There is no objective Morality

[Darkstar]

Do you hope you are not like them because you base your morality on being what religion and corporations are not, or because it is wrong to lie?

When I was younger, I used to hate religion and corporations and be a left wing anarchist. I used to hate corporations and then base my hatred of lying and greed off of my hatred of corporations.

I think a few things are being confounded here. First, can it be inherently wrong to lie? There are obvious scenarios in which a lie would not only be morally permissible, but telling the truth would be morally impermissible. Would you rat out Jews if the gestapo asked you where they were hiding, or would you lie?

Secondly, there is the magnitude of a lie. Telling a white lie and scamming someone out of thousands of dollars are seriously different things.

I think that, in most situations, you shouldn't lie, but there are enough exceptions that it would be unwise to outright declare lying a crime.

Lastly, and the thing I think Cthulhu Dreaming was trying to say, is that it isn't a lie to be mistaken. If you can't prove that objective morality exists, then it isn't a lie to say that it doesn't, it is merely a mistake (if it does exist). Seeing as that your own religion was just accused of lying, one would think this point would be clearer.

And, even if objective morality does exist, you could very well be mistaken as to what it is, which could be very harmful. How do you know that another religion's idea of morality isn't the right one? Would you be a liar if it was? (Or if said morality was independent of religion)

[jstrodel]

If you are mistaken, you are a conduit for lies, though you yourself may be complicit only in negligence towards understanding the truth.

[Jackalope]

If you are mistaken, you are a conduit for lies, though you yourself may be complicit only in negligence towards understanding the truth.

You do understand that the above applies equally to you, correct?

Oh, but I forgot, you're RIGHT - or so you keep telling us.

[jstrodel]

Sure, I am aware of that and I tremble with fear every time I start talking about something that I don't know much about, because I know that if I get something wrong it could hurt me.

But I almost always post about things that I have direct, experiential knowledge of.

So yes, absolutely.

Life is a choice, you can either live by a low standard or live by a high standard. Most people have a low standard and don't care if they lie. It is your choice whether you want to have a high standard or a low standard. If you have a low standard, you won't understand God, you will just hear yourself repeating propaganda.

[Jackalope]

If you have a low standard, you won't understand God, you will just hear yourself repeating propaganda.

[jstrodel]

Why talk about serious things when you can post videos of dogs peeing? It is like people aren't being hurt by lies all the time.

[Jackalope]

Why talk about serious things when you can resort to platitudes?

P.S. I'll wait while you go look up the big words.

[jstrodel]

What is wrong about talking about platitudes? When I say something that is a platitude, I feel a little good about myself, because I realize that as I am saying it, my will is not being controlled by the desire to please another person or by a cultural standard of being cool or witty, but perhaps I am saying it because the only intention of my heart is to will good towards others.

Are you one of those people who thinks that everything must be cool in order for it to be good.

[Jackalope]

What is wrong about talking about platitudes? When I say something that is a platitude, I feel a little good about myself, because I realize that as I am saying it, my will is not being controlled by the desire to please another person or by a cultural standard of being cool or witty, but perhaps I am saying it because the only intention of my heart is to will good towards others.

Are you one of those people who thinks that everything must be cool in order for it to be good.

Yeah, that's me.

A platitude is a trite, meaningless, biased, or prosaic statement, often presented as if it were significant and original.

You should have looked up the big words, like I suggested.

[Angrboda]