Augh! I'm seeing this more and more. This was a fine comment. It was not a troll; it was not rude. I personally don't agree with it, but voting is not for agreement or disagreement. That's what responses are for. Don't downvote comments which aren't trollish or otherwise rude just because you disagree with them.
(Background: this comment was downvoted. I've seen this happen at least 5 times in the past two days, it annoyed me, I commented.)
In general, I agree with you. But you can downvote for dishonesty in a comment, and the poster is advocating dishonesty. Not the same thing, but related. I think an argument can be made that that particular comment crossed the line and can be downvoted.
For example, you said that you believe a comment can be downvoted for being rude. I agree. But advocating dishoesty, I think, is far worse than being rude.
I think you're drawing a bright white line where there doesn't deserve to be one. White lies aren't "dishonesty"; they're essential social manners for getting along with people. Taken to the limit, in a drunken aggressive situation, white lies may save your life.
What annoys me more, though, is that you seem to be making a moral argument rather than a rational argument. Morals that are not backed by reason are on shaky grounds. And the great-grandparent was arguing by example that lying is sometimes not immoral. You can't counter that kind of argument by saying, in effect, that lying is wrong, that's that, and your argument is therefore worthless and should be downvoted.
Morals that are not backed by reason are on shaky grounds.
I'd say that's exactly what the moral realm is-- the area where reason fails us. Like you, I don't see much point in arguing about non-rational propositions; it's just two people contradicting each other.
I disagree with you about "white lies," though. In the limit, sure, I'd lie to save my brother from kidnapping, or that sort of thing. But most of the time, I'd rather deal in the truth, even if it makes people a little unhappier in the short term. For example, I'd rather hear "Your startup has serious problems X, Y, and Z that you had better fix before you launch," than "Looks great. I'm sure it will be bigger than Google," if the problems are really there.
My position is rather more stark than I made it out to be. I cannot agree with you that the decision between right and wrong must necessarily not be made with the rational mind.
Don't forget, emotions are just rationality in a different guise, in an evolutionary context. Take the extreme examples of love and hate: love help ensures the survival of genetic material close to your own lineage, while hate binds you to act - possibly violently (i.e. "irrationally") - if wronged, even if that is harmful to your own material position, in a kind of logic of mutually assured destruction. And of course, MAD is one of the more supremely rational approaches to the nuclear question, and is the primary reason why there hasn't been a WW3.
The problem with abandoning reason with respect to morals is that you will no longer be swayed by rational argument. For example, if you take your morals from the dead scripture of an old religion, you're locking yourself into a rational system of laws designed (largely) for agricultural societies which often didn't have an independent strong rule of law. If your attachment to this dead writing is strong, it will lead to profoundly unjust positions and outcomes, such as supporting the suppression of females in society, or discrimination against people "not like you" (gay, other religions, etc.).
I'm not sure I understand what you mean. I agree enthusiastically that taking your morals from the dead scripture of an old religion is a terrible idea. I also think that we should try to make all of our decisions as rationally as we can.
But I also think that there are certain questions that I answer irrationally, but with great certainty. The best example I can think of is torture. (Sorry to be gruesome.) When I think about whether the torture is justified, my immediate answer is no. I am not certain, but I don't think a rational argument could convince me otherwise. I could probably be convinced that mild forms aren't always bad, but the more extreme stuff-- no way.
I think my position could be summarized as "There is a subset of decisions that I can't make rationally, even though I think it would be better if I could."
Sure, but 30 seconds before you pitch that startup is it more beneficial to hear "Pingswept you look great!" or "Pingswept that zit on your nose really detracts from your presentation."
I realize that there are people who are motivated by that kind of vapid encouragement, or discouraged by superficial criticism. I'd rather hear the truth, even if it's painful.
I'm not saying that right before an important presentation, I'd like to hear the recitation of an index of my shortcomings-- I'd rather hear a list of my strengths. But I don't think false praise is helpful.
Morals that are not backed by reason are on shaky grounds
I'd argue that all moral decisions are made on emotional, not rational, grounds. The ones that appear to be reasoned are in fact just rationalizations of emotional decisions.
Morality is how emotions manifest themselves in decision-making, and those emotions evolved to maintain specific social behaviours. There's nothing wrong with that. That's how morality (e.g. reciprocity) works in all other animals, and it's why there are so many grey areas and edge cases (white lies being a prime example).
Emotional arguments are rational arguments, but of a different kind. As I explain in my cousin posting to this (see reply to pingswept), emotions have rational reasons for existing. So we need not base our moral reasoning in emotions, but rather on the rational concepts behind those emotions, with no loss of generality.
You're making a lot of false assumptions about my position.
I essentially agree that white lies aren't "dishonesty," but what exactly consitutes a "white lie" is up for debate.
More importantly, I believe the word "moral" simply refers to a code of right and wrong which MUST be rationally supported to be valid.
I don't think there is a valid moral rule that states, "Do not lie." For example, one morally SHOULD lie to a serial killer who asks if your wife and kids are in the house. However, I consider that kind of case out of the scope of the present discussion. As a rule, you should not attempt to fake reality (lie) to other honest people in normal situations.
Nah. Advocating dishonesty is okay. It's a legit point of view, if you don't like it, say so. He wasn't being dishonest, after all, only advocating it.
Also, it's ironic that your comment was downvoted.
Criticism should always be specific. (And should suggest a way to re-mediate the issue)
No: "You look fat", "You suck at maths", "RTFM"
Yes: "That dress is wrong for your body. It makes you look fat. Try this one", "You need to work on your fractions more - here; I'll help", "Rather than asking it here, this manual over here (link) answers your questions. Try chapter 5"
// I forgot to add a reason. Truth is important. I'm much harsher on those that I love than strangers - the reason is that hearing any truth gives you an opportunity to grow. I never lie to my wife / close friends because I care about them, and not just about their feelings. I'd rather hurt their feelings in the short term, than damage them in the long term.
(Background: this comment was downvoted. I've seen this happen at least 5 times in the past two days, it annoyed me, I commented.)