SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Sharks in the Septic Tank -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lane3 who wrote (73563)8/27/2003 7:28:30 PM
From: one_less  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 82486
 
My understanding from what you have offered is that your ethics would drive you and others to tell the truth and be very concerned about it unless it would be significant cost to you personally. I imagine that the significance of costs varies from person to person, making it a relative situation and making the "oath" superfluous.

However, you keep making the claim that there are "those" who simply would not lie under oath because of personal ethics...I'm a skeptic, and you have provided no convincing evidence. What ethic? Is it conditional?

Again my original query had to do with whether or not the oath itself has value.



To: Lane3 who wrote (73563)8/27/2003 7:34:53 PM
From: one_less  Respond to of 82486
 
"Assuming that you take me at my word, then there is at least one non-religious person, me, for whom the fear of hell would be superfluous in every oath-related situation I can imagine."

Yes, of course. Because you would never lie, even if you swore that you were telling the truth...right?


HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2025 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News