Moral Dilemma #2

[Betsy Speicher 0]

Think of it this way: Stephen, didn’t you accept the idea that if someone starts acting nervously in response to a question, and then refuses to answer the question, that this can give one quite a good idea what the answer is?  If so, do you also accept that it is possible that someone can become decidedly nervous in declining to answer the question --  and yet the answer is not actually what you thought it would be on the basis of this nervousness?  After all, maybe the nervous individual is, e.g., so offended by abortion that the mere thought of it causes them to become noticeably flustered and sick to their stomach.  But this possibility does not change the fact that nervous silence –- or, in my view, non-nervous silence -– can and does at times tell other people what one is under no obligation to tell.

What about a nervous lie? How would someone read that?

All things considered, I would be a lot more nervous telling a lie than giving a truthful "No comment."

[ADS 0]

What about a nervous lie?  How would someone read that?

In the Jane/abortion example, I think that depends on some concrete factors not specified. But, in general, I think the nervousness would have to be pretty pronounced and sudden for me to find a nervous lie from Jane more of a give-away than a calm non-answer.

All things considered, I would be a lot more nervous telling a lie than giving a truthful "No comment."

←

That's fine -- and, in a way, quite admirable. But for those of us who would not be as nervous, is it moral for us to lie in these certain contexts? I maintain that it is.

[Stephen Speicher 0]

I had no idea that debate still existed at this deep a level, so since this issue is so fundamental to my case I really should jump in here.

To say that a non-answer is an “implicit yes” is not to rule out the possibility that, perhaps, someone would if in Jane’s shoes simply (and validly) decline to answer the question even if they didn't have an abortion.  An “implicit yes” merely means that, given the context, a non-answer implies that the actual answer is most likely “yes.”  “Most likely” leaves open the possibility that the actual answer is no, and how real this possibility is depends upon the specific context.  I would not even rule out the idea that, in some contexts (although not the Jane/abortion example), one can be given certainty that a straight non-answer implies one answer or the other.  But this is not required for what The General called an “implicit yes" (although I don't mean to speak for The General; this is my view).

Remember, the context of this debate involves the violation of privacy, and I do not believe that other people have to be given certainty about your personal affairs in order for your privacy to be violated. A simple situation in which someone is given the idea that you most likely had an abortion is enough, and is all that the idea of an “implicit yes” was ever intended or required to show.

Your privacy is not violated by what other people conclude; your privacy is violated by their intrusion into an area of your life that you consider to be personal. Even if you lie and say "no" to their question, they can still take that as a "yes" and you have accomplished nothing by lying, except that by your standard of what they think they know, you would have to conclude that your they have violated your privacy and you would be culpable for your participation in the act. By my standard, it is the question itself that is a violation of my privacy, and I shortcircuit that immediately by telling the person that such a subject is too personal for me to discuss. What they conclude from that is then their business; I have no more control over that than had I lied and said "no." I do not care what some person considers to be "most likely" if they choose to ignore my explicit statement that the issue itself is too personal for me to discuss. And none of that changes if I were to lie and deny; the person can still conclude something else.

Otherwise, the doctor that performed Jane’s abortion could circulate evidence on the internet that Jane had an abortion, and he would not be violating her privacy because he’s not giving any nosy web-surfer certainty that Jane did in fact have an abortion.

The doctor is violating Jane's privacy by making information public that Jane has the right to keep private. What other people conclude is not the standard we use, for if it were, then if everyone concluded the doctor was lying, by that standard Jane's privacy was not violated. That is obviously wrong.

In the web-surfer’s context, the evidence could possibly be faked or mistaken, but Jane's privacy is still shot.

That is the point that I am making. The privacy is not violated per se by the conclusion they draw, but by the question which probes into an area that is private, or, as in the doctor's case, revealing information which in fact is private.

Think of it this way: Stephen, didn’t you accept the idea that if someone starts acting nervously in response to a question, and then refuses to answer the question, that this can give one quite a good idea what the answer is?  If so, do you also accept that it is possible that someone can become decidedly nervous in declining to answer the question --  and yet the answer is not actually what you thought it would be on the basis of this nervousness?  After all, maybe the nervous individual is, e.g., so offended by abortion that the mere thought of it causes them to become noticeably flustered and sick to their stomach.  But this possibility does not change the fact that nervous silence –- or, in my view, non-nervous silence -– can and does at times tell other people what one is under no obligation to tell.

I left this intact because I think that the final conclusion is egregiously wrong. What we tell people and what they conclude are not necessarily the same thing. I cannot control what people conclude about me in a myriad of ways; all I can do is be and act as myself, honest in what I say and in what I do. If I lie about something people still may not believe me; the net value of a lie is never in the black. This whole idea that we will "necesarily reveal" a personal fact about ourself if we answer a personal question by saying that the question is too personal, is just wrong. The intrusion into our privacy lies in being asked the too-personal question, not with what someone else takes away from our response.

[Janet_Busch 0]

I had no idea that debate still existed at this deep a level, so since this issue is so fundamental to my case I really should jump in here.

To say that a non-answer is an “implicit yes” is not to rule out the possibility that, perhaps, someone would if in Jane’s shoes simply (and validly) decline to answer the question even if they didn't have an abortion.  An “implicit yes” merely means that, given the context, a non-answer implies that the actual answer is most likely “yes.”  “Most likely” leaves open the possibility that the actual answer is no, and how real this possibility is depends upon the specific context.  I would not even rule out the idea that, in some contexts (although not the Jane/abortion example), one can be given certainty that a straight non-answer implies one answer or the other.  But this is not required for what The General called an “implicit yes" (although I don't mean to speak for The General; this is my view).

Remember, the context of this debate involves the violation of privacy, and I do not believe that other people have to be given certainty about your personal affairs in order for your privacy to be violated.  A simple situation in which someone is given the idea that you most likely had an abortion is enough, and is all that the idea of an “implicit yes” was ever intended or required to show.  Otherwise, the doctor that performed Jane’s abortion could circulate evidence on the internet that Jane had an abortion, and he would not be violating her privacy because he’s not giving any nosy web-surfer certainty that Jane did in fact have an abortion.  In the web-surfer’s context, the evidence could possibly be faked or mistaken, but Jane's privacy is still shot.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Alex, you essentially addressed this to Stephen, but I would like to answer this as well.

Forget Jane. Why should I accept responsibility for another's unwarrented assumptions about my response? Further, why would I twist myself into the mental contortions required to make sure there is no possibility that anyone could make an unjustified assertion about my answer? "I don't answer personal questions, but please don't take this as a yes?"! Would anyone believe such an answer? Is it this or a lie?

Those who are inclined to believe something other than what I tell them are going to do so whether I lie to them, or tell the truth, or decline to do either. My goal, in any situation, is to remain true to reality and to myself. Others are likewise responsible for themselves. If they can not accept my answer on the face of it, that is their problem. I'm not about to breach my integrity just because someone else might possibly believe something untrue about me.

Do you not see that the very idea of telling lies is what complicates all of these issues? If you lie, no matter what you do afterward, you will be wrong somewhere. If you lie, you have to worry about getting caught in a lie. If you lie, you give someone a weapon against you. If you lie have to worry about who you told what to. You make the truth a burden, and reality an enemy. Nothing anyone might think is worth that.

[The General 0]

But right at the beginning of your post you agreed that a woman who did not have an abortion could give the same response, yet here you assert that such a response is an implicit "yes." I take this either as a contradiction, or I conclude that  you think such a response would be an implicit "yes" even for a woman for whom the answer to the question is "no."

←

No, not a contradiction, I would say that the impression left upon the questioner (and any bystanders) would be an implicit yes, even though in fact she did not have an abortion.

And further, if that indeed is what you conclude, then I submit that you have simply dismissed out of hand that a person can legitimately claim that certain subjects are too personal for them to discuss. The point being, if such a response is legitimate, then the other person who concludes the implicit "yes" to that claim, is doing so without proper justification.

←

I haven't dismissed out of hand that a person can declare certain subjects are too personal; what I am trying to show is that if your goal is to protect your own privacy from nosy people, that response by itself does not suffice. The issue isn't really about the person who didn't have an abortion - it's about the person who did have an abortion, but doesn't want to share that fact with the rest of the world.

If all a person (who did have an abortion) said was, "There are certain subjects that I don't discuss publicly, and this is one of them", they have given the impression that they have had an abortion. As I asked previously, why else would they not say "no I haven't"? (Please note, I'm not trying to be disrespectful for this viewpoint - I actually agree with it, and having nothing but disgust for people who ask such indelicate questions.)

The epistemological status of the snoop's conclusion is not relevant to a violation of one's privacy. Whether or not they draw the correct conclusion, if they infer that you did have an abortion because you didn't explicitly say "no", your privacy has been violated. Similarly, if you were sweating and stammering when you replied, "N...Nah...NO", your privacy would have been violated, although in that case it's your own fault.

But the assumption in this whole issue is proper dealings among people, so why should we lie to someone else who forms an improper conclusion? A person like that might even take the false "no" to mean a concealed "yes," so you gain nothing of value but lose something in the act of lying.

←

I guess my main point is not that lying and saying you didn't have an abortion isn't sufficient to protect your privacy (as you point out, they could still draw the conclusion that you did have the abortion), but I think it is necessary. Furthermore, in the case we're discussing, I don't think you lose anything, and in fact you stand a good chance of keeping your privacy. I can imagine a case where I wouldn't lie, such as the following (assume Jane has):

Snoop - Jane, have you ever had an abortion?

Jane - No, I never have.

Snoop - That's interesting, because last year I saw you walk into an abortion clinic, and you stayed there for quite a while. You went in by yourself. Just what were you doing there, if you didn't have an abortion?

Jane - Um, I was....

But I don't think that is the type of situation we're discussing. We're talking about a situation where someone, who has no knowledge of your private life, attempts to gain some with an improper question. I say you are totally moral to answer "no" to any question that the person asks which they have no business knowing.

[The General 0]

I left this intact because I think that the final conclusion is egregiously wrong. What we tell people and what they conclude are not necessarily the same thing. I cannot control what people conclude about me in a myriad of ways; all I can do is be and act as myself, honest in what I say and in what I do. If I lie about something people still may not believe me; the net value of a lie is never in the black. This whole idea that we will "necesarily reveal" a personal fact about ourself if we answer a personal question by saying that the question is too personal, is just wrong. The intrusion into our privacy lies in being asked the too-personal question, not with what someone else takes away from our response.

←

Stephen,

I'm not trying to be flip, I'd honestly like to hear your reaction to the following. If you think that lying in this situation is wrong, then what would your argument be against simply saying, "Yes I have, and by the way, it's none of your damn business".

Also, I'm intrigued by your statement that, "The intrusion into our privacy lies in being asked the too-personal question, not with what someone else takes away from our response." I'm going to have to do some more thinking on this now. Thanks for the lead

[Janet_Busch 0]

Boy, the fingers are flying and I'm just slow, slow, slow!

Alex, please forgive the "Do you not see" introduction to the last paragraph of my last post. I just realized that it sounds like an accusation, and I did not mean it as such. Chalk it up to the passion of the moment.

I want to thank Betsy for posing this question. When I first read it, I couldn't imagine why it was even asked. Because it was, however, I've certainly had my thinking stimulated! And all for the good. I thank those who have expressed their views openly, and have stuck with the topic, even in the face of fierce opposition. You've made me consider aspects of this question I had not considered before.

[Stephen Speicher 0]

No, not a contradiction, I would say that the impression left upon the questioner (and any bystanders) would be an implicit yes, even though in fact she did not have an abortion.

This then is a statement that the facts (abortion or not) do not matter, so why complicate things by lying?

If all a person (who did have an abortion) said was, "There are certain subjects that I don't discuss publicly, and this is one of them", they have given the impression that they have had an abortion.

We're going in circles. As I tried to say before, if you admit (as you seem to have done) that an honest person may legitimately refuse to discuss an issue that is too personal, whether or not they had done what the questioner has asked, then the questioner's "impression" is of no import whatsoever.

As I asked previously, why else would they not say "no I haven't"?

Because they are honest?

I guess my main point is not that lying and saying you didn't have an abortion isn't sufficient to protect your privacy (as you point out, they could still draw the conclusion that you did have the abortion), but I think it is necessary.

That's quite a mouthful. It is "necessary" to lie about something you do not want to talk about, but the lie may still be useless because the facts do not matter?

I say you are totally moral to answer "no" to any question that the person asks which they have no business knowing.

←

And I say telling the truth is more simple. Just tell them the question is none of their business.

[ADS 0]

Your privacy is not violated by what other people conclude; your privacy is violated by their intrusion into an area of your life that you consider to be personal.

In this context, an intrusion of your privacy can involve either. When someone asks you a too-personal question, yes, that certainly is an intrusion on your privacy even if they find out nothing about yourself; but whether someone finds out what you want to keep private makes a difference here, too. The very fact that you would advocate saying “no comment” rather than just giving the correct answer shows that there is a legitimate, private value that you want to protect that you do not believe is ipso facto destroyed by someone merely asking the too-personal question. It is this private value that I seek to protect as well, and it is the losing of this value through other people knowing your private thoughts which I take to be an instance of your privacy being lost.

Even if you lie and say "no" to their question, they can still take that as a "yes" and you have accomplished nothing by lying, except that by your standard of what they think they know, you would have to conclude that your they have violated your privacy and you would be culpable for your participation in the act.

Someone arbitrarily deciding that “no means yes” does not violate my privacy, because they literally know nothing. What violates my privacy here is someone receiving some substantial evidence about my private thoughts and experiences that I do not want them to know. If there is a context in which your lying is going to give yourself away, then it makes no sense to lie. Where I advocate lying is in contexts where lying would not be giving yourself away. So, I don't see how this is a valid objection, but let me know what I'm missing.

By my standard, it is the question itself that is a violation of my privacy, and I shortcircuit that immediately by telling the person that such a subject is too personal for me to discuss. What they conclude from that is then their business; I have no more control over that than had I lied and said "no."

But I maintain that, in some contexts, you do have control: you can lie, because the person doesn’t deserve to be given any substantial evidence about your private life.

The doctor is violating Jane's privacy by making information public that Jane has the right to keep private. What other people conclude is not the standard we use, for if it were, then if everyone concluded the doctor was lying, by that standard Jane's privacy was not violated. That is obviously wrong.

Again, I agree with you that what other people conclude is not the only standard; my only contention here is that what other people conclude can itself constitute a loss of privacy as well. If it didn’t, why not just answer truthfully no matter what the question is? In your view, would you have lost zero additional privacy by doing so?

What we tell people and what they conclude are not necessarily the same thing. I cannot control what people conclude about me in a myriad of ways...

←

Again, but you can control it sometimes: by lying.

Also, while I agree that what you tell people and what they conclude are not the same things, this does not mean that you cannot protect yourself from other people knowing private facts about you by simply not giving them any evidence to begin with.

[ADS 0]

Forget Jane.  Why should I accept responsibility for another's unwarrented assumptions about my response?

One of my main points is that those assumptions are somtimes entirely warranted.

Further, why would I twist myself into the mental contortions required to make sure there is no possibility that anyone could make an unjustified assertion about my answer?

I'm not worried about people making arbitrary conclusions based on my answers. I'm worried about giving them evidence about my personal life that they do not deserve to know. This is crucial to my position; like yourself, I couldn't care less about what people arbitrarily believe about me.

Do you not see that the very idea of telling lies is what complicates all of these issues?  If you lie, no matter what you do afterward, you will be wrong somewhere.  If you lie, you have to worry about getting caught in a lie.

You also have to worry about being caught in a lie when you lie to a mugger in order to escape from him. But this does not mean that you shouldn't lie; on the contrary, you should lie, since it is necessary to protect your values. I think it's essentially the same in this privacy case.

But if you mean that I have to worry about my lie being exposed because I will thereby be shown to be immoral, then that would be circular reasoning, since the very thing I'm arguing for is that lying in such cases is not immoral. If by some chance you were exposed to have lied, the only thing you would legitimately have to worry about is....others finding out the private fact about you, which is what you wanted to protect all along. What else would you have to worry about? (If your coworker wanted nothing to do with you after they found out you lied, then I say that they would be very wrong for treating you like that.)

[Stephen Speicher 0]

Stephen,

I'm not trying to be flip, I'd honestly like to hear your reaction to the following.  If you think that lying in this situation is wrong, then what would your argument be against simply saying, "Yes I have, and by the way, it's none of your damn business".

I'm not sure what you mean by my "argument ... against." The response you indicate is a valid option -- a sort of beration after the fact of telling -- but clearly not what would be said if you literally meant it was none of the other person's business.

[Stephen Speicher 0]

But, in general, I think the nervousness would have to be pretty pronounced and sudden for me to find a nervous lie from Jane more of a give-away than a calm non-answer.

To be precise, saying "This is too personal an issue to discuss," is an answer. By referring to it as a "non-answer," you are stacking the deck.

[ADS 0]

To be precise, saying "This is too personal an issue to discuss," is an answer. By referring to it as a "non-answer," you are stacking the deck.

←

You're right in a sense: saying "This is too personal an issue to discuss" is an answer, in distinction to saying nothing at all, which would be a complete non-answer.

So, in that sense it's an answer, but does it answer the question that was asked? No, and it is in this sense that I said that it was a non-answer: it is a form of refusing to answer the question. But if you want, I'll agree to stop using the word "non-answer," since I don't want to detract too much from the other parts of the discussion.

[Stephen Speicher 0]

Your privacy is not violated by what other people conclude; your privacy is violated by their intrusion into an area of your life that you consider to be personal.

In this context, an intrusion of your privacy can involve either. When someone asks you a too-personal question, yes, that certainly is an intrusion on your privacy even if they find out nothing about yourself; but whether someone finds out what you want to keep private makes a difference here, too.

In this context, if "someone finds out what you want to keep private" it is only because you have told them, which would indicate that keeping this private does not make a difference to you.

The very fact that you would advocate saying “no comment” rather than just giving the correct answer shows that there is a legitimate ...

I'm sorry, but I have to interrupt this here because the wording being used slants the factual issue. First, "no comment" is not the same as "This is too personal an issue for me to discuss." The latter is a comment, and a direct one at that. Second, you imply that "This is too personal an issue for me to discuss" is not the "correct answer" when you contrast your "no comment" with your characterization of the "correct answer." Wording like that really slants the issue before we even get to discuss what is factual or not. I just wanted to make this clear. Having done so, now I will reinstate the interruption and continue on.

The very fact that you would advocate saying “no comment” rather than just giving the correct answer shows that there is a legitimate private value that you want to protect that you do not believe is ipso facto destroyed by someone merely asking the too-personal question.  It is this private value that I seek to protect as well, and it is the losing of this value through other people knowing your private thoughts which I take to be an instance of your privacy being lost.

But other people cannot know your private thoughts unless you tell them. That someone thinks they know something private is not an invasion of my privacy unless they actually do something about it.

By my standard, it is the question itself that is a violation of my privacy, and I shortcircuit that immediately by telling the person that such a subject is too personal for me to discuss. What they conclude from that is then their business; I have no more control over that than had I lied and said "no."

But I maintain that, in some contexts, you do have control: you can lie, because the person doesn’t deserve to be given any substantial evidence about your private life.

If you do not want to give "substantial evidence about your private life," there is no reason to lie; just do not tell them. You cannot control what other people think, no matter what you say. But you can control what facts you put out there, and there is no reason not to honestly limit those facts to those you want to allow.

... my only contention here is that what other people conclude can itself constitute a loss of privacy as well.  If it didn’t, why not just answer truthfully no matter what the question is?

First, you have asserted, but not demonstrated, "that what other people conclude can itself constitute a loss of privacy as well." Second, saying that an issue is too personal to discuss is answering truthfully.

Also, while I agree that what you tell people and what they conclude are not the same things, this does not mean that you cannot protect yourself from other people knowing private facts about you by simply not giving them any evidence to begin with.

That is exactly what I am arguing. But your approach in accomplishing this is to lie about what you say, while my approach is to state truthfully that it is none of their business. Your way gives them false evidence; my way gives them no evidence at all.

[Stephen Speicher 0]

But if you mean that I have to worry about my lie being exposed because I will thereby be shown to be immoral, then that would be circular reasoning, since the very thing I'm arguing for is that lying in such cases is not immoral.  If by some chance you were exposed to have lied, the only thing you would legitimately have to worry about is....others finding out the private fact about you, which is what you wanted to protect all along.  What else would you have to worry about?  (If your coworker wanted nothing to do with you after they found out you lied, then I say that they would be very wrong for treating you like that.)

This is interesting. If you think so much of your coworker that he would understand the moral issue as you have framed it after the fact, then why wouldn't you think he would just accept that you do not want to discuss the personal issue before the fact? Why complicate everything by lying?

[ADS 0]

If you think so much of your coworker that he would understand the moral issue as you have framed it after the fact, then why wouldn't you think he would just accept that you do not want to discuss the personal issue before the fact? Why complicate everything by lying?

←

I never said that I thought the coworker would understand the moral issue after the fact; I just said that if he didn't, then he would be wrong. And besides, I see no connection between accepting the moral issue after the fact, and not being tipped off by someone's saying "I don't want to discuss an issue like that" before the fact. I myself would be tipped off by such a clue in some contexts, and yet I wouldn't be angry with them if they lied instead and I found out.

Unfortunately, it is becoming apparent that Stephen and I are at another impasse. Among other things, we disagree about whether saying "That issue is too personal to discuss" can constitute evidence about the nature of one's private thoughts, so it doesn't seem as though the debate can go anywhere. I will let Stephen's Post #64 in this thread serve as the last word for what we were discussing there, because I do not think it possible for me to articulate my position better than I already have. If some (whether Stephen or others) respond to me further in disagreement, I will do my best not to respond, and let what I have said stand on its own.

[The General 0]

Stephen,

I think you have misunderstood my position in many ways, partly through some typos in one of my posts. I still need to do some more thinking in regards to this topic before posting on it again, however.

In the event that we do not continue this thread, I would like to thank you for your exposition here, as well as Alex for his own. Both of you have provided excellent food for thought

[Stephen Speicher 0]

Stephen,

I think you have misunderstood my position in many ways, partly through some typos in one of my posts.  I still need to do some more thinking in regards to this topic before posting on it again, however.

I'm sorry if I misunderstood. That is entirely possible, especially considering the flurry of posts that were made in such a short time. It is a lot to digest. Please, feel free to clarify anytime.

In the event that we do not continue this thread, I would like to thank you for your exposition here, as well as Alex for his own.  Both of you have provided excellent food for thought 

←

Well, I thank Alex, you, and the rest of the members who have participated in this interesting thread. Not to mention Betsy, who started this whole thing. I think it is a fascinating subject and I will leave the thread open in case anyone cares to re-visit the issue sometime later.

[Betsy Speicher 0]

Forget Jane.  Why should I accept responsibility for another's unwarrented assumptions about my response?

One of my main points is that those assumptions are somtimes entirely warranted.

If that's the case, we are really talking about a person's willingness to take responsibility for his own actions.

If others make assumptions which are entirely warranted but someone wants to conceal from them, it means he has done something he is ashamed to have known.

Actions have consequences good and bad. A woman may decide to have an abortion for many rational reasons, but she should also consider the fact that her Catholic friends may not approve. She may decide to keep the abortion private, but she should be aware that her attempts may fail and the truth can come out anyway.

All the consequences of doing something -- including what will happen when others find out -- should be considered, and accepted, before one acts.

[Sarah Beth 0]

All the consequences of doing something -- including what will happen when others find out -- should be considered, and accepted, before one acts.

←

Quite right, that's why I posted the first of my posts:

"I like especially the scenes in Ayn Rand's novels where the heroine haughtily raises her chin and honestly reveals that most painful truth, as if daring them to judge her because she knows her own actions and those who don't be damned."

Because another person may judge your morally questionable acts without the full knowledge that you (being yourself) have. Their judgement should not however detract from what you know of your own morality and if you accept your own actions and do not try to evade then you need not make yourself lie to hide something, although certainly a prying person is very rude and *deserves* nothing from you.

Certainly there are ways to blow off a question that you do not want to answer, and if done skillfully noone will know that you have done so, but I guess I consider that the same as lying (which I think was brought up earlier) and I think it is probably like a white lie, which I think still qualifies as dishonesty and would therefore be immoral, and not cancelled out by the fact that someone rudely barged in on you because their asking may not be immoral but only lack of etiquette.

I think that saying it is none of your business is the tactful moral thing to do and even if it in some way gives you away, it has more dignity than a lie does.

[Stephen Speicher 0]

Dominique, I appreciate the overall sense of your post, but there is one thing that is not clear to me.

Certainly there are ways to blow off a question that you do not want to answer, and if done skillfully noone will know that you have done so, but I guess I consider that the same as lying (which I think was brought up earlier) and I think it is probably like a white lie, which I think still qualifies as dishonesty and would therefore be immoral, and not cancelled out by the fact that someone rudely barged in on you because their asking may not be immoral but only lack of etiquette.

←

I am not sure what you mean by "blow off." The two polarizing positions presented here were 1) lying, and 2) stating that you will not discuss this personal issue. Since we seem to agree that "1)" is an unwarranted option, is "2)" what you mean by "blow off," and is that an example of a white lie which you think to be immoral? If not, then what is such an example?

[Sarah Beth 0]

Dominique, I appreciate the overall sense of your post, but there is one thing that is not clear to me.

I am not sure what you mean by "blow off." The two polarizing positions presented here were 1) lying, and 2) stating that you will not discuss this personal issue. Since we seem to agree that "1)" is an unwarranted option, is "2)" what you mean by "blow off," and is that an example of a white lie which you think to be immoral? If not, then what is such an example?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yes, I see how that was unclear. If it helps I said it because I had just read this post:

ADS, might I suggest that you play some poker? Stephen and Betsy are right that one need not lie to conceal a fact: I have often given people non-answers that are NOT dishonest, but would not lead them to think one way or another. It's a matter of being in control of your physical and emotional reactions.

and I should have paid more attention to this response given:

To be clear, my position is not that non-answers always give away the correct answer, but only that they do so in certain contexts. So any successful "poker face" is not relevant to refuting what I'm saying, especially since poker -- which takes as its premise the idea that everyone is going to try to prevent everyone from knowing what their cards are -- is fundamentally different from the kind of context I've been creating for my own examples.

Since it's true I guess that such a "non-answer" (blow-off) would not be relevent here.

I'm interested though to flesh out what I meant by a white lie in this context, so I'll put more thought on it and come back to this.

[Free Capitalist 0]

Wow, the discussion certainly exploded. I too first thought the question was rather trivial, but this latest aspect brings up something to consider.

The arguments you guys (Alex/Stephen) have been using are at the same time very concrete, and head-spin-able (yes I just made that up). I'd like to try and bring it out of the most concrete level and reach some essentialization here.

Alex, when you say that lying is sometimes advisable, do you argue for its moral status, or do you assume that it's moral and merely argue whether it is practical or not. Stephen, the same question applies to your point of view.

The question here is: are we discussing an ethical problem, wherein, if Stephen proves his case, all lying outside of situations of force should be considered immoral? Or do we assume that lying can be moral sometimes, even without any force in the context, but that it does not achieve the results we intend, i.e. is not practical?

[Stephen Speicher 0]

Alex, when you say that lying is sometimes advisable, do you argue for its moral status, or do you assume that it's moral and merely argue whether it is practical or not. Stephen, the same question applies to your point of view.

←

Implicit in all that I have said is my recognition of the fact that the moral is the practical. If there appears to be a conflict between the two, then something is wrong with the analysis and judgment being used. Outside of the context of force, there is never a justification for faking reality.

I do not want to speak for Alex, but I suspect that his argument may be that, in the context under discussion, the lie is required because the personal intrusion is a form of force, and the lie protects a value that would otherwise be stolen. However, that is the practical issue I have been arguing against. But, anyway, Alex is certainly well-equipped to answer this for himself, if he chooses to.

[Free Capitalist 0]

Right, of course all moral actions subsume being practical, but not all practical actions subsume being moral, in that there are things outside of questions of morality that still involve matters of practicality. For example, if the top of my computer is dusty, the question may appear to be, whether I should clean the dust off or not. Of course it's moral, but it may not be practical to clean it right now, if there's a pile of things on top of it to be sorted; or it may be practical now because it will allow me a chance to get to sorting those things. Etc. The issue of morality lies at the foundation, and once that's resolved there are other things built on top of it, which we may or may not do according to other considerations.

So my question to your point of view was, do you believe that the matter of morality is at stake here, that lying as such, when force is not involved, would be immoral? I ask for this essentialization because Alex seems to be assuming that lying can still be moral without force involved, and he's just trying to argue that it may accomplish some results that avoiding the question will not.

It may be that you guys are approaching this subject from different and not entirely compatible levels, which is why I raised my question to both of you.