, I'm not sure whether the statements above are a deliberate (dirty) tactic or just over-zealousness, and out of charity I'll assume the latter. But this isn't acceptable.
It's not ok to ask your opponent to justify a position you already agree with. It's essentially stonewalling and it's disrespectful of my time. As I said, if you want to assert that telling a lie is morally acceptable, we can continue the debate with you taking that position and I will justify my argument in that context. On the other hand, if you agree that telling a lie is morally wrong, then there's no reason for me to justify that statement to you.
It would be like if I asserted as part of a debate "the earth is round" and you said "justify that statement." Now, if we actually disagree about the earth being round, and this disagreement is material to the debate somehow, then it's reasonable to make me justify it. But if we agree, it's unacceptable to waste your opponent's time that way.
It would be wrong to lie to the parents, because telling a lie is morally wrong.
Why? You repeat this without justification.
The parents would not be harmed, however, unless the lie caused them some kind of harm. Either emotional harm (e.g. finding out about the lie), financial harm (e.g. continuing to spend money on search efforts after the police say it's hopeless), etc.
So putting your trust in someone who is betraying you is only harmful to you if you find out, but not before you find out? Meaning as long as you are still deluded in falsehood, you are not harmed?
You have not suffered a harm until you suffer a harm.
I understood the hypothetical to mean I was aware something had been stolen, but I didn't know it was you.
Well, that in itself creates another interesting hypothetical. Suppose you did find out someone was stealing from you but did not know who. It's me, and I know that you finding out it's me would cause you great emotional pain at my betrayal of your trust. Am I behaving morally in not admitting it and leaving you to never find out who stole from you, or should I instead come forward and admit my betrayal of your trust?
You stole, which is morally wrong. You have a duty to come forward and correct that wrong as much as possible. Even if correcting that immoral act has negative consequences for me.
Again, morality isn't dependent on outcomes. Something can be morally right but have bad outcomes. Something can be morally wrong and have good outcomes.
If we could cure cancer by performing horrible Nazi-like medical experiments on an innocent, healthy 5-year old child, would that be morally right? Of course not. Even though it would unquestionably benefit the world, it would be morally terrible.
If I'm never aware you stole anything, it still might cause a harm to me by, e.g. diminishing the value of the estate I'm able to leave in my will. If you stole something worth $100, my beneficiaries will receive $100 less than they were entitled to. That's a harm.
No, by your logic, it would not be a harm, because you're dead. You never found out, and now you never will, because you died before you ever found out. Never once did the realization that you were harmed come to you. By your logic, you ever never harmed.
It would not harm me, but it would harm my heirs. The act is still causing harm.
If someone had shot Hitler in cold blood when Hitler was just a young child, that act would be morally wrong.
Why? Because it would make young child Hitler feel bad, or for some other reason?
Because it's morally wrong to shoot innocent children, period.
Problems with you saying this:
First of all, how do you know the people perpetuating Scientology are deliberately doing it? Maybe they genuinely believe it.
This is why I said "something like fraud" in my earlier post.
It cannot be both fraud and not-fraud. It has to be one or the other.
I was using "fraud" as a shortcut to simplify things. So let's taboo the word "fraud" and I'll just explain my position in words:
Scientologists tell their recruits things that are factually untrue. Believing these factually untrue statements induces the recruits to spend money they would not have otherwise spent, and to harm themselves in other ways (i.e. severing social ties they would not otherwise have severed). The fact that believing in Scientology causes harm means it's not a smart idea to believe in Scientology.
This argument doesn't care whether the falsehood is deliberate. It cares that we have a falsehood resulting in harm. Falsehoods resulting in harm are undesirable, and should be avoided.
In the unlikely event that Scientology is true, not false, then I would concede Scientology is not harmful.
But I cannot prove it to be 100% false, and if it in fact turned out to be true then it would not be fraudulent or harmful.
Then if you cannot prove that they are wrong, by what measure are they fraudulent?
Besides, why does it even matter if they're wrong or right? You said it yourself: "As long as you believe in God and receive joy from that belief, the experience is exactly the same for you whether that belief is true or false." So why is it different for Scientology? Why does it matter whether Scientology and its claim of the existence of Thetans are correct or not?
Because the false belief induces you to harm yourself in various ways (financial, social, etc) believing that you will receive divine/spiritual compensation for these harms. You do not receive all of the promised compensation, so you are not "getting what you paid for." You are being cheated.
If the belief is true you are not being cheated.
I never said that. I said it's beneficial to believe a lie if the total benefits outweigh the total harms. "Making someone happy" is one type of benefit. But that's not the end of the story. You have to look at all benefits and all harms together.
What harm is there in believing Scientology?
As I keep repeating: financial harm, social harm.
I'm not claiming they're committing the actual crime of fraud (again, I said "something like fraud").
If "something like fraud" is not-fraud, then how is it "like fraud"? I'm missing the similarity.
Roughly speaking:
Fraud = deliberate + falsehood + taking something from someone(i.e. a harm)
"Something like fraud" = falsehood + taking something from someone(i.e. a harm)
You're changing standards left and right. You're first saying that something is fine to do as long as it results in someone feeling good, and wrong to do if it results in someone feeling bad. Then you said that something is morally wrong regardless of whether or not the person finds out. Now you're saying that something is wrong even if it makes someone else feel good?
Help me out here, bitterroot, I'm lost.
[quote]They believe they will get happiness plus a bunch of other things (removal of thetans or whatever). They only get the happiness (presumably), and nothing else. If Scientology delivered what it promised to deliver, there wouldn't be a problem.
You just said you could not prove the lack of existence of Thetans or Thetan-levels. You said yourself that you cannot prove Scientology's claims to be false.
So by your rationale, since you cannot prove that Thetans don't exist, what is the basis for saying that Scientology gives them nothing?
Besides, even if they didn't, they give at least some of their followers a sense of fulfillment, happiness, and motivation to start life anew. Those people might even accomplish great things. So isn't that enough of a benefit to justify Scientology?
Again, when presented with the scenario of people praying to a deity that does not exist, you say that prayer does no harm, even though those people are not receiving what actually was promised (communion with a deity who actually exists). Why then are the existence of Thetan-levels relevant to Scientology? By your own logic, it doesn't matter at all whether or not Scientology's claims of Thetan-levels are true, right? After all, to the followers of Scientology, their own subjective experience is the same whether Thetan-levels exist or do not exist, right?
So why the double-standard between Scientology and prayer to a non-existent god?
You keep conflating benefits and harms. I'm again not sure if this is genuine ignorance or a questionable debate tactic, so I'll again assume the charitable former.
Let me restate the argument as clearly as possible and walk you through it:
1. We have a belief, "A." A might be false or might be true. We don't know.
2. There is nothing morally wrong about begin tricked into believing false things. (I think you agree with this, but we can debate this if you don't agree).
2a. It might be morally wrong to be the person doing the tricking, sure. But it's not morally wrong to be the victim of the trickery.
3. It is beneficial to believe A if believing A results only in benefit(s) and does not result in harm. If there are only benefits and no harms, then believing A is all-upside.
3a. Statement 3 doesn't depend on whether A is true or false. If it's all benefit, it's all benefit.
3b. Statement 3 also doesn't depend on knowing the magnitude of the benefit. If you think the benefit is large and it turns out the benefit is actually small, it doesn't matter because it's still purely a benefit to you.
4. If believing A results in both benefits and harms, then it's only beneficial to believe A if you are aware of all the benefits and harms, and you conclude that the benefits are "worth it" (i.e. the benefits outweigh the harms).
4a. Statement 4 does depend on A being true. If A is false, then the benefits and/or harms may be different than you thought they were. Thus your "worth it" determination might be wrong.
4b. Statement 4 also does depend on knowing the magnitude of the benefits and harms. If you think the benefits are large and the harms are small, but it turns out the benefits are small and the harms are large, then your "worth it" determination might be wrong.
5. If prayer is true, we both agree it's beneficial. If prayer is false, I assert it is still beneficial:
5a. If prayer is true, you receive two benefits from praying: positive feelings + communion with God. You suffer no harm. (I assume we agree on this).
5b. If prayer is false, you receive one benefit: positive feelings. You suffer no harm.
5c. Not receiving the expected "communion with God" benefit is not the same thing as suffering a harm. You did not lose anything. You never had that thing to begin with.
5d. In either case, you receive only benefits and no harms. Therefore it's beneficial to believe in prayer whether it's true or false.
6. Scientology, whether true or false, always has both harms and benefits.
6a. If Scientology is true, you receive (roughly) two kinds of benefits: positive feelings + spiritual benefits (i.e. Thetan removal). You also suffer several harms, including loss of money, loss of social ties, large time requirements, etc. If Scientology is true, then you can weigh these harms and benefits and determine whether the harms are worth the benefits for you.
6b. If Scientology is false, then the harms are the same, but the benefits are less. You only get positive feelings and no spiritual benefits.
6c. So if Scientology is false, the benefits are less than you thought they were. Thus it's likely your cost/benefit calculation is wrong. You thought the harms were worth the benefits because you thought the benefits were greater.
6d. So Scientology is fine to believe if it's true, because people can accurately weigh the harms and benefits. But Scientology is a bad idea to believe if it's false, because your harm/benefit determination will be wrong.
To put a finer point on the harm/benefit thing, let me use a couple of examples:
Example 1: Let's say someone tells you "there's $10,000 in this envelope" and gives the envelope to you. You open it. There is only $100 in the envelope. Have you been harmed? No. You revived less benefit than you expected, but either way, you benefited from taking the envelope.
Example 2" Now let's say instead this person says "there's $10,000 in this envelope and I will give you the envelope in exchange for your car." You agree and make the trade. The envelope contains just $100. Have you been harmed? Yes. You lost your car, that's a harm. You thought the harm was worth the benefit ($10,000). But it turns out the benefit is much smaller than you thought. So your initial harm/benefit determination was rendered wrong by believing the lie.
The first example is like prayer. There's only upside. Even though you believed a lie, you benefited.
The second example is like Scientology. There's both benefit and harm involved. If you believe a lie in that case, you might suffer more harm than benefit.
What is the harm?
Let me answer your question with another question. Follow me on this, because it will come back to what we're discussing: If I am delusional, but my delusions are nicer and more pleasant than facing reality, am I better off going toward my delusions, or facing reality? Should I do the former, or the latter?
If the delusion is not causing you or anyone else any harm, and it's providing a net benefit, then you're (by definition) better off believing it. For example, if you have the delusional belief that Santa Claus is always watching you, and he'll reward you if you consistently treat people with love and respect, this is a great delusion. There's no downside to treating people with love and respect. Even if the delusion is false, it's all upside; it's making you a better person.
If the delusion causes harm, then it's not a good idea to believe it. For example, if you have the delusional belief that Santa Claus is always watching you, and he'll reward you if you put all your belongings in a pile and burn them, then this is a bad delusion. You're incurring a harm (losing your belongings) and you're not able to accurately weigh that harm against the benefit. In reality there is no benefit, but you incorrectly believe you will receive a reward from Santa Claus. The presence of a downside makes this delusion bad.
Is there no benefit to believing things that are true over things that are false?
I assume you're saying that there might be some ethereal benefit that results merely from believing true things, independent of any real-world consequences? From where does this benefit arise? What is the mechanism that causes it to occur?
It can't be a psychological benefit, because if you believe something, by definition you think that thing is true. You will always get the benefit of thinking you believe the truth, whether what you believe is actually true or not.
So where does the benefit come from? How does it manifest itself? How does one perceive it?
If, on the other hand, you're just saying that believing the truth is generally more useful than believing falsehoods, I agree. In most cases, believing true things will result in more real-world benefits and fewer real-world harms. But there are exceptions, such as prayer, where a false belief is pure benefit and zero harm.
bitterroot, imagine if a person were to run around this forum proclaiming, "Gravity does not exist."
Were this to happen, my immediate response would be, "Well, then why do things fall to the earth when you drop them?"
Imagine this person were to respond with, "I don't think it's relevant to the topic why things fall to the earth. If you wish to debate whether or not things fall to the earth, then we can do so. But if you agree that things fall to the earth, then I don't see why we're going into a discussion of why."
Do you see the problem? Of course we have to go into depth as to why things fall to the earth. The person called into question the existence of gravity. Ergo, an alternative reason for why things fall to the earth must be presented.
You say that people believing untruths are not inherently harmful in and of them being untruths. You have also stated you believe that it doesn't matter whether or not someone believes something false as long as it makes them happy. So yes, in that case, we do need to go into why you're adamant about lying being morally wrong, because the reasons I believe lying is morally wrong are not things you agree with.
But this isn't acceptable.
It's not ok to ask your opponent to justify a position you already agree with.
It's not acceptable to ask you to justify your arguments? This is the DEBATE forum, bitterroot. That's pretty much all we do here.
You stole, which is morally wrong. You have a duty to come forward and correct that wrong as much as possible. Even if correcting that immoral act has negative consequences for me.
Why?
It would not harm me, but it would harm my heirs. The act is still causing harm.
What if the heirs never knew about the money being stolen either?
I was using "fraud" as a shortcut to simplify things. So let's taboo the word "fraud" and I'll just explain my position in words:
Scientologists tell their recruits things that are factually untrue. Believing these factually untrue statements induces the recruits to spend money they would not have otherwise spent, and to harm themselves in other ways (i.e. severing social ties they would not otherwise have severed).
So what?
You said yourself that God's existence is irrelevant to the value of prayer. The whole point is in that person's subjective mind, God exists and that person gets a sense of fulfillment, right? So, by your own reasoning, even if the deity the person is praying to does not exist, and they're not communing with a deity, then they're still receiving fulfillment and that's the only real thing that matters.
So why does prayer to a nonexistent god get a pass but Scientology doesn't?
The fact that believing in Scientology causes harm means it's not a smart idea to believe in Scientology.
Why does Scientology cause harm but prayer to a nonexistent god doesn't?
Hell, you have people who spend their time in prayer and contemplation all the time to God and other religions. Monastic traditions exist in many religions. Do these not prove prayer harmful?
There are people who donate money all the time to religious institutions, who would not if they did not believe in said religions. Do these not prove prayer harmful?
In the unlikely event that Scientology is true, not false, then I would concede Scientology is not harmful.
Why does it matter whether Scientology is true or not?
You said it didn't matter if the deity being prayed to actually existed when evaluating the benefits/harms of prayer, right?
So why does prayer to a nonexistent deity get a pass and not Scientology? What separates the two?
Because the false belief induces you to harm yourself in various ways (financial, social, etc) believing that you will receive divine/spiritual compensation for these harms. You do not receive all of the promised compensation, so you are not "getting what you paid for." You are being cheated.
If the belief is true you are not being cheated.
You are not actually communing with the deity that you are praying to if the deity that you are praying to does not exist.
Therefore you are being cheated.
Yet you are fine with prayer but not fine with Scientology? That doesn't make any sense.
2. There is nothing morally wrong about begin tricked into believing false things. (I think you agree with this, but we can debate this if you don't agree).
2a. It might be morally wrong to be the person doing the tricking, sure. But it's not morally wrong to be the victim of the trickery.
It is not morally wrong to be deceived. It is, however, harmful to be deceived. The fact that one believes a falsehood and not the truth is itself a harm.
5b. If prayer is false, you receive one benefit: positive feelings. You suffer no harm.
5c. Not receiving the expected "communion with God" benefit is not the same thing as suffering a harm. You did not lose anything. You never had that thing to begin with.
But you also say...
6b. If Scientology is false, then the harms are the same, but the benefits are less. You only get positive feelings and no spiritual benefits.
Do you see the problem?
Why is Scientology turning out to be wrong regarded as “no spiritual benefits” and derided because of that, but the deity turning out to not exist ignored?
If the delusion is not causing you or anyone else any harm, and it's providing a net benefit, then you're (by definition) better off believing it.
So you are better off lying to yourself than you are being honest with yourself?
Why is lying to others morally wrong but lying to yourself not morally wrong?
Moreover, why is lying morally wrong in the first place? You never answered that.
I assume you're saying that there might be some ethereal benefit that results merely from believing true things, independent of any real-world consequences? From where does this benefit arise?
People value knowledge and seek truth. Believing in something that's actually true satisfies those goals, and is therefore a benefit. Yes, you get some side benefits from believing you have real knowledge even if you're wrong, but people also care about the actual truth value of their beliefs. In most (all?) major religions, the important thing is not just the you believe in a god, but that that god is actually real. People pray to the "one true god", not the "one god who I believe in and derive benefit from, true or not".
Imagine you had a good friend for many years. After that friend's death, you find out that he was only pretending to be your friend. Would you simply not care, because you had already derived all the benefits of that friendship, true or not? I doubt it. I suspect you'd be upset that you had been deceived. You still got the benefits of friendship, but because you also presumably value truth, you're unhappy to learn the friendship you thought you had wasn't real.
People value knowledge and seek truth. Believing in something that's actually true satisfies those goals, and is therefore a benefit. Yes, you get some side benefits from believing you have real knowledge even if you're wrong, but people also care about the actual truth value of their beliefs. In most (all?) major religions, the important thing is not just the you believe in a god, but that that god is actually real. People pray to the "one true god", not the "one god who I believe in and derive benefit from, true or not".
Imagine you had a good friend for many years. After that friend's death, you find out that he was only pretending to be your friend. Would you simply not care, because you had already derived all the benefits of that friendship, true or not? I doubt it. I suspect you'd be upset that you had been deceived. You still got the benefits of friendship, but because you also presumably value truth, you're unhappy to learn the friendship you thought you had wasn't real.
Respectfully, I think you're mixing up harms and benefits. Finding out that your religion was false or the friendship was fake is a harm. It's a huge emotional blow. It's not that you get a benefit from truth in those cases, it's that you get a real-world emotional harm from discovering the falsehood.
Let's say instead your fake friend dies and no one ever finds out that he was faking the friendship all along. He kept the secret perfectly and it went with him to his grave. Assuming he was very good at faking and he had you 100% convinced he was your friend, the results are completely indistinguishable from if he had been a real friend all along. You would not get any extra "truth benefits" if he had been a real friend. In other words, the mere fact that the friendship was true or false is irrelevant, it's the consequences of that truth or falsehood that matter.
bitterroot, imagine if a person were to run around this forum proclaiming, "Gravity does not exist."
Were this to happen, my immediate response would be, "Well, then why do things fall to the earth when you drop them?"
Imagine this person were to respond with, "I don't think it's relevant to the topic why things fall to the earth. If you wish to debate whether or not things fall to the earth, then we can do so. But if you agree that things fall to the earth, then I don't see why we're going into a discussion of why."
Do you see the problem? Of course we have to go into depth as to why things fall to the earth. The person called into question the existence of gravity. Ergo, an alternative reason for why things fall to the earth must be presented.
Take a position and I will structure my argument accordingly: is telling a lie morally wrong, or morally acceptable?
If we agree that telling a lie is morally wrong, I do not need to prove to you that telling a lie is morally wrong. Stop wasting my time.
But this isn't acceptable.
It's not ok to ask your opponent to justify a position you already agree with.
It's not acceptable to ask you to justify your arguments? This is the DEBATE forum, bitterroot. That's pretty much all we do here.
I will justify any assertion you disagree with. I will not justify assertions you agree with.
I assume you're saying that there might be some ethereal benefit that results merely from believing true things, independent of any real-world consequences? From where does this benefit arise?
The fact that it's true.[/quote] Prove that it is true.
The remainder of your post demonstrates a fundamental misapprehension of my argument. I assume this is my fault and that I've not communicated my argument very clearly. So I will start from the beginning and take this in baby steps:
Tell me if you agree or disagree with the following statement. If you disagree, please state as clearly as possible what you disagree with and why.
You are faced with the choice of doing action X or not doing action X. If the following two conditions are satisfied, you should definitely do action X.
1. Action X is not immoral.
2. Action X will benefit you, and will not cause harm to you or anyone.
People value knowledge and seek truth. Believing in something that's actually true satisfies those goals, and is therefore a benefit. Yes, you get some side benefits from believing you have real knowledge even if you're wrong, but people also care about the actual truth value of their beliefs. In most (all?) major religions, the important thing is not just the you believe in a god, but that that god is actually real. People pray to the "one true god", not the "one god who I believe in and derive benefit from, true or not".
Imagine you had a good friend for many years. After that friend's death, you find out that he was only pretending to be your friend. Would you simply not care, because you had already derived all the benefits of that friendship, true or not? I doubt it. I suspect you'd be upset that you had been deceived. You still got the benefits of friendship, but because you also presumably value truth, you're unhappy to learn the friendship you thought you had wasn't real.
Respectfully, I think you're mixing up harms and benefits. Finding out that your religion was false or the friendship was fake is a harm. It's a huge emotional blow. It's not that you get a benefit from truth in those cases, it's that you get a real-world emotional harm from discovering the falsehood.
Let's say instead your fake friend dies and no one ever finds out that he was faking the friendship all along. He kept the secret perfectly and it went with him to his grave. Assuming he was very good at faking and he had you (and everyone else) 100% convinced he was your friend, the results are completely indistinguishable from if he had been a real friend all along. You would not get any extra "truth benefits" if he had been a real friend. In other words, the mere fact that the friendship was true or false is irrelevant, it's the consequences of that truth or falsehood that matter.
bitterroot, imagine if a person were to run around this forum proclaiming, "Gravity does not exist."
Were this to happen, my immediate response would be, "Well, then why do things fall to the earth when you drop them?"
Imagine this person were to respond with, "I don't think it's relevant to the topic why things fall to the earth. If you wish to debate whether or not things fall to the earth, then we can do so. But if you agree that things fall to the earth, then I don't see why we're going into a discussion of why."
Do you see the problem? Of course we have to go into depth as to why things fall to the earth. The person called into question the existence of gravity. Ergo, an alternative reason for why things fall to the earth must be presented.
Take a position and I will structure my argument accordingly: is telling a lie morally wrong, or morally acceptable?
If we agree that telling a lie is morally wrong, I do not need to prove to you that telling a lie is morally wrong. Stop wasting my time.
But this isn't acceptable.
It's not ok to ask your opponent to justify a position you already agree with.
It's not acceptable to ask you to justify your arguments? This is the DEBATE forum, bitterroot. That's pretty much all we do here.
I will justify any assertion you disagree with. I will not justify assertions you agree with.
I assume you're saying that there might be some ethereal benefit that results merely from believing true things, independent of any real-world consequences? From where does this benefit arise?
The fact that it's true.
Prove this benefit exists. (Note - I'm asking you to prove this because I do, in fact, disagree with what you're asserting.)
The remainder of your post demonstrates a fundamental misapprehension of my argument. I assume this is my fault and that I've not communicated my argument very clearly. So I will start from the beginning and take this in baby steps:
Tell me if you agree or disagree with the following statement. If you disagree, please state as clearly as possible what you disagree with and why.
You are faced with the choice of doing action X or not doing action X. If the following two conditions are satisfied, you should definitely do action X.
1. Action X is not immoral.
2. Action X will benefit you, and will not cause harm to you or anyone.
Respectfully, I think you're mixing up harms and benefits. Finding out that your religion was false or the friendship was fake is a harm. It's a huge emotional blow. It's not that you get a benefit from truth in those cases, it's that you get a real-world emotional harm from discovering the falsehood.
Why is it an emotional blow? What does it matter if a past friendship was fake if you have no concern for truth over falsehood?
Let's say instead your fake friend dies and no one ever finds out that he was faking the friendship all along. He kept the secret perfectly and it went with him to his grave. Assuming he was very good at faking and he had you (and everyone else) 100% convinced he was your friend, the results are completely indistinguishable from if he had been a real friend all along. You would not get any extra "truth benefits" if he had been a real friend. In other words, the mere fact that the friendship was true or false is irrelevant, it's the consequences of that truth or falsehood that matter.
If one my goals is to believe true things and disbelieve false things (which I think we can agree is a goal for just about all people), then I'm fulfilling that goal in one instance and not fulfilling it in the other. That's the benefit that distinguishes the two. Whether I'm aware of that benefit or not is immaterial.
Respectfully, I think you're mixing up harms and benefits. Finding out that your religion was false or the friendship was fake is a harm. It's a huge emotional blow. It's not that you get a benefit from truth in those cases, it's that you get a real-world emotional harm from discovering the falsehood.
Why is it an emotional blow? What does it matter if a past friendship was fake if you have no concern for truth over falsehood?
Most people (myself included) do have a concern for truth over falsehood. When you find out the friendship was false, you certainly suffer a harm because you realize it was false; you have a desire to believe true things, not false things. But if you never find out and the falsehood never affects your life in any way, then you do not suffer a harm.
Let's say instead your fake friend dies and no one ever finds out that he was faking the friendship all along. He kept the secret perfectly and it went with him to his grave. Assuming he was very good at faking and he had you (and everyone else) 100% convinced he was your friend, the results are completely indistinguishable from if he had been a real friend all along. You would not get any extra "truth benefits" if he had been a real friend. In other words, the mere fact that the friendship was true or false is irrelevant, it's the consequences of that truth or falsehood that matter.
If one my goals is to believe true things and disbelieve false things (which I think we can agree is a goal for just about all people), then I'm fulfilling that goal in one instance and not fulfilling it in the other. That's the benefit that distinguishes the two. Whether I'm aware of that benefit or not is immaterial.
If you are never aware of the benefit, how is it a benefit?
Maybe I'm secretly the most naturally talented violinist in history. But if I never pick up a violin in my life, that's completely irrelevant, isn't it? If the benefit never has any impact on the real world in any way, how is it a benefit?
Most people (myself included) do have a concern for truth over falsehood. When you find out the friendship was false, you certainly suffer a harm because you realize it was false; you have a desire to believe true things, not false things. But if you never find out and the falsehood never affects your life in any way, then you do not suffer a harm.
The harm is that you would prefer to believe in true things, and yet you believe in false things. That's a harm, because one your goals is to believe in true things. There's no secondary effect to look for - we don't have to wonder whether it makes you sad or hurts you. It's a harm because it's in direct conflict with your goal.
If you feel there is no difference between a thing that is true that you think is true and a thing that is false that you think is true, why should you be upset to find out the friendship was false? You still got all the benefits of friendship, didn't you?
If you are never aware of the benefit, how is it a benefit?
How is it not a benefit? The goal is to believe true things. If you believe a true thing, you've satisfied your goal, and that's a benefit. It doesn't have some secondary impact like making you happy, but that doesn't matter.
Maybe I'm secretly the most naturally talented violinist in history. But if I never pick up a violin in my life, that's completely irrelevant, isn't it? If the benefit never has any impact on the real world in any way, how is it a benefit?
There doesn't need to be an impact, because the state of believing a true statement is itself a benefit.
Take a position and I will structure my argument accordingly: is telling a lie morally wrong, or morally acceptable?
If we agree that telling a lie is morally wrong, I do not need to prove to you that telling a lie is morally wrong. Stop wasting my time.
Alright: I disagree that telling a lie is morally wrong.
Now, are you going to pony up, or are you going to continue to dodge the question?
Prove that it is true.
You just said they are. You called them "true things." Your words. True things are true things.
You are faced with the choice of doing action X or not doing action X. If the following two conditions are satisfied, you should definitely do action X.
1. Action X is not immoral.
2. Action X will benefit you, and will not cause harm to you or anyone.
Agree or disagree?
I don't know if you should definitely do action X, but it seems like a logical thing to do.
Highroller, your statement was not an argument: it was a simple contradiction. Please, give a reason WHY telling a lie is morally acceptable (especially considering that society seems to disagree with that statement, making "telling a lie is morally wrong" the default position and placing the onus of Burden of Proof on you.)
Simply stating "I disagree that telling a lie is morally wrong" is not in any way an argument. Bitterroot has been giving you well-founded and thought out reasons for his stance, and the entirety of your response is "why is telling a lie morally wrong?"
He has given reasons (Society deems it wrong, the general intent of telling a lie is to deceive someone for your own gain). Now it is YOUR turn to give REASONS why telling a lie is not morally wrong.
So, I ask you: why is telling a lie morally acceptable?
Or maybe it's because your friend believed God will help you out if you become a Christian? Or maybe because your friend believes that, if your daughter was to die due to whatever landed her in the hospital, she would go to heaven if she became a Christian before dying?
What if the interests of you and the others are the same? Suppose my mom got sick and I prayed for her to get better. Obviously I'm praying partly for selfish reasons- I don't want to deal with the pain of losing my mother. And my mom also prays for herself to get better.
Sort of like those "raising awareness" things like the ice bucket challenge a while back?
I actually heard some sort of ad on the radio recently, encouraging people to raise awareness by tweeting and doing those challenges and *****. Apparently those will make a positive change to the world.
I was baffled.
Not sure if you're being sarcastic, but the ice bucket challenge increased ALS foundation's donations by a pretty absurd margin. A lot of people just poured water on their heads, but that was still a huge amount of money compared to years prior.
Source (see impact section): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_Bucket_Challenge#Impact
As Quirkiness pointed out, the awareness campaign brought a great deal of awareness, publicity, and money to the cause of fighting an overlooked illness.
Both, actually.
I didn't know it raised that much money; it's quite impressive. I am curious whether people will remember what ALS is this year.
Right, the biochemical problem with heroin comes from opiod receptors being agonized to a degree the human body wasn't designed to tolerate. In the particular case of heroin, the same biological mechanism is responsible for both the "good" and "bad" effects.
What's the biochemical mechanism for "deceptive joy" being harmful whereas "true joy" is not harmful?
How do you even draw a principled distinction here? For example, you believe in God, right? And you probably get some kind of joy or positive feelings out of "knowing" that God exists. But you can't supply a proof that demonstrates God's existence with 100% certainty, can you? In fact, many strong atheists would go so far as to say that the idea of God is pernicious lie. Is your joy about the existence of God "true joy" or "deceptive joy?" We should be able to test this, right, since one type of joy is helpful and the other is harmful?
If the lie has tangible negative consequences, such as preventing a person from taking real medicine that would be more helpful to them, then this is obviously an identifiable harm. On the other hand, if there are no negative consequences to anyone, only positive consequences, how is it bad?
If we stipulate that Scientology causes no harm to its practitioners (could we even still call it Scientology?), then it's not harmful.
Why is know in quotes?
I can't supply a proof that demonstrates anything's existence with 100% certainty. At least I don't think I can.
That's not me being ironic either, I legitimately don't know anything about epistemology.
If God didn't exist, their position would be correct.
That's what I've been saying. If there is no God, prayer to God is useless and has no value. The value of prayer to God is in there being a God to answer it.
Well you're welcome to prove God's nonexistence. Somehow I doubt you'll make much headway with that.
No, that's not what I said.
Let me phrase this another way: Why do you believe Scientology is harmful?
Because, as you admit, you cannot know with 100% certainty that God exists. So let's say you think there's a 99% chance God exists and a 1% chance he doesn't. That means there's a 1% chance the joy you're experiencing is what you call "deceptive joy" and a 99% chance it's "real joy."
Now, just sit back and feel that joy for a second. Does it feel real or deceptive? I bet it feels the same either way. It's just plain old joy. "Real joy" and "deceptive joy" are indistinguishable from each other to the person experiencing them.
Unless there's a point where the lie causes harm, then the joy is just joy (i.e. like your example where a psychic tells someone their child is alive and it's revealed later to be false). But if God is a lie, you will never know. Either you die and find out God is real, or you die and your existence just ends, meaning you never realize God was a lie.
As long as you believe in God and receive joy from that belief, the experience is exactly the same for you whether that belief is true or false..
Because it commits something like fraud against its members. It promises certain rewards in exchange for certain sacrifices, then takes the sacrifices and never delivers the rewards. It requires the members to pay money and make other changes to their life, but then gives little if anything useful in return.
Prayer, on the other hand, requires basically zero sacrifice, only a small amount of quiet time. It also doesn't promise any rewards (God can say "no" if your request isn't part of his plan) yet still delivers some, such as peace and motivation (see my discussion above). These benefits happen whether God exists or not. So there's nothing fraudulent about prayer. It asks basically nothing and delivers a benefit in return.
No, that's ridiculous.
I most certainly do not think there is a 99% chance God exists. I am certain God exists. Insofar as it is possible for a human being to know anything, I know God exists.
More importantly, there is not a 99% chance that God exists. God either exists or he does not. Percentages do not enter into this. Probability does not enter into this. God exists or he doesn't.
That's what the word "deceptive" means, yes.
It is a lie. All lies cause harm by their being lies.
That is the height of cruelty. I am flabbergasted that you would believe that telling a parent whose child has gone missing that you know said child is alive when you do not causes no harm.
Especially when you say Scientology is harmful in the same post. How the hell does that make sense?
False dichotomy. There could be an afterlife in the "without God" scenario.
By your logic, if I steal from you and you never find out, have I harmed you or haven't I?
Except if God does not exist, my joy is predicated on a belief about reality that is not real. And was a lie. For you to state this is somehow not harming me is baffling.
... What?
You just got through saying it's not wrong to lie to people as long as it makes them happy, and now you're accusing Scientology of fraud? How does that make any sense?
How do you know? Can you prove with absolute certainty that Thetan-levels don't exist? Can you disprove the existence of Xenu?
And many Scientologists seem to find Scientology rewarding and fulfilling. So what's the harm? They're receiving joy, aren't they?
By what metric are they given little in return?
It promises communion with a deity. Which you seem to believe doesn't exist.
Scientologists would argue the same about Scientology.
Communion with a deity cannot happen if the deity does not exist.
Second, how is this different from Scientology? Scientology proponents discuss the benefits Scientology gave them. By what measure are they wrong?
Of course prayer is a fraud. If there's no deity to commune with, then communing with a deity is a fraud by definition!
What benefit? Feeling good about oneself? Why is Scientology different?
You seem to regard these things as different, but you're not making the case for them being different. You're saying one delusion (prayer to commune with a god that doesn't exist) is fine and the other delusion (Scientology) is harmful, but I'm not seeing the case for the distinction.
I'll admit the way I wrote that sentence wasn't clear, but it's amazing how quickly and thoroughly you embraced the wrong interpretation. My "i.e." is an example of when a lie does cause harm. The crushing emotional blow of finding out your child is dead after being given false hope is unquestionably a harm.
But a person who believes in God and prayer will not suffer a crushing emotional blow if their belief in God turns out to be false. If they die and are wrong, they will never find out.
In order for your position to be coherent, you need to justify this statement.
I'll certainly concede that the act of telling a lie is morally wrong. Thus, telling a lie causes harm to the teller of the lie.
I won't concede that hearing and believing a lie is morally or ethically wrong. I don't think there's anything blameworthy about being lied to. And I also won't concede that hearing and believing a lie always causes harm. It certainly does in some cases. But I assert (and have given examples) that there are also cases where hearing and believing a lie is neutral or even beneficial.
You need to prove it is always harmful to hear and believe a lie.
Then, if you're successful, you need to prove that the harm(s) associated with hearing and believing a lie always outweigh the benefit(s).
Yes, because I lost something of value. The total value of the things I currently own is now less. That's an easily identifiable harm.
A better analogy might be if you walk into a room where no one can hear you and you proceed to insult me. Even though insulting someone is bad (just like telling a lie is bad), there's absolutely zero harm to me because you were in a place where no one could hear you.
Also, the idea that there might be an afterlife without God is something you're going to need to justify if you want to invoke it. I view this notion as beyond absurd and completely incongruous with everything we know about the universe.
"Fraud" has a specific meaning. Fraud doesn't just mean "lying." It means "a deception deliberately practiced in order to secure unfair or unlawful gain." In other words, it's a lie plus a taking of some kind. Scientology commits fraud by lying to you in order to take your money.
Prayer does not take anything from you, except perhaps a negligible amount of time. Without a taking or a loss, it's not fraudulent.
Generally speaking, prayer and Scientology offer the same benefit: feeling good about yourself. The difference is Scientology couples that benefit with harm (taking your money, causing you to sever social ties, etc) whereas prayer doesn't couple the benefit with harm.
That doesn't make an ounce of sense. You are calling into question that lies cause harm in and of them being lies, and yet you, in the next sentence, say that lying is morally wrong.
Ok, so why do you believe lying is morally wrong?
Now you're making less sense.
Why is lying morally wrong in your opinion anyway? You just said lies can benefit people. How is benefiting people morally wrong? By your logic, we should maximize the number of non-harmful lies we tell. We should seek to optimize ourselves to be as dishonest as possible.
What benefit is there in believing something untrue?
But you don't know that you lost something of value. You will never find out. So by your logic, what harm has been done?
Why?
Then why is it bad?
You're contradicting yourself. You say that someone believing a false truth is only bad if that person finds out, because that person feels a sense of hurt as a result. Thus, you set up a metric that person feeling harm = bad. But now you're saying insulting someone is bad even if that person never realizes that he's been insulted. How does that make any sense when you said earlier that a person who never finds out he believed something false makes his believing something false not bad?
Or are you willing to acknowledge by this that maybe betraying someone's trust might be a bad thing even if they never find out, thus making it wrong even without a "crushing emotional blow?"
Maybe some other god exists to create an afterlife. Maybe people continue to exist somehow after they die. Maybe we wake up and realize we've all been in the Matrix this whole time.
Now, let's switch this back to you: can you demonstrate that it's impossible to have an afterlife without God?
Remember, I'm not saying that there is one, I'm saying it's possible there might be one. In order to say it is impossible that there might be an afterlife without God, you must demonstrate how lack of God must mean a lack of an afterlife. Otherwise, you must at least concede its possibility.
Problems with you saying this:
First of all, how do you know the people perpetuating Scientology are deliberately doing it? Maybe they genuinely believe it.
Second, how do you know that Scientology isn't true? Can you prove with 100% certainty that Thetan-levels don't exist? That Xenu doesn't exist? That everything in Scientology is false? If you can't, why do you say that Scientology is false.
Third, why does it matter even if it is a lie in the first place? You just said it doesn't matter if someone believes in a lie as long as it makes them happy.
Fourth, by what metric is this a crime? You're saying that all that matters is what people feel, right? If people feel happy, that's a benefit, right? So if someone does something to benefit someone else, and that benefited person gives that person money as a donation of their own free will, then where is the crime? Hell, even if that person has to pay the money up front to get the thing that brings the happiness, they still end up feeling happy, they're still benefited, and it's certainly not fraud to make someone pay up front for something that benefits them. That's how trade works. I don't get food from the grocery store for free. I don't get gas to pump in my car for free. I don't get to watch a movie in a theater for free. I have to pay for that stuff.
So where's the fraud? You cannot say that they're offering them nothing, because by your own words Scientologists are offering at least some of their followers a sense of happiness or fulfillment. If they get that, that's a benefit. So by your own logic, people are benefiting from Scientology. So with that in mind, why is Scientology wrong or fraudulent for asking for money?
They ask you to believe a lie if the god you're praying to is a lie.
So if, hypothetically, Scientology did all of its stuff pro bono, asking for no money or anything other than to believe Scientology, it would be perfectly fine?
It would be wrong to lie to the parents, because telling a lie is morally wrong.
The parents would not be harmed, however, unless the lie caused them some kind of harm. Either emotional harm (e.g. finding out about the lie), financial harm (e.g. continuing to spend money on search efforts after the police say it's hopeless), etc.
If none of those kinds of harms happen to the parents, then they are not harmed.
Asking "why" questions about morality is going to lead us down a rabbit hole debating the philosophy of morals and ethics.
For supposes of this debate, I don't care why telling a lie is morally wrong. I assert that it is, and offer as evidence the fact that our society condemns the act of telling a lie as morally wrong and most moral authorities are in agreement on the subject (e.g. "Thou shalt not bear false witness"). If you wish to argue that lying is morally acceptable, we can have a debate on that subject.
How on earth would that be in line with "my logic?" As I've repeatedly said, telling lies is morally wrong. On the other hand, I'm unaware of any moral authority condemning those who hear lies or believe lies to be true. There's nothing morally wrong with being the recipient of a lie, but there is something morally wrong about being the teller of a lie.
For example if it motivates you to accomplish something you otherwise wouldn't. If it gives you happiness or hope. Those things are benefits.
If those benefits are not coupled with harms, then there is a net positive benefit.
I understood the hypothetical to mean I was aware something had been stolen, but I didn't know it was you.
If I'm never aware you stole anything, it still might cause a harm to me by, e.g. diminishing the value of the estate I'm able to leave in my will. If you stole something worth $100, my beneficiaries will receive $100 less than they were entitled to. That's a harm.
If it's something of basically $0 value and no one ever finds out about it (like you steal trash out of my garbage can or something), then I agree there's no harm.
Again, the "whys" of morality are irrelevant to my argument. If you agree that insulting people is morally wrong, then you agree with me on this point and we can move past it.
An act can be morally wrong even if the ultimate results are neutral or positive.
If someone had shot Hitler in cold blood when Hitler was just a young child, that act would be morally wrong. Presumably you agree that murdering an innocent child is one of the most morally reprehensible things a person can do. However, this morally terrible act would have resulted in incredibly positive consequences for all of humankind.
Likewise, the act of telling a lie or of insulting someone is morally wrong, even though the results may be neutral or positive.
The act of betraying someone's trust (i.e. telling a lie) is morally wrong.
The "victim" of that betrayal is often harmed, but not always. If you never find out and it never affects you negatively in any way, then it's not harmful to you.
This is why I said "something like fraud" in my earlier post. And whether they believe it or not isn't relevant to my argument about Scientology.
For a variety of reasons I think it's highly unlikely to be true. But I cannot prove it to be 100% false, and if it in fact turned out to be true then it would not be fraudulent or harmful.
I never said that. I said it's beneficial to believe a lie if the total benefits outweigh the total harms. "Making someone happy" is one type of benefit. But that's not the end of the story. You have to look at all benefits and all harms together.
I'm not claiming they're committing the actual crime of fraud (again, I said "something like fraud").
And I definitely never said "all that matters is what people feel." Positive feelings are just one type of benefit, an emotional benefit. You can have all kinds of benefits and harms: emotional, social, financial, physical, etc.
Yes, that is one type of benefit.
They believe they will get happiness plus a bunch of other things (removal of thetans or whatever). They only get the happiness (presumably), and nothing else. If Scientology delivered what it promised to deliver, there wouldn't be a problem.
It's like if I said "give me $100 and I'll let you stay at my house and use my car this weekend." After you give me the money, I only let you use my car but not stay at my house. That's fraud. We made a deal and I cheated you on the deal.
What is the harm?
The Scientologist took your money. They psychic made you believe your kid was alive, leading to later emotional harm when the lie was discovered. These all have easily-identifiable harms.
And it doesn't ask you to cut social ties or incur any kind of emotional, physical, financial, or moral costs or harms? Then yes, it's perfectly fine to believe in Scientology.
So putting your trust in someone who is betraying you is only harmful to you if you find out, but not before you find out? Meaning as long as you are still deluded in falsehood, you are not harmed?
Apparently so.
Correct.
Nope. "Other people say it is so," is not a reason. Justify why lying is wrong.
No, but I am wondering what your justification for someone lying being wrong is. Demonstrate this.
Because your answer to that question (or lack of an answer to that question) has everything to do with the topic at hand.
But you haven't said WHY. And you definitely said lies can be beneficial. Why would it be immoral to lie if it benefits someone? By your logic, unless you believe benefiting others is morally wrong, we should lie in a manner to benefit others all the time.
So, between someone learning something vs. choosing to remain ignorant, we should choose ignorance?
Well, that in itself creates another interesting hypothetical. Suppose you did find out someone was stealing from you but did not know who. It's me, and I know that you finding out it's me would cause you great emotional pain at my betrayal of your trust. Am I behaving morally in not admitting it and leaving you to never find out who stole from you, or should I instead come forward and admit my betrayal of your trust?
No, by your logic, it would not be a harm, because you're dead. You never found out, and now you never will, because you died before you ever found out. Never once did the realization that you were harmed come to you.
By your logic, you ever never harmed.
Why?
No, without "whys" you have no argument.
That's what an argument does: it explains why. Without why, your argument is, "Just cuz," which is not an argument at all.
Suppose someone came along who didn't. How would you answer him?
So what makes it morally wrong?
You're changing standards left and right. You're first saying that something is fine to do as long as it results in someone feeling good, and wrong to do if it results in someone feeling bad. Then you said that something is morally wrong regardless of whether or not the person finds out. Now you're saying that something is wrong even if it makes someone else feel good?
Help me out here, bitterroot, I'm lost.
Why? Because it would make young child Hitler feel bad, or for some other reason?
Why?
Ok, so if I tell a lie, it doesn't matter whether or not someone is benefiting from it, that lie is still wrong?
Then why is it wrong to lie to someone?
It cannot be both fraud and not-fraud. It has to be one or the other.
It's COMPLETELY relevant. If they believe what they're saying, they're not lying. If they don't, they are. That is very relevant to an accusation of fraud.
Highly unlikely does not mean it is proven 100% false.
Can you prove 100% that Scientology is a "pernicious lie"?
Then if you cannot prove that they are wrong, by what measure are they fraudulent?
Besides, why does it even matter if they're wrong or right? You said it yourself: "As long as you believe in God and receive joy from that belief, the experience is exactly the same for you whether that belief is true or false." So why is it different for Scientology? Why does it matter whether Scientology and its claim of the existence of Thetans are correct or not?
What harm is there in believing Scientology?
If "something like fraud" is not-fraud, then how is it "like fraud"? I'm missing the similarity.
You just said you could not prove the lack of existence of Thetans or Thetan-levels. You said yourself that you cannot prove Scientology's claims to be false.
So by your rationale, since you cannot prove that Thetans don't exist, what is the basis for saying that Scientology gives them nothing?
Besides, even if they didn't, they give at least some of their followers a sense of fulfillment, happiness, and motivation to start life anew. Those people might even accomplish great things. So isn't that enough of a benefit to justify Scientology?
Again, when presented with the scenario of people praying to a deity that does not exist, you say that prayer does no harm, even though those people are not receiving what actually was promised (communion with a deity who actually exists). Why then are the existence of Thetan-levels relevant to Scientology? By your own logic, it doesn't matter at all whether or not Scientology's claims of Thetan-levels are true, right? After all, to the followers of Scientology, their own subjective experience is the same whether Thetan-levels exist or do not exist, right?
So why the double-standard between Scientology and prayer to a non-existent god?
But we can easily prove you violated the deal. Can you easily prove there are no Thetans?
Let me answer your question with another question. Follow me on this, because it will come back to what we're discussing: If I am delusional, but my delusions are nicer and more pleasant than facing reality, am I better off going toward my delusions, or facing reality? Should I do the former, or the latter?
Ok, Highroller, I'm not sure whether the statements above are a deliberate (dirty) tactic or just over-zealousness, and out of charity I'll assume the latter. But this isn't acceptable.
It's not ok to ask your opponent to justify a position you already agree with. It's essentially stonewalling and it's disrespectful of my time. As I said, if you want to assert that telling a lie is morally acceptable, we can continue the debate with you taking that position and I will justify my argument in that context. On the other hand, if you agree that telling a lie is morally wrong, then there's no reason for me to justify that statement to you.
It would be like if I asserted as part of a debate "the earth is round" and you said "justify that statement." Now, if we actually disagree about the earth being round, and this disagreement is material to the debate somehow, then it's reasonable to make me justify it. But if we agree, it's unacceptable to waste your opponent's time that way.
You have not suffered a harm until you suffer a harm.
You stole, which is morally wrong. You have a duty to come forward and correct that wrong as much as possible. Even if correcting that immoral act has negative consequences for me.
Again, morality isn't dependent on outcomes. Something can be morally right but have bad outcomes. Something can be morally wrong and have good outcomes.
If we could cure cancer by performing horrible Nazi-like medical experiments on an innocent, healthy 5-year old child, would that be morally right? Of course not. Even though it would unquestionably benefit the world, it would be morally terrible.
It would not harm me, but it would harm my heirs. The act is still causing harm.
Because it's morally wrong to shoot innocent children, period.
I was using "fraud" as a shortcut to simplify things. So let's taboo the word "fraud" and I'll just explain my position in words:
Scientologists tell their recruits things that are factually untrue. Believing these factually untrue statements induces the recruits to spend money they would not have otherwise spent, and to harm themselves in other ways (i.e. severing social ties they would not otherwise have severed). The fact that believing in Scientology causes harm means it's not a smart idea to believe in Scientology.
This argument doesn't care whether the falsehood is deliberate. It cares that we have a falsehood resulting in harm. Falsehoods resulting in harm are undesirable, and should be avoided.
In the unlikely event that Scientology is true, not false, then I would concede Scientology is not harmful.
Because the false belief induces you to harm yourself in various ways (financial, social, etc) believing that you will receive divine/spiritual compensation for these harms. You do not receive all of the promised compensation, so you are not "getting what you paid for." You are being cheated.
If the belief is true you are not being cheated.
As I keep repeating: financial harm, social harm.
Roughly speaking:
Fraud = deliberate + falsehood + taking something from someone(i.e. a harm)
"Something like fraud" = falsehood + taking something from someone(i.e. a harm)
You keep conflating benefits and harms. I'm again not sure if this is genuine ignorance or a questionable debate tactic, so I'll again assume the charitable former.
Let me restate the argument as clearly as possible and walk you through it:
1. We have a belief, "A." A might be false or might be true. We don't know.
2. There is nothing morally wrong about begin tricked into believing false things. (I think you agree with this, but we can debate this if you don't agree).
2a. It might be morally wrong to be the person doing the tricking, sure. But it's not morally wrong to be the victim of the trickery.
3. It is beneficial to believe A if believing A results only in benefit(s) and does not result in harm. If there are only benefits and no harms, then believing A is all-upside.
3a. Statement 3 doesn't depend on whether A is true or false. If it's all benefit, it's all benefit.
3b. Statement 3 also doesn't depend on knowing the magnitude of the benefit. If you think the benefit is large and it turns out the benefit is actually small, it doesn't matter because it's still purely a benefit to you.
4. If believing A results in both benefits and harms, then it's only beneficial to believe A if you are aware of all the benefits and harms, and you conclude that the benefits are "worth it" (i.e. the benefits outweigh the harms).
4a. Statement 4 does depend on A being true. If A is false, then the benefits and/or harms may be different than you thought they were. Thus your "worth it" determination might be wrong.
4b. Statement 4 also does depend on knowing the magnitude of the benefits and harms. If you think the benefits are large and the harms are small, but it turns out the benefits are small and the harms are large, then your "worth it" determination might be wrong.
5. If prayer is true, we both agree it's beneficial. If prayer is false, I assert it is still beneficial:
5a. If prayer is true, you receive two benefits from praying: positive feelings + communion with God. You suffer no harm. (I assume we agree on this).
5b. If prayer is false, you receive one benefit: positive feelings. You suffer no harm.
5c. Not receiving the expected "communion with God" benefit is not the same thing as suffering a harm. You did not lose anything. You never had that thing to begin with.
5d. In either case, you receive only benefits and no harms. Therefore it's beneficial to believe in prayer whether it's true or false.
6. Scientology, whether true or false, always has both harms and benefits.
6a. If Scientology is true, you receive (roughly) two kinds of benefits: positive feelings + spiritual benefits (i.e. Thetan removal). You also suffer several harms, including loss of money, loss of social ties, large time requirements, etc. If Scientology is true, then you can weigh these harms and benefits and determine whether the harms are worth the benefits for you.
6b. If Scientology is false, then the harms are the same, but the benefits are less. You only get positive feelings and no spiritual benefits.
6c. So if Scientology is false, the benefits are less than you thought they were. Thus it's likely your cost/benefit calculation is wrong. You thought the harms were worth the benefits because you thought the benefits were greater.
6d. So Scientology is fine to believe if it's true, because people can accurately weigh the harms and benefits. But Scientology is a bad idea to believe if it's false, because your harm/benefit determination will be wrong.
To put a finer point on the harm/benefit thing, let me use a couple of examples:
Example 1: Let's say someone tells you "there's $10,000 in this envelope" and gives the envelope to you. You open it. There is only $100 in the envelope. Have you been harmed? No. You revived less benefit than you expected, but either way, you benefited from taking the envelope.
Example 2" Now let's say instead this person says "there's $10,000 in this envelope and I will give you the envelope in exchange for your car." You agree and make the trade. The envelope contains just $100. Have you been harmed? Yes. You lost your car, that's a harm. You thought the harm was worth the benefit ($10,000). But it turns out the benefit is much smaller than you thought. So your initial harm/benefit determination was rendered wrong by believing the lie.
The first example is like prayer. There's only upside. Even though you believed a lie, you benefited.
The second example is like Scientology. There's both benefit and harm involved. If you believe a lie in that case, you might suffer more harm than benefit.
If the delusion is not causing you or anyone else any harm, and it's providing a net benefit, then you're (by definition) better off believing it. For example, if you have the delusional belief that Santa Claus is always watching you, and he'll reward you if you consistently treat people with love and respect, this is a great delusion. There's no downside to treating people with love and respect. Even if the delusion is false, it's all upside; it's making you a better person.
If the delusion causes harm, then it's not a good idea to believe it. For example, if you have the delusional belief that Santa Claus is always watching you, and he'll reward you if you put all your belongings in a pile and burn them, then this is a bad delusion. You're incurring a harm (losing your belongings) and you're not able to accurately weigh that harm against the benefit. In reality there is no benefit, but you incorrectly believe you will receive a reward from Santa Claus. The presence of a downside makes this delusion bad.
I assume you're saying that there might be some ethereal benefit that results merely from believing true things, independent of any real-world consequences? From where does this benefit arise? What is the mechanism that causes it to occur?
It can't be a psychological benefit, because if you believe something, by definition you think that thing is true. You will always get the benefit of thinking you believe the truth, whether what you believe is actually true or not.
So where does the benefit come from? How does it manifest itself? How does one perceive it?
If, on the other hand, you're just saying that believing the truth is generally more useful than believing falsehoods, I agree. In most cases, believing true things will result in more real-world benefits and fewer real-world harms. But there are exceptions, such as prayer, where a false belief is pure benefit and zero harm.
Were this to happen, my immediate response would be, "Well, then why do things fall to the earth when you drop them?"
Imagine this person were to respond with, "I don't think it's relevant to the topic why things fall to the earth. If you wish to debate whether or not things fall to the earth, then we can do so. But if you agree that things fall to the earth, then I don't see why we're going into a discussion of why."
Do you see the problem? Of course we have to go into depth as to why things fall to the earth. The person called into question the existence of gravity. Ergo, an alternative reason for why things fall to the earth must be presented.
You say that people believing untruths are not inherently harmful in and of them being untruths. You have also stated you believe that it doesn't matter whether or not someone believes something false as long as it makes them happy. So yes, in that case, we do need to go into why you're adamant about lying being morally wrong, because the reasons I believe lying is morally wrong are not things you agree with.
It's not acceptable to ask you to justify your arguments? This is the DEBATE forum, bitterroot. That's pretty much all we do here.
Why?
What if the heirs never knew about the money being stolen either?
So what?
You said yourself that God's existence is irrelevant to the value of prayer. The whole point is in that person's subjective mind, God exists and that person gets a sense of fulfillment, right? So, by your own reasoning, even if the deity the person is praying to does not exist, and they're not communing with a deity, then they're still receiving fulfillment and that's the only real thing that matters.
So why does prayer to a nonexistent god get a pass but Scientology doesn't?
Why does Scientology cause harm but prayer to a nonexistent god doesn't?
Hell, you have people who spend their time in prayer and contemplation all the time to God and other religions. Monastic traditions exist in many religions. Do these not prove prayer harmful?
There are people who donate money all the time to religious institutions, who would not if they did not believe in said religions. Do these not prove prayer harmful?
Why does it matter whether Scientology is true or not?
You said it didn't matter if the deity being prayed to actually existed when evaluating the benefits/harms of prayer, right?
So why does prayer to a nonexistent deity get a pass and not Scientology? What separates the two?
You are not actually communing with the deity that you are praying to if the deity that you are praying to does not exist.
Therefore you are being cheated.
Yet you are fine with prayer but not fine with Scientology? That doesn't make any sense.
It is not morally wrong to be deceived. It is, however, harmful to be deceived. The fact that one believes a falsehood and not the truth is itself a harm.
But you also say...
Do you see the problem?
Why is Scientology turning out to be wrong regarded as “no spiritual benefits” and derided because of that, but the deity turning out to not exist ignored?
So you are better off lying to yourself than you are being honest with yourself?
Why is lying to others morally wrong but lying to yourself not morally wrong?
Moreover, why is lying morally wrong in the first place? You never answered that.
The fact that it's true.
People value knowledge and seek truth. Believing in something that's actually true satisfies those goals, and is therefore a benefit. Yes, you get some side benefits from believing you have real knowledge even if you're wrong, but people also care about the actual truth value of their beliefs. In most (all?) major religions, the important thing is not just the you believe in a god, but that that god is actually real. People pray to the "one true god", not the "one god who I believe in and derive benefit from, true or not".
Imagine you had a good friend for many years. After that friend's death, you find out that he was only pretending to be your friend. Would you simply not care, because you had already derived all the benefits of that friendship, true or not? I doubt it. I suspect you'd be upset that you had been deceived. You still got the benefits of friendship, but because you also presumably value truth, you're unhappy to learn the friendship you thought you had wasn't real.
Respectfully, I think you're mixing up harms and benefits. Finding out that your religion was false or the friendship was fake is a harm. It's a huge emotional blow. It's not that you get a benefit from truth in those cases, it's that you get a real-world emotional harm from discovering the falsehood.
Let's say instead your fake friend dies and no one ever finds out that he was faking the friendship all along. He kept the secret perfectly and it went with him to his grave. Assuming he was very good at faking and he had you 100% convinced he was your friend, the results are completely indistinguishable from if he had been a real friend all along. You would not get any extra "truth benefits" if he had been a real friend. In other words, the mere fact that the friendship was true or false is irrelevant, it's the consequences of that truth or falsehood that matter.
Take a position and I will structure my argument accordingly: is telling a lie morally wrong, or morally acceptable?
If we agree that telling a lie is morally wrong, I do not need to prove to you that telling a lie is morally wrong. Stop wasting my time.
I will justify any assertion you disagree with. I will not justify assertions you agree with.
The fact that it's true.[/quote] Prove that it is true.
The remainder of your post demonstrates a fundamental misapprehension of my argument. I assume this is my fault and that I've not communicated my argument very clearly. So I will start from the beginning and take this in baby steps:
Tell me if you agree or disagree with the following statement. If you disagree, please state as clearly as possible what you disagree with and why.
You are faced with the choice of doing action X or not doing action X. If the following two conditions are satisfied, you should definitely do action X.
1. Action X is not immoral.
2. Action X will benefit you, and will not cause harm to you or anyone.
Agree or disagree?
Respectfully, I think you're mixing up harms and benefits. Finding out that your religion was false or the friendship was fake is a harm. It's a huge emotional blow. It's not that you get a benefit from truth in those cases, it's that you get a real-world emotional harm from discovering the falsehood.
Let's say instead your fake friend dies and no one ever finds out that he was faking the friendship all along. He kept the secret perfectly and it went with him to his grave. Assuming he was very good at faking and he had you (and everyone else) 100% convinced he was your friend, the results are completely indistinguishable from if he had been a real friend all along. You would not get any extra "truth benefits" if he had been a real friend. In other words, the mere fact that the friendship was true or false is irrelevant, it's the consequences of that truth or falsehood that matter.
Take a position and I will structure my argument accordingly: is telling a lie morally wrong, or morally acceptable?
If we agree that telling a lie is morally wrong, I do not need to prove to you that telling a lie is morally wrong. Stop wasting my time.
I will justify any assertion you disagree with. I will not justify assertions you agree with.
Prove this benefit exists. (Note - I'm asking you to prove this because I do, in fact, disagree with what you're asserting.)
The remainder of your post demonstrates a fundamental misapprehension of my argument. I assume this is my fault and that I've not communicated my argument very clearly. So I will start from the beginning and take this in baby steps:
Tell me if you agree or disagree with the following statement. If you disagree, please state as clearly as possible what you disagree with and why.
You are faced with the choice of doing action X or not doing action X. If the following two conditions are satisfied, you should definitely do action X.
1. Action X is not immoral.
2. Action X will benefit you, and will not cause harm to you or anyone.
Agree or disagree?
Why is it an emotional blow? What does it matter if a past friendship was fake if you have no concern for truth over falsehood?
If one my goals is to believe true things and disbelieve false things (which I think we can agree is a goal for just about all people), then I'm fulfilling that goal in one instance and not fulfilling it in the other. That's the benefit that distinguishes the two. Whether I'm aware of that benefit or not is immaterial.
Most people (myself included) do have a concern for truth over falsehood. When you find out the friendship was false, you certainly suffer a harm because you realize it was false; you have a desire to believe true things, not false things. But if you never find out and the falsehood never affects your life in any way, then you do not suffer a harm.
If you are never aware of the benefit, how is it a benefit?
Maybe I'm secretly the most naturally talented violinist in history. But if I never pick up a violin in my life, that's completely irrelevant, isn't it? If the benefit never has any impact on the real world in any way, how is it a benefit?
The harm is that you would prefer to believe in true things, and yet you believe in false things. That's a harm, because one your goals is to believe in true things. There's no secondary effect to look for - we don't have to wonder whether it makes you sad or hurts you. It's a harm because it's in direct conflict with your goal.
If you feel there is no difference between a thing that is true that you think is true and a thing that is false that you think is true, why should you be upset to find out the friendship was false? You still got all the benefits of friendship, didn't you?
How is it not a benefit? The goal is to believe true things. If you believe a true thing, you've satisfied your goal, and that's a benefit. It doesn't have some secondary impact like making you happy, but that doesn't matter.
There doesn't need to be an impact, because the state of believing a true statement is itself a benefit.
Now, are you going to pony up, or are you going to continue to dodge the question?
You just said they are. You called them "true things." Your words. True things are true things.
I don't know if you should definitely do action X, but it seems like a logical thing to do.
Simply stating "I disagree that telling a lie is morally wrong" is not in any way an argument. Bitterroot has been giving you well-founded and thought out reasons for his stance, and the entirety of your response is "why is telling a lie morally wrong?"
He has given reasons (Society deems it wrong, the general intent of telling a lie is to deceive someone for your own gain). Now it is YOUR turn to give REASONS why telling a lie is not morally wrong.
So, I ask you: why is telling a lie morally acceptable?
"normality is a paved road: it is comfortable to walk, but no flowers grow there."
-Vincent Van Gogh
things I hate:
1. lists.
b. inconsistencies.
V. incorrect math.
2. quotes in signatures
III: irony.
there are two kinds of people in the world: those who can make reasonable conclusions based on conjecture.