scottd Posted October 30, 2009 Report Share Posted October 30, 2009 David, I refer you to my post above. I am thinking in this case of providing (or not) salient information WITHOUT being asked or interrogated, when someone else's future rests upon it. Morality is not just dependent on what one does, but by what one doesn't do (or says). Which is why a lie can be active or passive; by commission, or by omission, imo. That the dictionary definition might not cover this, is immaterial I believe, as we are surely viewing this from a broader, philosophical base ? Bottom line, both types deal in the untruth. Failing to fulfill a moral obligation to "speak up" is not a misrepresentation of the truth. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DavidOdden Posted October 30, 2009 Report Share Posted October 30, 2009 I am thinking in this case of providing (or not) salient information WITHOUT being asked or interrogated, when someone else's future rests upon it.That is the epitome of second-hand morality -- defining "rights" and "wrong" in terms of effect on others. If some other person would benefit from having particular information, you have a moral obligation to provide them with that information? Where in the world does that come from? Example: you have information which, if you act on it, will yield a profit for you (or whichever one person gets there first). But you can't act on it right now. Then Bozo asks you directly about that information, and you do not cooperate with his demand for the information. I asked for an example, and you didn't give an example. Your description of when it is immoral to not answer a question is sufficiently incomplete and unclear that I cannot discern when you claim you have a moral obligation to provide information. What's your exact claim? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Capitalism Forever Posted October 30, 2009 Report Share Posted October 30, 2009 Under the circumstances that you describe, I would say that the captain used improper force (against Y), though possible legal force. In what way do you think he was using force? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whYNOT Posted October 30, 2009 Report Share Posted October 30, 2009 Let me be even more specific : an innocent person is accused of something; you have info to exonerate him. For whatever rationale, you choose not to do so. It may be uncomfortable, or troublesome, or embarassing, or costly, or...... 3 reasons that you *should* do so - a. Your integrity and self-esteem b. Your sense of justice. c. Your sense of morality (that you will not evade reality and truth). Not to do so, is sanctioning falsehood, and a lie. I am quite frankly astounded that you would correlate these reasons with 'second-handedness' when they are all high O'ist values. What's next, an accusation of altruism, if only because an *other* person is the benefactor of your (very rationally selfish) morality !? Come to think of it, you have raised an important issue that has not been addressed enough on this forum. This needs clarification :- there will be times when an O'ist's high principles can and will benefit others around him. I see it as one more instance of applied O'ist benevolence and justice, including "non-zero-sum game", and the "trader principle", etc., ----- whether the outcome is intended or not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ex_banana-eater Posted October 30, 2009 Report Share Posted October 30, 2009 A commander could rightly take issue with a soldier making statements that hurt morale.. so I suppose it would be a matter of proportion- if the commander was a poor one, or cruel, or insane enough to say, shoot the man over saying unpatriotic things then the moral duty would be to protect your fellow from unjust punishment. If it were some form of dressing down or other reasonable punishment I don't see how it would be a violation of rights. The idea that speech can negatively effect the morale, morality, or opinions of a country has been used to make any type of speech illegal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DavidOdden Posted October 31, 2009 Report Share Posted October 31, 2009 a. Your integrity and self-esteem b. Your sense of justice. c. Your sense of morality (that you will not evade reality and truth). Not to do so, is sanctioning falsehood, and a lie. I am quite frankly astounded that you would correlate these reasons with 'second-handedness' when they are all high O'ist values. I'm quite frankly astounded that you don't see the difference between selfish virtues and the reason that you set forth -- "when someone else's future rests upon it". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whYNOT Posted October 31, 2009 Report Share Posted October 31, 2009 I'm quite frankly astounded that you don't see the difference between selfish virtues and the reason that you set forth -- "when someone else's future rests upon it". "What's next, an accusation of altruism, if only because an *other* person is the benefactor..." ? I see I have to make clear this one critical fact : My action in speaking up is an act of complete rational selfishness. To not do so would be a sacrifice of of the value I place in justice ( moral justice, not just legal ) and dedication to the truth. My love of reality, and of my self, would not allow this. This is the Primary; that someone else benefits, is a secondary. Silence is the correct alternative to an explicit lie, but it is a sanctioning of immorality when an injustice is about to be commited. But that's just me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RationalBiker Posted October 31, 2009 Report Share Posted October 31, 2009 For whatever rationale, you choose not to do so. It may be uncomfortable, or troublesome, or embarassing, or costly, or...... The specific reason is kind of important... you are just glossing over that with a few vague possibilities. So, what if at the end of your or..... we add death? What if we add or...... imprisonment? Are you still speaking up or remaining silent? an innocent person is accused of something Who is this innocent person and what specific value do they represent to me? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whYNOT Posted October 31, 2009 Report Share Posted October 31, 2009 The specific reason is kind of important... you are just glossing over that with a few vague possibilities. So, what if at the end of your or..... we add death? What if we add or...... imprisonment? Are you still speaking up or remaining silent? Who is this innocent person and what specific value do they represent to me? Yes, sure, 'biker, context - as you indicate - is crucial. My most direct answer is, : weighing up the value I perceive in that person vis a vis what it will cost me (to speak up). Simultaneously, for someone I have little or no knowledge of, weighing up my principles against what it will cost me (to speak up). It all revolves around "sacrifice." Very simply, this has been in my past experience, a 'sense of life' decision -- whatever I choose, can I live with myself afterwards? Death, or imprisonment ? Well, as we know, life ain't like that; but I admit these extremes are a good way to test one's premises. For the most highly valued few in my life, those options are not out of the question. It is all those hundreds of seemingly minor and trivial instances that occur around us all the time that I have in mind - when silence becomes tacit support of untruth and injustice. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jake_Ellison Posted October 31, 2009 Report Share Posted October 31, 2009 The idea that speech can negatively effect the morale, morality, or opinions of a country has been used to make any type of speech illegal. And that was very wrong. But your post is off topic, since no one is talking about making any type of speech illegal. There are restrictions that apply to soldiers, beyond just having to obey the law. The reasons for those restrictions are outside the realm of politics. Taking a political principle and applying it in any other context, such as a classroom, office, military unit etc. (and that etc. contains every context imaginable except for the laws governing a society) would be what we call "stealing it". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.