True. Hell, my dad explained to me about the Cold War in such way at the age of 6-7. It works, people.
Advertisement
by SatoSere » Mon Sep 21, 2020 2:09 am
by Ethel mermania » Mon Sep 21, 2020 6:31 am
by SatoSere » Mon Sep 21, 2020 6:51 am
Ethel mermania wrote:being Cassandra is a bitch. I would rather be happy.
by Ethel mermania » Mon Sep 21, 2020 6:58 am
by Ethel mermania » Mon Sep 21, 2020 7:00 am
by Thepeopl » Mon Sep 21, 2020 7:03 am
by Geneviev » Mon Sep 21, 2020 7:12 am
Neanderthaland wrote:To lie to someone to preserve their happiness is to infantilize them. It is to reject their dignity, reason, and responsibility, because you think you know better than they do. You may think you're doing them a favor. You're actually belittling them. It shows contempt for them. I won't say there's never any reason to do this, but just know that it's a very disrespectful thing to do. And if they hate you for it when they find out, they have every right to.
To lie to yourself to preserve your happiness, is to infantilize yourself. It is to reject all claim to dignity, reason, and responsibility, and hold yourself in contempt. There is a reason why cults attempt to break you down before they indoctrinate you. To lie to yourself is to be broken.
by Ethel mermania » Mon Sep 21, 2020 7:18 am
Neanderthaland wrote:To lie to someone to preserve their happiness is to infantilize them. It is to reject their dignity, reason, and responsibility, because you think you know better than they do. You may think you're doing them a favor. You're actually belittling them. It shows contempt for them. I won't say there's never any reason to do this, but just know that it's a very disrespectful thing to do. And if they hate you for it when they find out, they have every right to.
To lie to yourself to preserve your happiness, is to infantilize yourself. It is to reject all claim to dignity, reason, and responsibility, and hold yourself in contempt. There is a reason why cults attempt to break you down before they indoctrinate you. To lie to yourself is to be broken.
by Aeritai » Mon Sep 21, 2020 7:47 am
by Knica Eas » Mon Sep 21, 2020 8:03 am
Bombadil wrote:Knica Eas wrote:
I agree with this sentiment in general and would extend it further.
Truth is utilitarian. If a claimed 'truth' in relation to physical reality does not lead to some form of measurable or reproducible result, it is not a useful 'truth'. In the same way, if a claimed 'truth' in relation to sociological reality does not lead to measurable results, it is not a useful 'truth'.
For this poster, safety and happiness is of utmost concern. Therefore, truths are important to them insofar as these truths contribute to the ultimate goal of safety and happiness.
There are infinite truths in an infinite universe; we are finite beings. As such, any claim to universality must necessary tend towards the greatest possible degree of arrogance. The only way for a finite being to claim universality would be to shrink their universe, so those who are insistent on pushing a universal truth are, to me, no more than solipsists of a particularly extroverted variety.
Of course, it is still possible to admit that one's truths are not universal, but extrapolate that it is, based on the limited information available. In this case, it is important to clearly define the constraints and limitaitons, and maintain a strictly evidence-based approach in the course of growing one's sense of reality.
That's a dangerous road to take, where it gets into dangerous territory of what constitutes the safety and happiness of society in general. Truth is absolute, 'safety' and 'happiness' are not and in fact those societies where 'safety' is touted as paramount are generally those where the truth is most distorted.
by Knica Eas » Mon Sep 21, 2020 8:19 am
Ethel mermania wrote:Neanderthaland wrote:To lie to someone to preserve their happiness is to infantilize them. It is to reject their dignity, reason, and responsibility, because you think you know better than they do. You may think you're doing them a favor. You're actually belittling them. It shows contempt for them. I won't say there's never any reason to do this, but just know that it's a very disrespectful thing to do. And if they hate you for it when they find out, they have every right to.
To lie to yourself to preserve your happiness, is to infantilize yourself. It is to reject all claim to dignity, reason, and responsibility, and hold yourself in contempt. There is a reason why cults attempt to break you down before they indoctrinate you. To lie to yourself is to be broken.
The typical example used to justify that there can mercy in lying to others.
A couple happily married 30 years get into a horrible car accident, one killed the other critically injured knocked out cold, The injured spouse finally awakes and asks for their spouse.
Do you tell them their spouse is dead, or do you wait for a safer time in terms of the recovery?
by Punished UMN » Mon Sep 21, 2020 8:39 am
Knica Eas wrote:Ethel mermania wrote:
The typical example used to justify that there can mercy in lying to others.
A couple happily married 30 years get into a horrible car accident, one killed the other critically injured knocked out cold, The injured spouse finally awakes and asks for their spouse.
Do you tell them their spouse is dead, or do you wait for a safer time in terms of the recovery?
I wrote the previous post prior to seeing the one quoted above. I think this is a good example.
The goal of the typical doctor is not to construct an accurate internal model of reality for the client. The goal of the doctor is to minimise harm. In this context, the only truths that matter are those that are condusive to minimising harm (i.e. using collections of facts, which we could call 'medical knowledge', in accordance with a model that organises these facts in a useful way, which we could call 'professional competence').
by Nouveau Yathrib » Mon Sep 21, 2020 10:09 am
by Nuroblav » Mon Sep 21, 2020 10:19 am
Geneviev wrote:People will always say that they want to believe only in true things, but sometimes the truth will make them unhappy. Consider these examples:
1. Person A has been isolated from society for the last year and is entirely unaware of the current pandemic. They have been perfectly happy being alone and studying without knowing about what is happening in the world around them. Since they are isolating themselves already for different reasons, they are unlikely to be harmed by being ignorant of the pandemic. But if they do find out, it will cause them significant psychological distress (like the rest of us).
2. Person B believes in a religion that, for the sake of discussion, can be assumed to be false. But the religion makes Person B happy, gives their life purpose, and has helped them confront the suffering in their life. It also encourages them to be selfless and serve others. Being told their religion is false and seeing proof that it is false would not only make them unhappy, but would make it difficult for them to cope with everyday life.
There are more examples like this, but they are the first I thought of. So, in these situations, is it really better to know the truth? Or should we also consider what makes people happy?
In my opinion, there are situations in which the truth is too unpleasant to force on people. In the case of Person A, they should be told about the pandemic in case they choose to leave their hypothetical isolation during the pandemic. But Person B is not harmed by their faith at all, and to prove it wrong would be unethical in that case. But what say you, NSG?
by Thepeopl » Mon Sep 21, 2020 1:02 pm
by Geneviev » Mon Sep 21, 2020 1:03 pm
Nuroblav wrote:Geneviev wrote:People will always say that they want to believe only in true things, but sometimes the truth will make them unhappy. Consider these examples:
1. Person A has been isolated from society for the last year and is entirely unaware of the current pandemic. They have been perfectly happy being alone and studying without knowing about what is happening in the world around them. Since they are isolating themselves already for different reasons, they are unlikely to be harmed by being ignorant of the pandemic. But if they do find out, it will cause them significant psychological distress (like the rest of us).
2. Person B believes in a religion that, for the sake of discussion, can be assumed to be false. But the religion makes Person B happy, gives their life purpose, and has helped them confront the suffering in their life. It also encourages them to be selfless and serve others. Being told their religion is false and seeing proof that it is false would not only make them unhappy, but would make it difficult for them to cope with everyday life.
There are more examples like this, but they are the first I thought of. So, in these situations, is it really better to know the truth? Or should we also consider what makes people happy?
In my opinion, there are situations in which the truth is too unpleasant to force on people. In the case of Person A, they should be told about the pandemic in case they choose to leave their hypothetical isolation during the pandemic. But Person B is not harmed by their faith at all, and to prove it wrong would be unethical in that case. But what say you, NSG?
I'd go with different answers for both of them. In the first one - I'd probably try and find a way to tell them without it causing much distress. Perhaps I'd leave it until after it's died down. Either way I think they'd have to find out at some point, unless they were to be isolated for the rest of their live.
In the second one though, I'd leave them to it. If it's not causing harm to others of course, than leave them alone to it.
by The Romanian Confederacy » Mon Sep 21, 2020 1:14 pm
SatoSere wrote:Infected Mushroom wrote:It is better to be a safely deluded but genuinely whimsical, happy-go-lucky fellow with a true heartfelt smile on their face at all times... then to be a grim-faced, “YOU CAN’T HANDLE THE TRUTH!” person unnecessarily aware of the true horror of things
Truth doesn’t matter
Safety and happiness are what counts. Now if you need to know a few truths to be safe, then that’s fine. However, the more you know, the less you can be protected from depressing truths.
Ah yes, you think Brave New World is an instruction manual.
by Thepeopl » Mon Sep 21, 2020 1:24 pm
Geneviev wrote:Nuroblav wrote:I'd go with different answers for both of them. In the first one - I'd probably try and find a way to tell them without it causing much distress. Perhaps I'd leave it until after it's died down. Either way I think they'd have to find out at some point, unless they were to be isolated for the rest of their live.
In the second one though, I'd leave them to it. If it's not causing harm to others of course, than leave them alone to it.
That's what I was thinking too. Especially since the false religion makes them a better person.
by Geneviev » Mon Sep 21, 2020 1:28 pm
Thepeopl wrote:Geneviev wrote:That's what I was thinking too. Especially since the false religion makes them a better person.
Why do you differentiate?
Person a will be happy even if they know they are in the midst of a pandemic. Because they know nobody will come to their house and they don't have to visit the outside world if they choose not to (because they have missed the pandemic for 6 months already)
Person b will be happy knowing the thruth. They don't have to follow arbitrary rules anymore and can decide for themselves what "being good" constitutes.
Your premise of the thruth will cancel happiness is not set in stone. If a person is happy being ignorant, they'll be happy when they learn the truth as well.
It is known as Hedonistic Adaptation.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hedonic ... nvironment.
by Victorious Decepticons » Mon Sep 21, 2020 3:47 pm
Geneviev wrote:Person A is just like the rest of humanity. We're distressed by the amount of death and suffering that the pandemic has caused, even those people who are lucky enough to not need to go out.
by Neutraligon » Mon Sep 21, 2020 4:31 pm
Ethel mermania wrote:Neanderthaland wrote:To lie to someone to preserve their happiness is to infantilize them. It is to reject their dignity, reason, and responsibility, because you think you know better than they do. You may think you're doing them a favor. You're actually belittling them. It shows contempt for them. I won't say there's never any reason to do this, but just know that it's a very disrespectful thing to do. And if they hate you for it when they find out, they have every right to.
To lie to yourself to preserve your happiness, is to infantilize yourself. It is to reject all claim to dignity, reason, and responsibility, and hold yourself in contempt. There is a reason why cults attempt to break you down before they indoctrinate you. To lie to yourself is to be broken.
The typical example used to justify that there can mercy in lying to others.
A couple happily married 30 years get into a horrible car accident, one killed the other critically injured knocked out cold, The injured spouse finally awakes and asks for their spouse.
Do you tell them their spouse is dead, or do you wait for a safer time in terms of the recovery?
by Bombadil » Mon Sep 21, 2020 4:35 pm
Neutraligon wrote:Ethel mermania wrote:
The typical example used to justify that there can mercy in lying to others.
A couple happily married 30 years get into a horrible car accident, one killed the other critically injured knocked out cold, The injured spouse finally awakes and asks for their spouse.
Do you tell them their spouse is dead, or do you wait for a safer time in terms of the recovery?
In this case a doctor lying is a big problem, because it breaks the trust. You do not lie.
by Neutraligon » Mon Sep 21, 2020 4:37 pm
Bombadil wrote:Neutraligon wrote:In this case a doctor lying is a big problem, because it breaks the trust. You do not lie.
Yes, the correct answer is to say "I'm very sorry.. but s/he died instantly..", the 'I'm very sorry' at least provides a context to prepare and the 'instantly' at least assuages the idea there was pain, then add "it was probably your fault'.
by Bombadil » Mon Sep 21, 2020 4:43 pm
Neutraligon wrote:Bombadil wrote:
Yes, the correct answer is to say "I'm very sorry.. but s/he died instantly..", the 'I'm very sorry' at least provides a context to prepare and the 'instantly' at least assuages the idea there was pain, then add "it was probably your fault'.
??? Where was fault in the example? As a doctor you would have no idea of fault so adding that would be a lie.
Users browsing this forum: A Rubicon, AdsBot [Google], Blitznia, Cretie, Dazchan, Ifreann, Ineva, Nyetoa, Port Carverton, Repreteop, Tillania, Uiiop, United Calanworie, Vest Oldabre, Vussul, Xind
