T-1000

Let's make it more realistic since I would never accept non cash payment (!). Let's say you have £5000 of bank notes which you acquired legitimately but which you subsequently come to find out are forged notes. Let's say I am selling a used car. It would be in your self interest to buy the used car from me with the forged notes, as long as I am a stranger to you (ie I don't have any other obligations towards you and am never likely to meet you again). There would be no repercussions for you from doing this, accept to your conscience (since you have ripped me off). I guess what I am interested in learning is WHY should you feel guilty? In the case of £5000 your guilt may overcome the loss of £5k so you decide to take a hit and not pass on the forged notes. But what about a situation in which you stand to lose £50k by not lying? Or £500k? These are amounts which if lost would definitely materially affect one's flourishing and happiness.

Characteristics in another person that make it easiest to get what you want from them through deception and trickery - gullibility, laziness, stupidity, inexperience, ineptitude, ignorance. What kind of people are most likely to have lots of material values to offer you? - honest, productive, intelligent, experienced, people. Spiritual values - honest, generous, kind hearted, funny, intelligent, loving people.

The above is the categorical imperative par excellence "act only according to that maxim whereby you can, at the same time, will that it should become a universal law". The liar is NOT acting such that his actions could become universal principles. Rather, he is acting to gain values that are in HIS long term rational self interest.

I hope not since that would make it more difficult for me. Also "act only according to that maxim whereby you can, at the same time, will that it should become a universal law" is the Kantian categorical imperative and is the root of all "duties" - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Categorical_imperative I don't agree with the idea of duties. If I am to act in a certain way it should be in my interest to do so.

No. But me making it more difficult for others to trade doesn't affect me.

It makes it more difficult for him to act in his self interest but does not make it metaphysically impossible.

It allows him to act in a way that he believes will be in his own self interest. When one acts, one cannot be guaranteed to achieve one's self interest.

*** Mod's note: This "socratic dialog" between -- T-1000 and selected. The idea is to allow T-1000 to respond to each post. Nobody is in a hurry here. If you wish to participate in this topic, please send a PM to Ropoctl2 . Others, please do not post to this topic, even if the forum software allows you to do so.*** thanks. - sN *** Lying in order to gain values can be in one's long term rational self interest.

Just found this too - http://www.dianahsieh.com/docs/atom.pdf - I haven't read this yet but I'm going to print it off and read it tomorrow. It seems "Objectivism largely lacks not only a theory of mind, but also an active discussion of the subject", I'm looking forward to learning more.

I just found this which was a big help.

Do qualia exist? I am defining qualia as "the ways things seem to us", and they have the following properties: ineffable - they cannot be communicated, or apprehended by any other means than direct experience. intrinsic - they are non-relational properties, which do not change depending on the experience's relation to other things. private - all interpersonal comparisons of qualia are systematically impossible. directly or immediately apprehensible in consciousness - to experience a quale is to know one experiences a quale, and to know all there is to know about that quale. An example of a quale is redness. Or the pain one feels when burning their finger.

Hi, this is my first post. Say I am about to sell a house which has a major defect. I deliberately fail to mention the defect to potential buyers in order to maximise the selling price. If a buyer knew about the defect then they would definitely not buy it. I successfully sell the house and make a modest profit. The new owner discovers the defect immediately. Because of the nature of the defect they must sell immediately, and they too are now forced to not mention the defect to potential buyers in order to get rid of the house. I feel guilty for having made a profit from the house sale, and for potentially ruining the buyer's life if they cannot find a new buyer. Even if the new buyer finds another buyer, eventually someone in the chain will not find a buyer as word gets out about the defect. Am I right to feel guilty? Does the answer to this change depending on whether I caused the defect? (This situation is happening in my life right now, but I have changed the details [its not a house sale]. For the sake of this example lets assume the defect is a non life threatening defect, but one that forces anyone to sell as soon as they know about it. [eg lets say the house has a really bad smell because of where it was built that can't be gotten rid of except for 30 mins at a time while people are viewing the property.]) I understand that its buyer beware, and that any buyer should thoroughly do their research, yet I still feel guilty.