(May 17, 2014 at 4:37 pm)Chuck Wrote:Basically, yeah. If our measurement for evaluating moral statements is the well-being of sentient beings, specifically our own species in this case, then 'false' statements are those that in practice fail to produce the best possible outcome for the beings effected, relating to their well-being.(May 17, 2014 at 3:23 pm)Pickup_shonuff Wrote: Perhaps "truth" doesn't belong in there but I'm not convinced of that yet. Granted that we're concerned about the well-being of humans, I think true and false statements can indeed apply.
You mean it is true if it leads to greater well-being of humans, false if it does not?
Quote:If let's say a world ending asteroid will most certainly factually and materially hit tomorrow and exterminate all mankind. If you let everyone know this, then there will be panick and less wellbeing prior to the inevitable end, where as if you don't, then people will go on happily being well until the end.
Then the fact would be the world will end, but the truth is the world will not, since while the former corresponds to reality, the latter corresponds to greater well being?
The truth is that the world will still end. The moral dilemma is whether or not lying would bring about greater well-being for the majority of persons, by keeping them ignorant. I don't know if this is true. It may be, but we must also consider the value that people might gain in knowing their end is drawing near. Perhaps, despite the anxiety, they would spend their final moments in a manner that increases their well-being, which is, at this point, greatly diminished either way (if perception of well-being contradicts one's actual well-being, is it better to eliminate the illusion? I think at least in most circumstances, yes, this would ultimately prove better for one's actual well-being, but not all--hence the value in lying).
