Such statements = empty shaking of the air with empty sound. And here's why. Lying = our evolutionary acquisition, one of the ways of adaptation to the external environment. We inherited this method from our parents: not only father and mother, but also other ancestors down to the first living cells. Blaming a person for lying is the same as blaming redheads for the color of their hair. Therefore, ethics that condemns any lie is inherently flawed and does not work. Our human nature does not accept such ethics. What is the way out? The way out is very simple. Follow your nature: a) create conditions in which it is disadvantageous for the counterparty to lie, b) do not contact the lying counterparty, c) lie to the counterparty in order to get away from his blow, d) in case of aggression, eliminate such a character. Calmly. Coolly. Without snot.

Interesting perspective but I disagree.
Lies subvert your own truth.
A lie might save your life but you have to ask yourself the question if that is a life worth living.
I'd rather die on my feet than to live on my knees.
I think you are wrong. When the police, on orders from Christine Logard, come after me, I will not ask you to hide, I will not ask you to lie to the police. Because hiding a bitcoiner means living on your knees. I could suggest that you not reduce ethics to an abstract rule, but differentiate it and follow different rules according to the situation: distinguish situations when lying is justified and when it is not. I could. But I will not have time for that, because the police are chasing me. Your ethics condemn my lies and Jerome Powell's lies equally. I hide my property from the government and lie to it. Powell lies to millions of people and robs them. If I accept your ethics, I will fall on my knees. I would rather stand proudly on my feet.

Good Answer! I will dwell on that.
Thread collapsed
Thread collapsed
Thread collapsed