Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

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: one_less who wrote (73597)	8/28/2003 4:28:49 PM
From: average joe	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

Breaking an oath or promise to a person or system system that has no regard for your life is worthy of admiration.

To: one_less who wrote (73597)	8/28/2003 5:01:12 PM
From: Solon	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 82486

"What would make the goals of another person worthy of admiration? In most cases, such goals, would be seen as some kind of positive example or as a contribution to humanity at large. Normal healthy people may have goals at every level of the continuum from insipidly personal to grandiose and broad sweepingly charitable. Some people have goals that are by their nature harmful to others. Society is strengthened by the ability of its members to have a positive regard for one another and to trust one another's word" I have already stated that truthfulness generally serves the interests of people in that it allows for relationships which fulfil human nature and also permits productivity and other social and interpersonal benefits. It is probably unnecessary for us to continue to reiterate these things on which we agree. "Lying under oath demonstrates a disregard for the needs of society and a contempt for the foundations of trust on which we depend." I disagree. Society is a conglomerate with myriad layers of interaction and "need". The people on both sides of the issue in a courtroom are all members of society and in pursuing their goals of what they consider "good" (for example, getting their client acquitted) they are directly regarding the needs of society. As to contempt for trust, I would bet you that you could ask 1000 people who have shaded or steered the facts under oath, or have manipulated the witness to give an incomplete or otherwise inaccurate story, if they had or have a contempt for trust, and not a single one of them would agree that your assessment of them was correct. As I said in a previous post, the courtroom is a place of deception and lies--both subtle and grand. Two opposing sides cannot both be telling the truth. And it is more than likely that both sides are shading the truth to their advantage. That is a lot of contemptible people, isn't it, Jewels? I can certainly think of instances where a lie is less than flattering to a person's character, but this is not an inherent quality of lying but rather of the values being pursued through the medium of the lie. There is no inherent moral quality to a lie. The moral quality of the lie may only be reached through assessment of the specific details. Likewise, truth has no inherent moral quality. Indeed, it can be terribly selfish and hurtful. But human nature generally benefits more through truth than through lies for reasons we have already listed. "When your goals involve a demonstration of selfish disregard for others and for society as a whole; the associated lying behavior is “contemptable.”" The goal of looking after the interests of your client by intentionally trying to skewer the jurors by leading them to a version of the "truth" which is less than honest but is instead prejudiced through intention, has nothing to do with having a selfish disreard for society. It has to do with having a regard for self interest of your client in acquitting himm of the charges or in minimizing the seriousness or gravity of the matter. There are certain pathological persons in the world who DO have a contempt for trust and truth, and who may have severe personality disorders or other pathologies. But these are the exception. Most people are truthful much of the time because it serves human relationships in the matter of trust, harmony, productivity and so forth. Lies also serve the interests of people from time to time as well as the interests of society. I could give you thousands of examples, but you can probably discover such examples on your own. Whether or not to lie is a personal decision based upon what one considers to be the best course of action. EVERYBODY manipulates the facts in order to justify the prejudice that ALL people have toward their own interests. Now, it appears to me that you consider lying under oath to be a larger offense than all the lies which people tell throughout their day. I wonder if my perception is accurate and, if so, what could explain your more tolerant attitude toward the common variety of liars about affairs, spouses, feelings, and so forth. I also value truth over lies except when a lie would beter serve the "good" as I have assessed it in any particular circumstance. However, if I were to condemn lies it would not carte blanche be the ones under oath where the whole purpose of the oath is to counter the expectation of massive lying, but those lies told between friends and lovers which truly do harm individuals. Lies told where the only "self interest" being protected is a desire to cause harm or hurt to others may indeed be contemptible, but this would be in specific circumstances. I see nothing in the lie itself which inherently condemns it whether it is or is not under oath. But certain lies in certain circumstances are indeed distasteful and offensive to a reasonable person, just as truth is distasteful and offensive to normal people in particular circumstances.