Bert, for someone that has 1,100 post I would expect you to be aware of this “difference” in ethical opinion by now. Not everyone is a Rothbardian/Kantian here. The sooner you learn to accept this the more successful you will be.
but you don’t lie to push agendas if you see your agenda or belief as “absolute” or moral or ethical or whatever you think makes it good or superior. It’s lying, it’s false, it’s deceit, it’s wrong.
Well on the one hand, one can still understand something is wrong, and perform that act if one is willing to accept the consequences. e.g. lifeboat situation where you have to walk through someones room because your hanging from a balcony. If you accept that you can be caught and punished, then your not negating those ethical beliefs in my opinion.
Furthermore, not everyone here has an absolute sense of absolute morals,ethics.
Yes, this is an epic fail. You believe there is something objectively right about lying to make something “good”. I guess the ends justifies the means, right?
This is quite amusing, given how similar this argument between you two is to Kants man who refuses to lie to save his family. Kant held it was never right to lie, not even to achieve good. You agree with this. I don’t, nor does the person your arguing with.
Yes, the ends can and do justify the means in this case (IMO). However, in other situations, the ends may not justify the means. It’s not all one way or the other.
Making up history to lean towards your beliefs is wrong. The goal of the historian is to research, track, record, and lay out the events in time objectively in the most truthful and honest way possible. If you lie and make up figures, events, or anything else it’s wrong. Period. There is no loop hole, no discussion, no exceptions.
This is not an argument. X is wrong, because I say x is wrong. That is circular reasoning, your argument is not logically sound. You have to prove lying is wrong, and good luck with that infinite debate.