No it would not be wrong to lie to the nazi's. Biblically speaking, even though we know lying is not a good trait, (specifically a bad trait), we see examples where lying is used to protect others.

Clearly protecting others is more important than lying. Just like protecting others makes killing acceptable too. We see examples of this in the bible, and in modern day use too.

And what about Santa Claus? Does bringing joy to children and concealing where presents come from count amongst the unequivicobly evil acts in the world?
Being basically good is not the same thing as being perfect, even if we could accept a universal definition of what perfect would be. Sometimes it comes down to questions of competing good traits, and sometimes it comes down to competing labels.
I teach my kids to be self reliant, with a desire to succeed. Some might say selfish.
I teach my children to be able to protect themselves. Some might say to be untrusting, or even violent.
I teach creativity, which relates to dishonesty, and concern for other people's feelings.

Nope, it doesn't count as an evil act.

I agree. You can be doing good things, without being perfect. Though God, who is perfect does only good. So good doesn't mean perfection, though perfection does result in good.

Agreed. It is our nature to desire things which benefit us, and often, although not always, will not benefit others. I think it is our sinful nature. You don't state that is sin, but we cannot state just because we all desire selfishness that actions which cause harm to others is now good.

I understand you believe that humans are by nature sinfull, others, like me, believe that people are basically good, and I don't think it requires willfull ignorance or a belief that people are introducing evil training to their children to hold that position- principles of good can conflict with each other. Mercy versus justice, sometimes even justice versus order. Individual freedom versus social order, the desire to protect those who are close lends fear against our desire to be tollerant and accepting. we live in a world of finite resources, where conservation of mass and energy prevail in the face of geometric population growth absent tragedy. Given those conditions tragedy and to a degree what can be termed evil isn't so much a part of human nature as it is a fundamental reality in the basic structure of our universe.

When did you teach your children to lie? And how did you go about teaching them selfishness? No, it's natural.

Additionally, have you looked back on history? How about criminals?

Where do you live that has given you the impression that people are basically good? The north pole?

You ever tell a kid there was such thing as Santa Claus? Easter Bunny? Just like selfishness it is a trait that can be picked up from the environment.

Actually Monk, I did not tell my kids there is a Santa Claus, or Easter Bunny. I particularly dislike telling children that's real.

My kids are the likely reason other kids find out that neither are real to the students who believe in Santa. (Inevitably, at some point in school, all of them have explained they are not real. You know how kids are, when they knew something that isn't matching to what other kids say, they'll argue it quick enough)

Well, environment is an interesting theory. Did you have any evidence to show which environment was the one that doesn't teach them lying and selfishness? (that does assumes there is an environment reason why everyone learns it)
This message was last edited by the player at 02:41, Mon 08 Nov 2010.

There is no reason for me to believe that children are not tabula rasa coming out of the womb. Humans teach deception. Even if you, as a parent, do not, there are other elements that do. Peek-a-boo? Hell, the whole concept of object permanence is that your environment is lying to you.

Uhm, you may have missed the question asking for which environment doesn't result in lying and selfishness being learned.

In other words, if you can show which environment doesn't have it, then you have supported the statement it's environmental causes.

At this point, since we see this happening at the earliest of ages in every culture, then it seems to follow the pattern we see of humans through out history and how they are not basically good.

Environments are basically evil.

And that, ladies and gentlemen, is why the whole "humans are evil/good" argument never ends, and never will. It is entirely up to your faith in mankind. Not the wrestler.

Uhm what? Because you couldn't support your stance, no one could possibly support their stance?

While I'll have to point out I'm not convinced, it seems you seemed to have convinced yourself very well on that point. :)

I don't think you have supported your stance. The only instance that I'm aware of where infants where left with no emotional input (or a minimum, since it is very difficult for humans to interact without some), and a clean environment, all of the subjects died.

I think that was Frederick the Great who conducted that one.

So, as you clearly just demonstrated, lying cannot be broadly defined as a bad trait.

Actually Monk, I did not tell my kids there is a Santa Claus, or Easter Bunny. I particularly dislike telling children that's real.

Teaching kids to accept small lies is important so that they can grow up and learn to believe the big lies; like freedom, fairness, justice, democracy, etc.

To be clear, I thought it silly to say that because you couldn't support your stance, then no one could support their stance either. That was your conclusion when asked to show support.


So then your conclusion from that study has led to your evidence for why the environment is what teaches all humans to lie and be selfish?

Uhm, yes, lying can be bradly defined as a negative trait.


Example, Falkus is a liar. Is that a bad or good description to call someone a liar?

I get your argument, but having any example where it's not bad doesn't mean something is not normally considered bad.

Another example, murder.

Murder is bad. But we can think of situations where murder is not bad, but necessary.



Or how about trying to support lying as something not considered a negative use in the broad sense? ;)

Uhm, yes, lying can be bradly defined as a negative trait.

Yet, as we clearly just established, there's cases where lying is not bad and is, in fact, commendable.

Or how about trying to support lying as something not considered a negative use in the broad sense? ;)

The universe is not a nice place for humanity. Believing otherwise is how we function as a species.

Right, but as I clearly pointed out, calling someone a liar is not a point that is commendable.

I'll point it out even clearer than the last post, the exceptions don't make the rule. Have you ever heard "liar" used in a way that is commendable?

Just to be clear, we weren't trying to establish if there were ever good reasons to lie. So it's great we established that, but that doesn't take away that lying is not a commendable trait to be known for.

Liar is a broadly used term that means a negative trait. Liar is only used for someone who lies.
This message was last edited by the player at 05:05, Mon 08 Nov 2010.

Though archaic teh compliment that someone is an accomplished liar has been known to be used- but it is inreference to tehri skill at deception rather than tehir tendancy. Otehrwise we tend to call it by other names- bluffing in poker, authorship of fiction... it is still fabrication of something that is not true.

Selfshness I will give you as an inherant trait- a child is born and thinks only of themselves- I'm hungry, I'm tired, I'm uncomfrotable, I'm hurt. That is a survival trait. Since, as mentioned earlier, teh universe has a design towards tragedy/evil it is necessary for any species that wishes to survive to maintain some level of selfishness or be over run by other sepcies which would claim the resources they need.

As to an environment without lies, again this is something we learn from nature. Mimics, animls which appear to be of another species- mirages which promise water where there is only sand. Where our perceptions prove limited and subject to illusion we, being intelligent, surmise that other's perceptions may also be tricked. Though lying is largely seen as a negative act as I have pointed out here in numerous examples this is largely an issue of context rather than deception itself being inherantly 'evil'. Any movie is a form of deception- a series of pictures projected onto a wall to create the illusion of motion, depth, and character. It is a lie we endure for entertainment.

We lie to our children and tell them that everything will be alright when we cannot know that it will, to instill in them a sense of security that allows them to grow up without becoming disfunctional. The universe is a hostile place, and people become hardened by living in it. yet at the same time the primary impulse of people is to band together, to help each other out. To cling to each other as defense against the hostility, in comfort, fear, or for mutual pleasure. Children who have been sheltered from those harsh realities will hug strangers, share their toys with other children they just met, and are generally very kind. In my opinion to believe such sweet innocent people are somehow inherantly vile and evil can only come from the most repugnant and delusional of philosophies.

To add some clarification - it s not lying which is inherently bad, it's deceiving people which is inherently bad. If I tell you a joke, it is a lie - it didn't actually happen, but I expect a reasonable person to recognize that and not be deceived. If I tell a story to you which gives you incorrect information, either through lying, with-holding information, or otherwise malforming it, that is bad, because it is deception. The lie is not required. Why is deception bad? Because honest relations are the foundation upon which we build effective and efficient relationships. Deception puts me over you and makes most forms of socialization much more difficult.

However, in the case of Nazis asking after Jews, the Nazis have already broken that social contract. Excommunicating them is therefore acceptable. I may deceive them or cause them other social harm, for instance through boycotts or sabotage.

The question of 'are humans inherently good' is flawed in that we don't have an objective measure of what is good or evil. Because it can't be accurately quanitied or measured, it can't be properly compared.

Agreed. I was going to point out that some people are debating that lying and selfishness are good traits.

So when the argument that people are basically good, and then point out they consider those "good traits" are traits that are also negative, clearly basically good includes terms which are not actually good.

Or it comes down to complexity and a difference in definitions. A stage magician decieves. A movie projector decieves. A con man decieves. We all agre that the third one is bad, outside of specific context (hiding Jews from Nazis) but there is a degre of question as to how distinct the third one is from the other two when you are talking about what is inherant to human nature.
Human beings have a certain degree of capacity/tendancy towards deceptiveness. That can be applied to artistic pursuits, politics, theft by deception, white lies to save feelings, or even towards constructive ends (imagination being the first component of design, for example). To simply say 'humans are liars and therefore bad' ignores the broad pallate of the more general trait.

Silver, the only thing being said about lying is that people have a natural inborn tendencies to lie which are intended to negative.

I think others just want to debate anything else than accept that people have an inborn trait that is negative, as it doesn't mesh up with their idea that humans are basically good. So there is other definitions, or uses of the word, but that doesn't change that humans do not need to be taught how to lie. They know it without being taught it.

1) Not entirely true. Lying specifically is an artifact of language, which is learned.
2) I don't think either side of this topic is more guilty that the other of trying to redefine the discusion towards their own viewpoint. it might however help the situation if you can accept that someone else's perspective also has validity from the framework they view the world instead of ascribing negative motives to others on the basis of your assumptions.
although i suppose if you do believe that people are inherantly evil and dishonest then presuming that people who disagree with you are being dishonest is intrinsic to that viewpoint. I would point out however that this in itself illustrates a shortcoming of that perspective in that it taints how you relate to other people.

How about this:

Having a single trait that some and/or all societies designate as negative does not equal an "evil" person. A child lying about whether it took cookies is a far cry from sticking puppies in a blender.

So what would constitute a base line of evil?