For those who believe in this sort of thing, what are the spiritual

>>18955234
I would recommend an ancient and highly revered text called "The Boy Who Cried Wolf" there is an underlying message that many miss.

>>18955243
That would be the practical consequences of lying, when you fail at it.

>>18955234
You get to see the consequences of your lies and become responsible for the outcomes that others do based on those lies. Normally, you aren't responsible for how another acts, but lying is peculiar in that it makes you responsible for the actions of another. It's the spiritual equivalent to "felony murder" in a life review. Furthermore, if humans were more honest with each other, they would be a lot less likely to commit harmful deeds from ignorance and thus our world wouldn't be the shitshow as it is. Importantly, lying in itself doesn't have an intrinsic wrongness, nor is full disclosure necessarily an appropriate good. Rather, lying is how you get good people to do bad things by taking advantage of their nature through disinformation.

Now, how much a soul gives a shit about their standings, idk. There is a powerful stick that pushes people toward trying to be better, if they lack carrots. But lying is in particular a bad thing because of its prevelance. Interestingly, the lying is also specifically a 21st century phenomenon, as most (wicked) regimes haven't been nearly as skilled at it. Violence has been the far more common sin than deception.

Your nose grows

>>18955277
And the point of Pinocchio was to prove himself worthy of being a real boy.

>>18955265
True words create the same outcomes that false words do. Speaking at all is to alter other's actions or change their perceptions. This is not unique to lying. To say lying is a negative in a life review is nonsense.

Acting unjustly towards another being, such as lying to manipulate or take advantage with intention, may bring about another set of outcomes than acting justly. But it's not like any set of outcomes is inherently worse.

>Lying is how you get good people to do bad things
You can also lie to get bad people to do good things. Or lie to get good people to do better things, bad people even worse things. You could lie to do any number of things.

>lying is a 21st century phenomenon
Shut up

you end up believing your own lies and lose track of reality, bringing you further from your spiritual goal which is to expand your consciousness in order to better understand reality.

File: IMG_2050.jpg (65KB, 600x860px) Image search: [Google]

65KB, 600x860px

If you're in a habit of lying to others, then you're probably lying to yourself, and that's really bad news. That creates delusional thinking and disconnection from reality. That's the path to some seriously bad shit.

>>18955265
Blah blah blah. Shut the fuck up.

>>18955305
Ohhhh I bet you know all about that.
How about you stop lying to yourself and go out and suck all the dick you can find.

>>18955302
>Yes, in a perfect world, it world be based on lies to get each other to do good acts, with lies like charity cures cancer or violence shrinks your dick.

Why don't I then feel better about this place? Because the freedom to lie comes with it the opportunity to profit from ignorance. No rational self interested person wouldn't take advantage of the tremendous power in getting people to do things in ignorance. You are right, in the sense that lying "could" be used to thrawt wrong. I wouldn't tell a Nazi that Ann Frank was hiding in the attic. But human nature doesn't work when presented with the opportunity to control without the ability to resist through the understanding of another. It's a form of control no different in scope than coercion. Coercion also can cause people to "do good." So why did we abolish slavery?

More importantly, the standard of the spiritual consequence still stands. If your lie causes a life to be saved that wouldn't have died, great job. I specifically stated that lying isn't an intrinsic wrong, but rather utilized to do great evil in our time, rather than the inverse being the case. It makes you responsible for the acts of another, and those are the spiritual consequences associated with the act. And in this case, we do terrible things under the protection of lying.

But to treat lying as an inherently neutral act is like treating violence as inherently neutral.

Most importantly, a soul can only truly grow if it does the right things for the right reasons. From a spiritual perspective, if that still matters, we only grow as beings when we commit to the right actions from ourselves. And then there is what >>18955304 >>18955305 pointed out. Lying can also cripple you because of its tendency to bleed over into your own thinking. In the real world, lying should only be reserved for enemies, never friends. If I have to lie to a foreign power or a terrorist, fine, I get it. But never "friends"

>>18955353

I just want to point out that I didn't start this debate. If you don't like my answers, then ignore them.

>>18955304
>>18955305
So if given the condition that the liar does not believe his own lies, which isn't necessarily implausible, is it still bad shit?

>>18955365

the fuck you didn't you coward answer me

>>18955404
Its hard to tell what a persons limit is in terms of a debate. People generally like to talk about religion and politics until they reach their limit, then they naturally resort to anger and violence when presented with statements they don't like. I can't tell over the Internet where that line is, so I'm reluctant to continue because of this.

If your only prerequisite for "good" lying is that it doesn't harm you, then by definition that is spiritually corrupt, because a soul first thinks about how his actions effect others before himself. If "what makes lying good" simply about not getting caught in your own lies, then that's a very, very low bar to reach.

>>18955302
>Acting unjustly towards another being, such as lying to manipulate or take advantage with intention, may bring about another set of outcomes than acting justly. But it's not like any set of outcomes is inherently worse.
thank you Satan.

Enjoy your shitty existence.

>>18955384
>So if given the condition that the liar does not believe his own lies, which isn't necessarily implausible, is it still bad shit?
Even worse, because then the liar goes from delusional to sociopathic, and becomes even more responsible for the negative outcomes generated in the lives of others due to their lies, in which case they will most certainly reap what they sew even more strongly, because it is more justifiable.

>>18955234

https://youtu.be/7tch1CuMV9M

>>18955234
>For those who believe in this sort of thing, what are the spiritual consequences of lying?
What is a lie? It is at least this: willfully, knowingly giving false witness. When asked, on our honor, we stain our honor, not by refusing to give the truth which might be brave, but by destroying the truth with our lies.

The idea of a “lie” is more complicated than this definition, but at least we can see that tricking our spouse about a surprise party is not a lie. We are not on our oath and our spouse wishes to be tricked. An actor is not a liar, because we know he is a pretending. A hypocrite is a liar, because his acting is bearing false witness about himself.

A business, church, or country built on lies will be unstable. All great evils have been buttressed by lies, but all great tragedies have begun in a lie.

Why?
We easily fool ourselves and we do not know the consequences, all the consequences, of our actions in this interconnected universe. Our lie triggers a series of events, a few obviously fortunate perhaps, but many very unfortunate for all we know.

Then the liar becomes "Karmically responsible" for those unforeseeable outcomes, just as if they did the acts to the person themselves.

For example, say you lie to a man and tell him his wife cheated on him, and he kills himself. That is basically the same as you pulling the trigger.

"The LORD detests lying lips, but he delights in people who are trustworthy." - Proverbs 12:22

What about when someone earns to brat themselves up from like a parent, and then goes through life and lies to themselves about how awful and shitty they are?

>>18955519
>What about when someone earns to brat themselves up from like a parent, and then goes through life and lies to themselves about how awful and shitty they are?
the Truth (i.e. leading a self-examined life, and learning to see yourself as you Truly are), will set you free.

You must see the Truth of your soul in order to find what you Truly need to evolve into a better version of self. Anything less is counterproductive, and even quite dangerous to self.

Sometimes you need the help of someone who has already walked this path in order to do it, sometimes you merely need to stopp lying to yourself.

Never lie to yourself. Or God. And always ask God to lead you to Truth, in Jesus name, for the Holy Spirit of Jesus IS the Spirit of Truth.

The Truth is not a "what", it's a "who":

"I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life. No one comes to the Father, except through me." - Jesus

get a New testament and just read the words of Jesus as a starting point.

>>18955438
It does not. Sociopathy is defined by a lack of empathy and developed emotion. Lying is a symptom of the symptoms.

>becomes even more responsible for the negative outcomes generated in the lives of others due to their lies

It's not a given that a lie has negative outcome.

You're treating lies as 1. unsuccessful 2. malicious, neither of which are actually given

>>18956434
I guess we have to agree to disagree. Lying, although which doesn't necessarily have a negative outcome, is used necessarily to produce negative outcomes in others. Which is why it is bad. It's like a gun. Guns don't necessarily kill people, but are used to predominantly kill people. Therefore, anyone who uses a gun to make the world a better place, i.e.: coercion, is really doing wrong to another by controlling them without their natural desires.

Lying should be used on enemies, because we do not utilize the welfare of another to control them. The fact that we control our supposed "friends" by lying is an example of our decrepit times.

Other people will lie to you and justify their actions using the same bullshit justification you use for your own lies.

Karma, bitch!

>>18956695
>I guess we have to agree to disagree
That's a little unfair.

>Lying, although which doesn't necessarily have a negative outcome, is used necessarily to produce negative outcomes in others

Are you arguing that lying can be used to
produce negative outcomes in others? So can truths.

>Guns don't necessarily kill people, but are used to predominantly kill people.

Again, we're not talking about malicious lying. Your entire argument is dependent on factors outside of the base system, which is a neutral lie.

Furthermore - most lies are just self serving, and self punishing. They aren't comparable to guns at all in that regard, unless guns are predominantly used to shoot oneself.

>coercion, is really doing wrong to another by controlling them without their natural desires.

This extends to all acts of deliberate influence, it's not about lying.

chill , lying is natural

>>18956827
It's hard to argue because I made a post explaining the problem with lying that has been overlooked and hasn't been addressed in your arguments. So it's counterproductive to continue until those points are specifically addressed. .>>18955353

Once again
>Lying presents incredible an irresistible incentives to take advantage of another's ignorance
> lying is a form of control that usurps the agency of another
>lying makes you responsible for the actions that others do unlike most other things. This has karmic influences .
>lying is how we get away with great evil by making sure a good man are unaware of bad crimes
>treating lying as inherently neutral is like treating violence as inherently neutral. It is an aggressive action designed to take advantage of the weakness of others.
>from a spiritual perspective, we must do things because we are informed in doing good in them
>finally lying tends to corrupts one own thinking, because the human mind cannot sustain irony for extended periods of time.

But here's the kicker, which I feel is gone totally unaddressed. Lying to your enemies is the appropriate measure to survive in the human world. But then again lying to your friends is like treating your friends as an enemy. It is so naive to take a utilitarian perspective on lying that I'm out right shocked about why powerful people approve of lying in this time. But it makes sense to me now.

One last thing and I know this isnt going to be liked. All regimes lie but in most societies Good men see through them. Nobody believed Soviet propaganda and the Catholic Church couldn't even get away with lying in the middle ages . The lying today is that an epidemic because it has been so successful. Which is what makes our time particularly dangerous.

>>18956920
>It's hard to argue because I made a post explaining the problem with lying that has been overlooked and hasn't been addressed in your arguments.
You're projecting, you overlooked mine and I was too polite to call it out. I actually addressed your argument point-by-point.

>Lying presents incredible an irresistible incentives to take advantage of another's ignorance
"Irresistible"
again you're making new factors up to alter the system. Your argument is that it might be hard to resist lying more once you lie? There are several arguments against that.

>lying is a form of control that usurps the agency of another
All deliberate influence is, regardless of honesty

>lying makes you responsible for the actions that others do unlike most other things. This has karmic influences .
Same as above

>lying is how we get away with great evil by making sure a good man are unaware of bad crimes
The issue with this is COMMITTING EVIL, not lying about it.

It's like saying "the issue with taking showers is that you can use it to WASH THE BLOOD OF INNOCENTS OFF YOUR BODY after MASSACRING A PEACEFUL VILLAGE"

>treating lying as inherently neutral is like treating violence as inherently neutral. It is an aggressive action designed to take advantage of the weakness of others.
Not in the slightest. Lying isn't innately aggressive. All you're doing is arguing against a singular, specific form of lying. You refuse to take into account the existence of lies which are defensive, passive, benevolent, or preserving.

>from a spiritual perspective, we must do things because we are informed in doing good in them
Rephrase

>finally lying tends to corrupts one own thinking, because the human mind cannot sustain irony for extended periods of time.
So... Could I not take everything you have just said and translate it to two principles of "don't lie maliciously" and "don't lie a lot"?

>But then again lying to your friends is like treating your friends as an enemy
Also opinion.

>>18956954
First off make the arguments why lying doesn't provide an irresistible temptation. That's a cheap pass.

Second agency by definition involves informed choice. By taking away information you deprive agency of another.

Third lying is particularly unique in that by distorting the "inputs" of another, you make them do outcomes that they would normally have never agreed to in the first place.

Fourth it is naïve to let evil has its way of waging war. If your enemy is conquering you by the skies, Why would you let them have air power?

Fifth I just mentioned that it is justifiable to lie to save lives and yet you've completely ignored this point. But I also stated you're there but I also stated that lying is only acceptable when you want to thrawt the intentions of the opposition, because you wish to denay them agency.

Sixth I'm typing on my mobile phone so it's very hard for me to make an informed debate ever since I've been banned on 4chan. Thank you for the patients and the honesty at least to ask for a rephrasing. To answer the question , we only grow when we make our decisions when we are fully informed of all the facts.

Seventh lying is inherently an hostile action especially when you consider the fact that the lied too would prefer the truth. Does anyone in fact want to be lied too besides the most depraved ?

Finally lying assumes that when presented with a full information the person would act in hostility to us. What kind of fucked up friend would act hostile if they knew the truth? Either we've done something to wrong them or they never had our interests in the first place.

I have to go but if this thread is still up I can respond to your points later .

>>18957008
>First off make the arguments why lying doesn't provide an irresistible temptation. That's a cheap pass.
Not really, I was giving you a pass because you phrased it badly. If lying were irresistible once you did so, then we'd literally be lying at every opportunity if we had ever ended up lying at any point. But, you know, that doesn't happen. I don't even know what you intended to argue, but you need to rephrase it. As it stands you're just ignoring the existence of all potential inhibitions for lying in any given moment.
What's the rebuttal? If there's ANYTHING that makes you generally disinclined to lie at all then it's not going to fucking vanish from the plane of reality once a lie is committed.

>Second agency by definition involves informed choice. By taking away information you deprive agency of another.

What the fuck that's not the fucking definition of agency will you STOP MAKING THINGS UP

>Third lying is particularly unique in that by distorting the "inputs" of another, you make them do outcomes that they would normally have never agreed to in the first place
That's not unique at all. There are infinite avenues of such manipulation that don't involve telling lies. Are you arguing against dishonesty in any abstracted form you can conceive it now?

>Fourth it is naïve to let evil has its way of waging war
It's naive to simply dismiss things by calling them evil and act like it's a valid argument. It's naive to believe in evil as a force. And lastly, what the fuck does me lying have to do with an evil person lying? It has no influence, "lying" isn't some sort of singular, magical entity whom I lend power from every act of dishonesty. Me wearing a coat isn't supporting Hitler having worn a coat. How is it assumed that I'm enabling or supporting evil at all by engaging
in a parallel of behavior?

(cont)

>>18957008
>>18957180
>Fifth I just mentioned that it is justifiable to lie to save lives and yet you've completely ignored this point.
First of all you've completely ignored somewhere between half to the majority of my points, second of all, what should I have said? I don't understand what that bears for your argument, or what it bears against mine.

> But I also stated you're there but I also stated that lying is only acceptable when you want to thwart the intentions of the opposition, because you wish to deny them agency.

You're making judgments on when lying is and isn't acceptable, but I'm not interested in moral debates because morals are subjective and we should all know that at this point.

>Sixth I'm typing on my mobile phone so it's very hard for me to make an informed debate ever since I've been banned on 4chan
That's understandable but don't try to discredit my argument as a way of covering for the technical difficulty you have in engaging.

>Seventh lying is inherently an hostile action especially when you consider the fact that the lied too would prefer the truth.
Ok -
>the lied too would prefer the truth
does not prove
>lying is inherently an hostile action
Juxtaposition =/= connection. You just put them next to each other. You're just saying that lying violates the golden rule and even that isn't a given. Most of what you've offered are opinions, which I did ask for, but it's off putting to see them presented as facts and rebuttals.

> lying assumes that when presented with a full information the person would act in hostility to us
NO IT DOESN'T
This is yet ANOTHER arbitrary condition you've introduced to the system. It is NOT a given.

I'm sorry to be aggressive but you should really wait til you get to a computer and then look at the entirety of the discussion with a clearer viewpoint

>>18957180
Lying is irresistible if you don't have any shame that prevents you from lying. Second it's absolutely silly to believe that informed choice has nothing to do with agency. That's biting the bullet on a serious scale. Would you feel responsible for your choice if someone lied to you in order to do it? Would you feel responsible for doing the wrong thing if a lie manipulated you to do it? would you accept being controlled by lies?

Not all influence is equal anon, otherwise things like slavery would be no different according to your logic. Informed choice is the foundation of good decision making. Otherwise the decision is made by the liar rather than the decider through deception.

But I'm going to take a radical turn on this debate to do something that's much more productive in discussion.

Look. I think we get to the heart of the matter because you subscribe to utilitarian ethics, while I subscribe to virtue ethics. You want to talk about subjective morality, but how we define are subjective morality has objective consequences to our world. What I am trying to describe is the incentives that emerge when lying is used. What I feel you are describing is that why and can only be evaluated by its objective outcomes. I see lying as an unhealthy practice similar to smoking or doing drugs. I feel you see lying as a means to a positive end. There is such a fundamental difference between how we process morality that this debate although interesting goes to show why a discipline like ethics will never be resolved.

I feel If I wanted to convince you not to lie I would have to specifically come up with an argument that would show lying with lead to negative or harmful outcomes. Whereas if you wanted to convince me to lie, you would have to prove that lying improves the character of the person engaging in the lie.

>>18958393
>Lying is irresistible if you don't have any shame that prevents you from lying.
So if we're not suffering a PD have shame then what's the problem?

>Second it's absolutely silly to believe that informed choice has nothing to do with agency
That's not what your claim was though. You just tried to escape accountability for what you said instead of at least conceding the mistake, and you hide your mistakes amidst random accusations and I've run out of patience. Especially since you accuse me of overlooking your points AS I QUOTE THEM while you shamelessly gloss over mine AND your own

The irony of all this is that you've been arguing against dishonesty, dishonestly

>>18958926
I take offense that you accuse me of dishonesty. And I feel you have adequately addressed my points. If You Think I'm not being addressed, I apologize for the miscommunication. I guarantee you if we had this discussion face-to-face we would both feel better walking away from it. There's just too much nuance to deal with this topic. Too much communication lost over the Internet.

I argued that people would be tempted to take advantage of another if they could lie freely. I also stated that we ought to do things because of the truth rather than being motivated by a lie. I then made other claims such as how lying has a dysgenic affect on our minds , takes it advantage of the weakness of others, used currently to produce negative outcomes, deprived people of the opportunity to grow from knowing the truth etc. I then moved onto claim that lying takes away the advantage of informed choice from others. Apparently the latter claim is upsetting because it wasn't part of the initial claim.

If it was wrong for you to have added onto my argument throughout the debate, then I guess I shouldn't have done it to make my point. But in no way have I contradicted myself, nor have I said anything other than how I truly feel. Dishonesty isn't the right word to describe our discourse.

Can we go back to our original point And agree to disagree, >>18956695 I've lost credibility in your eyes anyway so there's no point in continuing this discussion. I don't want you to waste your time if you feels like this is a waste of time.