Sometimes I slip into hyperbole and say things like: Many folks figure that if evolution planned for them to believe a lie, they might as well believe a lie; that probably helps them achieve their goals. But I want, first and foremost, to believe the truth.
Playing devil's advocate: Some people will have problems to think positively and stay relaxed and may worry all the time "OMG I'm thinking too negatively: I will stay ill.". Some sort of nocebo effect. Taking pills is a no-brainer, there's not that much you can do wrong.
I suggest this too. I think it has been shown that not believing in free will, for whatever reason, increases all sorts of aggressive and destructive behaviors.
Affirmative action is a funny thing. Why do we really have it from purely theoretical perspective? To level the playing field by providing opportunities by giving certain people access to things which we have a limited supply of. That last part is the real problem. Why is there such a limited supply of opportunity? Why so few spots in schools? Why so few jobs of pay grade X? Direct all resources to fixing those problems. AA is a flimsy band-aid that covers up the real issue: too little opportunity in the first place.
So while I think the idea of AA "comes from the right place" as far as intent goes, it's addresses the wrong problem.
It would depend on the exact circumstances, who was asking, and how I'd become party to the secret. If I'd been told in confidence then I would lie. Otherwise: if the person asking me had no need-to-know and I had promised them no loyalty, then I would lie. If the situation were such that I needed the other to be able to trust me, I would tell the truth - e.g. if I were actually being consulted on cold-fusion-coverup policy or some such. To me this seems like moral common sense, more or less; ideally, the circumstances under which you lie should be such as to create no doubt in your honesty when you actually want and need to be trusted, nor any doubt in your ability to keep a secret when someone is considering telling you a confidence. If these two forces were brought into conflict, the second would win, I think.
It is extremely important for society to believe that "Natural Human Rights" (and most other metaphysical concepts) have some kind of independent Platonic reality. It would probably be very difficult to build a modern industrial nation-state from scratch where all of your citizens held nihilistic or existential belief systems.
What about when implicit or explicit moral realism adds fuel to the fire of people's moral convictions, leading them to perform acts with huge negative externalities? For example, terrorism and politico-religious crusades.
Teaching people about moral anti-realism might, in fact, lead to better consequences. This is an empirical question, and so far one that hasn't been tested. The historical evidence in favor of retaining moral realism as a useful fiction is far from conclusive.
LeBlue - You wouldn't have to believe that the situation has been remedied, you would have to believe two wrongs make a right, i.e. past discrimination can be fixed by present discrimination in the opposite direction, each of which would be clearly totally wrong without the other occurring (and interestingly the prior seems like it should be wrong even with the other occurring).
I actually don't have that strong of an opinion on affirmative action, but the "remedy past wrongs" is pretty much a "two wrongs make a right, or at least a not-as-wrong" claim.
This may very well not be a net positive. Particularly since it implies the inverse, that not being able to buy or have more things should make us more miserable. People aspiring to higher incomes may or may not be a net utility gain versus having an accurate perspective on how happiness works.
You're better off if they believe raising children well makes them happy. If they never bothered having children, there would be no you to have an opinion about existing, which is very different from you 'existing' and being able to complain about not being born.
If you weren't joking, and you knew that such a thing were possible, and someone asked you if you knew about it, would you speak the truth though your voice trembled, or would you lie?
Playing devil's advocate: Some people will have problems to think positively and stay relaxed and may worry all the time "OMG I'm thinking too negatively: I will stay ill.". Some sort of nocebo effect. Taking pills is a no-brainer, there's not that much you can do wrong.
You have free will and can make choices.
I suggest this too. I think it has been shown that not believing in free will, for whatever reason, increases all sorts of aggressive and destructive behaviors.
The lie that . . . well, come to think of it, better you don't know.
Affirmative action is a funny thing. Why do we really have it from purely theoretical perspective? To level the playing field by providing opportunities by giving certain people access to things which we have a limited supply of. That last part is the real problem. Why is there such a limited supply of opportunity? Why so few spots in schools? Why so few jobs of pay grade X? Direct all resources to fixing those problems. AA is a flimsy band-aid that covers up the real issue: too little opportunity in the first place.
So while I think the idea of AA "comes from the right place" as far as intent goes, it's addresses the wrong problem.
"The most common of all follies is to believe passionately in the palpably not true. It is the chief occupation of mankind." - H. L. Mencken
There seems to be lots of ridiculous PC nonsense about race in this thread. Strange to see it here.
It is not so useful for the scientists that lose their jobs over telling the truth:
http://timtyler.org/politic...
It would depend on the exact circumstances, who was asking, and how I'd become party to the secret. If I'd been told in confidence then I would lie. Otherwise: if the person asking me had no need-to-know and I had promised them no loyalty, then I would lie. If the situation were such that I needed the other to be able to trust me, I would tell the truth - e.g. if I were actually being consulted on cold-fusion-coverup policy or some such. To me this seems like moral common sense, more or less; ideally, the circumstances under which you lie should be such as to create no doubt in your honesty when you actually want and need to be trusted, nor any doubt in your ability to keep a secret when someone is considering telling you a confidence. If these two forces were brought into conflict, the second would win, I think.
It is extremely important for society to believe that "Natural Human Rights" (and most other metaphysical concepts) have some kind of independent Platonic reality. It would probably be very difficult to build a modern industrial nation-state from scratch where all of your citizens held nihilistic or existential belief systems.
Psychohistorian: So, is it wrong to forcibly take stolen goods back from a thief and return them to their original owner?
Clay, this is the best comment I've seen in a long, long time. It's meta, and it contradicts itself. Beautiful.
What about when implicit or explicit moral realism adds fuel to the fire of people's moral convictions, leading them to perform acts with huge negative externalities? For example, terrorism and politico-religious crusades.
Teaching people about moral anti-realism might, in fact, lead to better consequences. This is an empirical question, and so far one that hasn't been tested. The historical evidence in favor of retaining moral realism as a useful fiction is far from conclusive.
LeBlue - You wouldn't have to believe that the situation has been remedied, you would have to believe two wrongs make a right, i.e. past discrimination can be fixed by present discrimination in the opposite direction, each of which would be clearly totally wrong without the other occurring (and interestingly the prior seems like it should be wrong even with the other occurring).
I actually don't have that strong of an opinion on affirmative action, but the "remedy past wrongs" is pretty much a "two wrongs make a right, or at least a not-as-wrong" claim.
This may very well not be a net positive. Particularly since it implies the inverse, that not being able to buy or have more things should make us more miserable. People aspiring to higher incomes may or may not be a net utility gain versus having an accurate perspective on how happiness works.
You're better off if they believe raising children well makes them happy. If they never bothered having children, there would be no you to have an opinion about existing, which is very different from you 'existing' and being able to complain about not being born.
If you weren't joking, and you knew that such a thing were possible, and someone asked you if you knew about it, would you speak the truth though your voice trembled, or would you lie?