socialy retarded

The lazy utilitarian (lying part 2)

Posted on 26. Aug, 2007 by Derrick.

A lie is a lie, right? The philosopher Immanuel Kant argued that truth-telling is a “perfect duty,” one so basic that it cannot be overridden by other values. Kant said that lying was always morally wrong. He argued that all persons are born with an “intrinsic worth” that he called human dignity. This dignity derives from the fact that humans are uniquely cognitive, capable of freely making decisions, and guiding their conduct by reason. To be human, said Kant, is to have the rational power of free choice. To be ethical, is to respect that power in oneself.

I am not a Kantian in regards to honesty. I’m more of an untraditional utilitarian. Kantians or virtue ethicists ignore the only test necessary for judging the morality of a lie – balancing the benefits and harms of its consequences.

Utilitarian’s base their reasoning on the claim that actions, including lying, are morally acceptable when the resulting consequences maximize benefit or minimize harm. A doctor tells a depressed patient that he has a 50-50 chance of long-term recovery when she is confident he’ll live only six months, or lying to the drunk husband as to the where-abouts of his battered wife. When trying to do the right thing in a difficult situation, perfect honesty may seem second best next to values like compassion, respect, and justice. Yet many philosophical and religious zellots have long claimed that rarely, if ever, is a lie permissible.

Brutal honestly is a term that some people assumed on me earlier in my life. They would claim that I’m a Kantian in belief, however I can’t subscribe to that term without being honest myself. It’s not so much that I’m honest, but I have a lack of compassion for other people’s feelings. I got the ideal by namesake only. In fact, I’m just flat out lazy. It’s easier for me to be honest than it is to lie. “Do I look good in this shirt” my reply: “No, it makes you look fat”.  I’m not maliciously saying this to personally assault the person; I’m just apathetic towards their self worth. “Sugar coating” takes to much time and effort, and I find it too hard to lie in my day to day routine.

Altruistic lies, which specifically intend to benefit someone else, are considered morally acceptable by utilitarian’s. Picture the doctor telling her terminally ill patient that there is a 50 percent probability that he will recover, when in truth all tests confirm he has six months to live. The doctor knows from years of experience that, if told the truth, he may fall deeper into depression or possibly commit suicide. With the hope of recovery, the terminally ill man has a greater chance to cherish his remaining time.

People I believe tend to blur the altruistic lie with being “nice”. Where I would not consider the ramifications of calling someone fat, a person may chose a different set of words to obscure the truth. While not flat out lying, saying “I think you would look better in this shirt” is not being honest.

People often poorly estimate the consequences of their actions or specifically undervalue or ignore the harmful consequences to society that their lies cause. Suggesting that people may lie in pursuit of the greater good can lead to a “slippery slope”. The line between cleverly calculated moral justifications and empty excuses for selfish behavior becomes exceedingly thin. Sliding down the slope eventually kindles morally bankrupt statements. It is for that reason that even an honorable person can’t properly weigh consequences of actions/lies, for the consequences are often too unpredictable(Robin Hood is the ultimate utilitarian, stealing from the rich to give to the poor). I would argue to the true utilitarian that there is a greater cost in tolerating lies for vague or subjective virtues, including lies in honor of “the greater good.”

I’m not claiming that my virtues prevent me from lying. I’m in fact claiming that my virtues are severely flawed. I lack compassion; the same compassion that compels utilitarian’s to justify withholding honesty. Brutal honesty is just my laziness, I’m just a lazy utilitarian.

- D

Continue Reading

The honest liar (part 1)

Posted on 02. Jul, 2007 by Derrick.

Part 1 (The warm blanket of lying)

Truth and honesty seem to be overrated these days. More and more the news shows society that even the most righteous people lie and deceive. Essential to our humanity but disowned by its perpetrators, lying is normal, natural, and pervasive. Human society is nothing less than a network of lies that would collapse under the weight of too much honesty.

Philosophers have differed on the subject. Some maintain that lying is wrong, period (Augustine, Kant); some theorize that lying can be as good as it is natural (Machiavelli, Nietzsche, Wilde). David Smith actually speaks of the “Machiavellian module” which has evolved in the human brain.

Cognitive scientist David Smith thinks that humanity has been a species of habitual liars right from the get-go, today as much as ever before. We deceive others and ourselves all the time, because it’s advantageous to do so as a species. “As humans, we must fit into a close-knit social system to succeed, yet our primary aim is to look out for ourselves above all others. Lying helps.” wrote Smith. Survival of the fittest.

A study I had seen in a sociology class showed 60% of people tell on average 3 lies for every ten minutes of conversation. The frequency applies to men and women equally, though the sexes tend to lie about different things: men to make themselves look better, women to make others feel good. This has in view all types of lies: socially acceptable lies (normally not considered lies), unacceptable lies (blatant or bald-faced lies), lies of omission (silent lies), and many other forms of deception.

Self-deception is by far the most useful lie of them all. Since none of us wants to admit we deceive ourselves (which is part of the self-deceiving process). But lying to ourselves is essential, says Smith, because it soothes the stresses of life, and in the process helps us lie efficiently to others. The unconscious region of the brain, where truth can be effectively obscured, makes this possible.

Lying to ourselves promotes psychological well-being, My class research showed that depressed people deceived themselves less than those who are mentally healthy. Depressives, indeed, have a better grasp on reality than most people, self-knowledge isn’t all that it’s cracked up to be.

Self-deception relieves us from a sense that we’re constantly living in contradiction. We each have a set of values that we constantly violate. When you’re aware of transgressing one of those values that you hold dear, you tend to feel bad about yourself. In deceiving ourselves, we relieve ourselves of that burden, making life a lot easier and lot more pleasant for ourselves. if we convince ourselves we’re not really lying, we can lie far more effectively than might otherwise be the case. All of our social lies, like a fake smile, involve the manipulation of how others see us. Our lives are saturated with pretense and dishonesty.

The trick lies in balancing lying and honesty in appropriate measures. Deception and self-deception are obviously not always advantageous. Furthermore, it’s necessary to be economical with lies, otherwise lying would become self-defeating. For example: the “boy who cried wolf” syndrome.

None of this addresses the morality of lying and deception, only their naturality.( I will address the morality of lying in part 2 of my blog) The point is that lying and deception are perfectly normal, and necessary for the sake of mental health. To lie and deceive is hardwired into the human race, and that it becomes stronger in specific contexts. Honor-shame cultures and the postmodern climate, for different reasons, summon even more deceptions from humanity.

If we’re stuck with being a race of liars and deceivers, we can at least be truthful enough to acknowledge it. We can stop pretending that honesty is attainable to the degree other virtues are like compassion, justice, and wisdom, or that it’s necessarily a virtue at all. Honesty actually has very little to do with morality. To imply that something is wrong because it’s dishonest is about as meaningful as saying that something is wrong because it’s unnatural.

Lying is as natural as breathing, bred into our DNA. Humans evolved to lie. To be continued…..

- D

Continue Reading

Social Retardation

Posted on 23. Feb, 2007 by Derrick.

If you have spent any amount of time with me, you would know that I suffer from Social Retardation. Such a person has no idea how to act or communicate in the presence of others, but does not get embarrassed because they are not aware of their own deficiencies. I often find that I’ve offended someone but don’t realize that I’ve done it till it’s too late.

I like to take responsibility for my own actions, but I place this deficiency squarely on my father’s shoulders. His main focus in life was to embarrass me to the point of no return. Mowing the lawn in cut off jeans and cowboy boots was the norm. He desensitized me to not realizing my own iniquity.

My anti-anxiety disorder has been so transfixed in my psyche that I have dwelled on this difficulty since I became cognizant to the situation in high school. The problem is that I’m only aware of my hitch after the fact. In other words, My mouth doesn’t always have break lights.

A great example is when I was a sophomore in college. At the time I was taking a human anatomy/physiology class. Now I’m not a bigot outside of the usual cracker jokes, but one day I said something that still to this day makes me cringe. We were doing lab work on some cellular material, and my Native American lab partner wouldn’t stop screwing around with the kerosene. Me being the overly demanding group leader told him “Hey red boy, can you put down the fire water and help us out here”.

Um, yeah. Read that sentence again. It sets in more on the second read.

Now I know what you are thinking, “Derrick you are socially retarded”, but let me try and explain. He was wearing a large red hoodie, and was playing with kerosene. This sentence made sense given the facts of the argument. Taken out of context, and removing the immediate visual stimuli, I look like a jack ass. My lab partner eventually dropped the class, and I later found out was because of my perceived racism. If I could meet that guy again, I would apologize.

Being blunt to the point of it being a fault, or saying something with no malice is no excuse. Intentions or not, it is my responsibility if I’ve offended them. Their perceived emotion is the only thing that matters. My problem is that I’m oblivious to their perceived emotion, or I simply don’t give a shit.

What is already an issue becomes even more apparent when involving alcohol. Not only do I say inappropriate abrasive comments, but I then don’t think people understand me and I repeat myself ad nauseum. This gets exasperated by being at a club or a bar because I subsequently get loud. I lose all perspective. Sheep fucking, rectal exams, merciless humpage of women ect ect. Nothing at this point of myself degradation would humiliate me.

And this brings me to my point. I want to thank the people that not only put up with my shit, but then join in, and become my cohorts in Social Retardation. You people make me feel like I’m not the only blabbering idiot in this world. Thanks!

-D

Continue Reading

Cognitive dissonance

Posted on 29. Dec, 2006 by Derrick.

I want to start out this blog with some foreshadowing. For my first 8 scholastic years I went to a Baptist school and have had intensive bible thumping. So if you read this, please don’t respond with “you don’t understand the Christian religion”.

Too many people think that without God/Ala//Buddha, there are no values. These believes aggravate me. I would argue that basing morality on a deity makes the moral acts self-serving. People who do these acts are only trying to stay in the good graces of a god, rather than to serve your fellow man. My disagreement with religion is that, religious people believe morality has its genesis in religion, whereas I believe it begins in culture and is then assimilated into the religion. It’s my belief that certain moral truths reveal themselves to man over time simply through trial and error. Let me give you an example of what I mean. In the Old Testament, it was said to be appropriate to execute someone for cursing their parents. For that culture, such an act was perfectly reasonable. Over time, the cruelty of the act became evident and now I don’t think even the most fundamentalist Christian would say that’s an appropriate act, despite the fact that it says right there in the Bible that it is.

The cognitive dissonance that occurs when one accepts some forms of religion is what eventually led to my de-conversion from Christianity. I could find reason to reject other gods but mine. But, when I turned that same reasoning upon my own belief system it was shattered. Stephen F. Roberts wrote “We are all Atheists; some of us just believe in fewer gods than others. When you understand why you dismiss all other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours”

I have a hard time being partial to religions apparent damnation of non-believers. like agnostics are some sub-human culture that without the Bibles ten commandments, the Buddhist 8-fold path, or the Muslims 5 pillars of Islam, agnostics are sniveling rebellious Neanderthals. I trust that each one of those by-laws of religion is a superior way to live life, but the idea that religion has some measure of superior morals bothers me. Whether one is religious or agnostic requires the same amount of faith as neither belief can be proven. What I don’t understand is, religious fundamentalists (Christian mostly) look upon me with utter disgust. Like I go home and make pagan rituals on chickens all the while cutting myself with a razor.

Case in point, children have no concept of god. They don’t ask about fairies. They look up and see clouds and airplanes, birds and bugs. They don’t question their purpose in life. They know their purpose: to live, love and be happy.

To be precise, Children are BORN agnostic, and are TAUGHT religion. What child, by instinct, bends their knees at night and prays “Lord their soul to keep”? These are behaviors that are taught. Children don’t have the interpretation capacity to contemplate the unknown. Oftentimes this shortfall is filled by religious teachings. Fundamentally, children are sweet, innocent, and loving. They are taught to be self centered, egotistical, and loathing.

For example. A Palestinian homicide bomber admitted that he had no responsibility for the deaths of others. He attributed everything to Allah. In other words, he said that if 30 people had died, according to this fundamentalist, all of the deaths would have been the will of Allah. He accepted NO responsibility. It was NOT “he” who killed, but that Allah himself kills.

And this is the trouble that I see with religion. Given all the relevant data, a competent physicist could predict how many people would die in a sudden homicide bombing. The Palestinian didn’t attribute anything to natural law. He saw Allah’s hand in everything. The question is? Was he born with this notion? I don’t think so. Even he admitted that all these fundamentals had been planted in his head by others. Apparently, this is something that others have a hard time accepting when it comes to their particular brand of fundamentalism. “Oh yes,” Christians all agree, “Those Muslims are fanatics!” All the while they’re driving around their SUV’s with bumper stickers proclaiming, “Let Go and Let God!”

And finally to my main point. The major highlights of the 10 Commandments can be hit without any reference to a deity, can’t they? A person doesn’t need to believe in or even acknowledge a deity to be taught that killing another person for fun is wrong, Isn’t that true? I think I can make a compelling case for not cheating on your spouse without threatening a person with eternal damnation of hellfire and brimstone.

You see, the problem isn’t morality or ethics. The problem is that some people think that morality and ethics cannot be taught or even exist without reference to a deity. I wonder how many who profess such outrage at the removal of the 10 Commandments from the classroom would be equally outraged if the 8-Fold path or the Koran were to be inserted into the curriculum.

In illustration; I can say that it is wrong for the nation of Muslim men to suppress their women. Even if they thought its acceptable, there is a flaw in their rational thought. They fail to apply their maxim to themselves. That is to say, they fail to consider how they would feel if they were the ones subjugated. What clouds them from reaching this rational conclusion is that whatever their deity says is reasonable, is in fact ok, rationality be damned. Cognitive dissonance needs to be applied.

Again, the Bible says you can be executed for cursing your parents. This is ordained by God in Exodus. I don’t think that even the most Christian fanatic would claim this to be a moral act. Why? Because the maxim doesn’t hold up to morality thought out rationally. It’s a false promise.

An example Immanuel Kant gave of a false promise in which you imagine yourself borrowing money with no intention of paying it back. Kant argues that this is ethically wrong, and in particular it violates the lender’s right to repayment. It is his reasoning for his conclusion that deserves careful study. Since his argument makes no appeal to the word of God, it attempts to show how we can discover what is right without needing to interpret a (potentially wrong and controversial) holy text. Since it will attempt to establish that someone else has a right to be respected, it aims to show that ethical egoism is false.

“The most direct and infallible way, however, to answer the question as to whether a lying promise accords with duty is to ask myself whether I would really be content if my maxim (of extricating myself from difficulty by means of a false promise) were to hold as a universal law for myself as well as others, and could I really say to myself that everyone may promise falsely when he finds himself in a difficulty from which he can find no other way to extricate himself. Then I immediately become aware that I can indeed will the lie but can not at all will a universal law to lie. For by such a law there would really be no promises at all, since in vain would my willing future actions be professed to other people who would not believe what I professed, or if they over-hastily did believe, then they would pay me back in like coin. Therefore, my maxim would necessarily destroy itself just as soon as it was made a universal law.”

Kant believed that the average person is good at telling whether an action is wrong. When we want to know whether it would be right to do what we are tempted to do, we ask, what if everyone did that?

Kant’s basic premise was that everyone is governed by certain rules. These rules are discovered by rational beings because rational beings have the capacity to discover them. These rules are no more dependent upon a deity than the law of gravity. Rules, by their very nature are general, in the sense that they apply to certain other situations as well as whatever specific situation in which they were discovered. For example, if I steal something from a store because I feel like it, I am following a rule, applicable in all situations similar to my present one. My rule is, whenever I feel like stealing, it is ok to do so. If I find, on reflection, that I do not accept this rule, then I must admit that feeling like stealing is no good reason to do so. When we look for reasons to do something, we are always in effect setting precedents for doing the same sort of thing in the same sort of circumstances.

With that said, a moral person is concerned about whether something is right for right’s sake, and not simply because it appeases a deity. A moral person thinks about a rule he would be following if he were to perform a certain action and then he asks himself whether he is really willing to accept the precedent that he would be setting by following that rule. Then the moral person will realize that this precedent is universal, in the sense that it should apply to all people. So, if the moral person believes that giving a false promise is morally wrong, he will apply this not only to himself but expect it from others. This is called consistency, or the golden rule.

Cognitive dissonance. In other words, look outside of your personal box and ask “would I want that said, done, or contemplated about me”. There is no need for religion to regulate my moral compass when I have rational thought.

-D

Continue Reading