To Tell The Truth

I forgot to respond to the content of your post as well.

Why is his soul so unsympathetic to his mind? He did the best he could possibly do in the situation. The person who does the best they could, should be honored and praised and feel no remorse. We should only feel shame when we do something others would justly condemn us for, and we should only feel remorse when we wish we had done other than what we did.

I agree that it is an unrepresentative and rare scenario, and that lying in most cases is in fact wrong. My only point in bringing up a rare scenario is to show the limits of a philosophy that says “lying is ALWAYS wrong”.

I think that maybe you want to say lying is always wrong because if you were to admit that it is not always wrong, there would be a slippery slope and no end to the exceptions, until we got to the point where we say it is okay to lie about anything. I don’t think there is a slippery slope. Just because we have admitted that lying is okay in some extreme cases doesn’t mean it is okay all the time. Indeed, the hurt and mistrust built up by a habitual liar surely outweighs any benefits lying might accrue in most cases. My point is only that – that we decide what is right in a situation by considering our heart-centered values and how they might be affected by the consequences of our actions.

In the case of lying to the SS, there is no imaginable harm that could occur and great potential for benefit. What good is it, then, to feel remorse and shame about making such an unqualifiably good decision? Remorse and shame are negative reinforcement which will discourage us from making the decision again should the proper circumstances arise. As a result feeling remorse and shame may have bad consequences but incurs no potential benefits; thus feeling remorse and shame in this situation is what is really wrong!

As I explained above, your speculation on my meanings and motives is entirely incorrect, and there was not a mite of dishonesty in anything I have said. Your accusation is unfounded and hurtful, and I request an apology. This is the sort of thing you need to stop doing if you want to have “true friendship” on this forum.

Tentative deserves an apology as well. You compare his position to Nazism just because he says that conscience, not absolutist rules, are the ultimate moral guide. But Tentative’s conscience would never allow him to commit horrible murders nor allow anyone else to do so. The comparison to Nazism is thus unjustified and very hurtful.

I could just as unjustifiably and hurtfully compare your position to Nazism because, like Hitler, you have many rigid, ideological views that are not open to discussion. How would you feel about that?

The problem with moral principles such as ‘lying is always wrong’ or ‘murder is always wrong’ is that they can lead us to moral error. JennyHeart is a moral generalist, who feels that application of these moral principles is all that a person needs in order to be moral.

There are many dangers to moral generalism, one of which is that assuming one can rely on principles such as these, one is prone to shut down the moral part of ones brain when a principles has been applied, happy to assume that one has done the right thing and that no further thought need be applied. Indeed, if such further thought is applied, even in the light of possible terrible and horrific consequences, a conflict will arise between the evidence of these consequences and the prior belief that the moral principle in question is inviolable.

Moral principles, and the people who rely on them, do not allow for situations in which there might be good moral reasons on both sides of an argument that need to be taken into consideration. Indeed, the principles disallow any such consideration as they dictate exactly what must be done without regard for additional reasons.

Then there are other times when two moral principles conflict - the principle for not lying and the principle for not murdering could easily be envisaged to conflict in one particular situation. What does JennyHeart do when she finds out her choices are either a) Tell a lie or b) Murder. I suspect, she simply changes the definition of either lying or murder. These changes in definition usually sound like 'It’s not a lie, it’s a white lie" or “It’s not murder, it’s justified killing” etc etc.

Erroneous and topically irrelevant.

When you initiate diversions from the topic at hand via the use of ad hominem invectives, as you do, I sometimes then call you on it.

That my general suppositions of a non-personally directed nature touch a nerve with you should be of value to your own personal growth process.

Erroneous and topically irrelevant.

Please stay on-topic and save your threatened ego’s pesonal castigations disguised as “we are the chosen people of this board and you are the scapegoat” for your Rant House buddies.

Thank you.

Imagine … that you have just killed someone who was wrongly attacking someone you loved.

You have never killed anyone before and never thought you ever would.

Will you feel nothing “unpleasant” about killing someone?

When you ask if the soul should be unsympathetic to the mind, such is not the soul’s job or function.

There are no “shoulds” in feeling, only in the mind’s blockage of feeling. :sunglasses:

The situation that evokes feelings is irrelevant.

When one behaves wrongly, even in the process of doing what is right, if one is in touch with one’s feelings and the complete reality of one’s behavior, one will feel the shame of doing wrong even if a greater right was also done.

Shame is not a “bad” feeling, in and of itself.

It is guilt – the feeling of shame coupled with the thought of fault – that, if inapplicable, can be debilitating. Guilt and shame are two different things; the former is an attitude that incorporates thought, whereas the latter is simply a feeling by itself, a feeling that can teach us much.

Indeed, there are six root feelings: sad, glad, mad, ashamed, afraid and hurt.

It is possible to feel one or all at the same time and irregardless of what the mind is thinking about the situation at the time.

Accepting our feelings just as they are and exploring the what and why of them can lead to great wisdom.

We can learn from our feelings just as much as as we can learn from our thoughts.

I understand where you are coming from, and your utilitarian point is of value for other utilitarians.

But lying is wrong, always, and if we are truly in touch with our feelings we will be reminded of it, always.

That we can behave both rightly and wrongly at pretty much the same time is a phenonenon that boggles some minds.

What good is it to feel remorse and shame in this matter?

That’s a very good question.

But first, before you can answer that question through your own experience, you must be able not only to admit that we can and do feel shame and remorse in such matters, you must experience that for yourself.

The answer, Aporia, is that the good it does is to tell us the truth.

From there, nothing but good things can happen, both in learning and in personal growth.

Feelings are not good or bad, right or wrong.

Feelings just are.

And, they are of great value.

Your perspective here is why soldiers are taught not to feel … and then they go through hell afterwards trying to be civilians … and trying to love again.

The value sometimes of being between a rock and a hard place in our feelings is to look upon the scenario that got us there and then do all we can in our lives, including our geopolitical life, to prevent horrific “everyone loses” scenarios such as the holocaust from ever happening again.

But reality remains, that you cannot healthily sum up your feelings into one plate and declare the meal a positive one, feeling only glad.

The reality of feelings is that, if healthily experienced, such is always done a la carte.

This may not seem logical to you, but logic is of the mind, where we think, not of the soul, where we feel. Feelings are not subject to the mind’s limit of logic.

You may not like that, as that costs you a degree of control.

But that is real life, nevertheless.

No apologies warranted, and so none granted.

Feel your feelings … and learn from them.

Your moral relativism is obvious in your fantasies about others.

My guess is that you have trouble doing the right thing … and, you’ve been called on that before … painfully.

Okay, this is just persistent spamming. I invoke my right, as has been stated on these boards, to ask for some semblance of civility. This is just substandard. I am publicly requesting that jenny either learn how to debate a point philosphically, or that the management of this site review her posting “style” as contrary to the spirit of the rules.

These are no arguments - they are a series of pronouncements, for the sole purpose of eliciting a response that will in turn allow jenny to merely insult people. Perhaps I simply cannot discern an argument. If that is the case, I can surely be dissuaded from my view. But this appears to be trolling only.

I object.

Blake trite and irrelevant? [-X . Grow up and learn to consider ideas other than your own. The fox incident seen as cowardice is indicative instead of a cowardly mind, a mind that lumps all situations into a stew of worn out cliches and untested, but socially popular and indoctrinated, moral assertions and is deaf to any real human conflict about moral issues. It is really not worth response. Bye!

I second faust’s objection and support this review.

That’s my point, Ierrellus.

I think, Faust, that you are merely jealous that someone else is getting attention in valid subject and discussion that you used to get. :astonished:

Though you may find the subject matter intellecutally threatening, if you would stay on-topic and not initiate ad hominemic invectives, such as this post of yours I’m quoting, you just might learn something of value. :sunglasses:

You have got to be joking.


Not for a moment.

Philosophers have a tendency to over complicate the issue. The Truth is the Truth and can not be altered even if some other version of events is sold as the truth. So the question is one of behavior. In our actions, assuming we are attempting with our actions to continually strive towards a higher consciousness, then we must follow the simple ethical paradigm of doing for the sake of doing without destroying. In the example of the Nazi SS we can clearly weigh the level of destruction with each course of action. Clearly in this case, lying is less destructive and thus is the “moral” action. Conversely in the example of the corrupt president, the killing of thousands of innocent lives can not be less destructive than economic hardships and so clearly telling the truth is “moral”. Further, if economic collapse is terrifying everyone, than lets redirect our energy at alternative fuel. The need for oil is not a "need " at all and if all the oil in the world dried up tomorrow and there was no more profit motive, I promise you we would have alternative fuel in 15 minutes. I’m not trying to make a political statement, but following the course of least destruction always leads to the best positive outcome.

Jenny, I’ve been reading a lot of your threads and I see a common issue that you don’t but others do. The following is not meant to be insulting, but rather meant to be an eye-opener (or possibly an exercise in futility, I’m not sure which as of yet.)

You have this tendency to pretend you start out on top, as the master of all information, and as tentative so eloquently put it, you have a “my way or the highway” approach to philosophy. In order to learn, you must listen to others’ views on topics, and try to understand them, then relate them to your views and see what they may know that you don’t, or how their information or knowledge helps your perspective to grow, instead of deciding whether their arguments were congruent with your own and deciding they are wrong if the arguments are not the same.

On a side note, you also do this a lot: :unamused:

Irrelevant and erroneous.

Being part of an initiating lynch mob of people who can’t handle the straight truth told by those who can handle it and who wish to be part of mass hysteria to get the straight truth telling philosophers banned simply appears to be the modus operandi of the good o’l boys network of this forum.

Did you get that, Tentative? :imp:

That’s my job. I get all the attention around here and Faust has nothing to do with it, except when he is giving me his attention.

Anyway I thought we were going to argue for a post or two in the other thread. I told you I’d get back to ya after my sock drawer and I kept my promise.

Once again, the problem isn’t the message, it is the method of delivery. A few points to consider:

  1. You believe Christianity to be incorrect. I agree with you here, as do very many people on ILP. So . . . if a large subset of the population agrees with you, why have the responses to your posts been overwhelmingly negative? If you would like, I could cite other anti-christian threads that have recieved a much more positive response than your’s. Indeed, Sagesound comes out looking like a civil, moderate thinker on this topic when compared to you.

  2. You attacks are unsubstantiated. While I disagree with Scythe on just about everything, the guy goes his homework. He will attack a religion (in his care it’s Islam, but that isn’t relevant to the discussion at hand) and then cite several examples which support his claim. You have not done this in a meaningful way.

  3. You leave the discussion when actual facts get brought into play that dispute your gnosis-style knowledge. See: Life begins at conception . . . or does it?

  4. Your phrasing is indelicate. If you don’t adress the issue in good faith and with respect, you won’t get any answers worth dealing with.

  5. To lie is bad. Many (if not most) people agree with you on this statement. So, again, I have to ask why the response has been so negative to your posts?

Off topic? This conversation never was on topic.

Listening to Jenny Heart is listening to your own heart.

THUMP….thump……THUMP….thump….The beat goes on.

I’ve personally listened to only one other part of my anatomy…and it didn’t sound much like words to me……or maybe within the reverberating, whoosh, some secret message was being transmitted by the invincible powers that be.

I’ll eat beans and listen some more.

detrop - you are irrelevant and erroneous. You are obviously not able to handle the straight truth, about socks, or about anything else. You are merely trying to derail this thread into some cotton-poly fantasy. There is cotton, and there is polyester. Cotton is true. Period. (Is that redundant?) This fabrical relativism of yours is off-topic and ad sockinem.

By the way, nice review of the origins of fusion. I forgot that Miles takes the blame, er, credit for that.