The Like/Hate Thread

[Pinky]

I know what you're talking about, and no I'm not getting into a global warming/cooling/climate change/derpaderp argument, but taking that subtext out:

If your lies save the earth from, say, cracking in half, then yes its justified. You even say so yourself "if your findings are accurate".

Of course you then say 'if you're willing to go to these lengths then how much credit can be put into the original claim that your foreseen disaster is real?' but your are now changing the scenario into a more specific one in which the lies hurt his cause more than help.

We are speaking towards a general concept of whether or not the ends justify the means, through a scenario where the 'ends' are subverting natural disaster and the 'means' are falsified evidence. You can't in the middle of the argument change the 'ends' to failing to subvert the natural disaster.

i kept it to a real-world example because if we only masturbate over theoreticals then you can literally have any situation that suits your fancy. i drew from the whole climategate fiasco because i couldn't think of a more stark example of lying for the supposed greater good. using those methods, they managed to get a number of euro nations to implement policy that is becoming increasingly unpopular in the face of rising costs and negligible results, and now that the current scandal is even still unfolding they've done themselves an incredible amount of harm. so, even if their goal is worthwhile they've fucked themselves sideways.

and this brings me back to the point that sam harris' presentation was built on a strange hypocrisy... there are absolutes of right and wrong, but somehow the worst and most common of them all isn't one of them. if lying can't be classified as wrong in all cases, then what can be? for my own peace of mind i'm going to blame it on a political system where honesty is punished, such as what we have here in the west, and not on the zealotry of the humanists. :[