Justice outside the moral good

62 Comments

Can a lie become truth? Is there such a thing as justice outside the moral good? What is justice?

Here's an illustration

700 people are trapped on an island. A man stands on a rock for 90 days saying, "Group X is plotting to take over, they mean to take over!!" After the 90 days is ended, his opponents on the island are anxious and irritated. The man then goes under disguise and meets a few hot heads from Group X and gives them an opportunity to kill their enemy.

However, the situation is a false hood and the would be conspirators are caught in the trap.

Citing the attempt on his life the man sweeps away all opposing elements and consolidates power to himself in order to stave off the threat of radicals.

Seeing as how what he said came true, did he lie? And was he just?

I will comment 2
I will potatoe 27
Help us keep this site organized and clean. Thanks!
[ Report Post ]
Comments ( 62 )
  • Dad
    11 years ago

    He was lying BEFORE it came true though.

    If things could come true, well just about any thing could, then a lie would never be a lie as it just hasn't been done yet!

    A lie is saying something that is not true. At that time.
    Therefore this hypothetical person lied. It is inconsequential if it then became true later. It was still a lie, and remains a lie.

    I should know because I'm the president (just not yet though!)

    Potato (no e)

    Comment Hidden ( show )
    4
    4
      -
    • missy18
      11 years ago

      I agree that lying is saying something that is not true in the present tense, but maybe we have to differentiate between action and intention.

      Like with your example "...I'm the president (just not yet though)" one could say you were lying about your intention for the future, but the action itself is not a lie because the future is never set in stone and according to some philosophers we can't even predict that the sun will rise tomorrow.
      However with present tense (like in the OP's story) we can know if he's lying or not because what he claimed was in the present tense.
      Group X IS plotting to take over, they MEAN to take over. He was lying about their intentions at the time, but not about what might happen in the future because we can't lie about the future because we don't KNOW what will happen. Just a thought :3

      Comment Hidden ( show )
      0
      0
        -
      • Dad
        11 years ago

        I respectfully understand your (wrong) point.

        We DO know the sun is coming up tomorrow.
        Things like this fall into common sense and reality.
        Its like saying, if I died would the world just stop for everyone? NO it wouldn't.
        It has been proven again and again that the Sun will come up tomorrow, actually since Earth evolved.

        IF there were any reason the Sun would not come up and there is presently no evidence as per why it wouldn't, then this would be illogical and beyond the factual evidence we presently have.

        I can explain it more clearly, but generally kids here, so I thought you didn't want me to bash 'philosophy' too much.

        Comment Hidden ( show )
        0
        0
          -
        • missy18
          11 years ago

          You've only really replied to a minor point that I made, which was only an example of the unpredictability that certain famous philosophers in the past believed. And to an extent, this IS true. You're right that we don't have current evidence that the sun won't rise tomorrow, but that doesn't mean there's not a slight chance that it won't happen for whatever reason that would be beyond us.

          You obviously believe that the cycle of nature is constant and predictable, but others believe the opposite.

          You didn't want to address my real point of the difference between action and intention?

          And you can bash philosophy all you like, it doesn't stop it from existing in everything you do and think.

          Comment Hidden ( show )
          0
          0
        • shade_ilmaendu
          11 years ago

          While we can predict that the sun will continue to rise (save for some cosmic catastrophe that we would be unable to forsee) the argument you used is fallacious. Don't rely on induction, it is too often faulty.

          I would say rather we can predict the sun will rise tomorrow because we have observed the rotation of our planet and know that every 24 hours (roughly) it makes one full rotation, thus as long as the planet is rotating it shall turn to the sun every day.

          Just thought I'd point that out. :3

          Comment Hidden ( show )
          0
          0
            -
          • Dad
            11 years ago

            ok I agree, that's clearer.
            I did say 'evidence' I just didn't elaborate on these said 'facts'
            Looking back, both what you said and I said still help the OP.

            Comment Hidden ( show )
            0
            0
              -
            • shade_ilmaendu
              11 years ago

              I mostly wanted to point it out because I could see that explanation confusing someone in a debate. It just sounded a lot like what my Epistemology professor used as an example when we were talking about induction. Because it's easy to say the sun will rise every day because it always has, and it's technically correct. Problem is people try to apply that sort of reasoning to things that wouldn't make sense.

              Comment Hidden ( show )
              1
              1
            • Anonymous Post Author
              11 years ago

              Lying, as I've always understood the definition, has little to do with "at the present time".

              Just because someone is coming towards you with a pair of scissors doesn't mean they're trying to kill although it APPEARS that way just as it appeared the man was lying.

              Given a little more time, you'd see that they're just trying to cut your hair just as the man in my example was telling of a future evil to come.

              It's the truth, it's just a truth that hasn't come to fruition yet.

              ;)

              Comment Hidden ( show )
              0
              0
  • flutterhigh
    11 years ago

    The answer to your thinly-veiled allegory of the US involvement in the Middle East is quite obviously potato.

    Comment Hidden ( show )
    2
    2
      -
    • flutterhigh
      11 years ago

      But in the unlikely event that you wanted a real answer: you're talking about "lie" and "truth" as if these things are discrete entities - they are (rather arbitrary) descriptive terms. "Truth" exists only insofar as "red" exists, and truth can be conflated with untruth just as much as red can be mixed with blue. Lies don't "become" truths, they are merely viewed to be true or false under different light, just as something just look red in one light and blue in another light.

      Comment Hidden ( show )
      0
      0
        -
      • Anonymous Post Author
        11 years ago

        While it is true that nothing in this world can truly be seen so much as perceived, I don't see how that negates something be inherently true or not however beyond our ability to grasp it it may be.

        Think of it like 500 half-blind men all looking at a word written on a wall.

        Because we have to perceive the world through the dirty lens of our mind, some see it as saying, "Love" others as "Screw", some still as "Destroy".

        But no matter how many perceptions are out there and however much they may disagree, the word still has its own meaning.

        I think of truth much in the same light.

        Comment Hidden ( show )
        0
        0
          -
        • flutterhigh
          11 years ago

          Alright, then we subscribe to different philosophical camps. You're talking about realism - the idea that there is some sort of objective, unassailable reality beyond our own misperceptions of it. Like Plato's 'allegory of the cave'. The majority of the philosophical world has since moved towards idealism, though I wouldn't say I fully endorse that view either.

          I think modern science (relativity, quantum physics) is generally on the side of idealism. Relativity has proved that there is no objective frame of reference within which to view an event, and quantum mechanics is beginning to show that there may no objective reality at all. I think such arbitrary notions as "truth" and "justice" - constructs invented by man, mind you - are even more arbitrary than physical matter.

          Comment Hidden ( show )
          0
          0
  • dappled
    11 years ago

    I feel a bit left out because I don't understand the allegory.

    Anyone want to talk about Jimmy Carr's taxes?

    Comment Hidden ( show )
    1
    1
      -
    • BlueAlice
      11 years ago

      All I know is that - much as I'm not interested in his humour - he is being targeted unfairly!

      I don;t understadn what's going on either... unless it was meant to be the plot of an unaired episode of Lost

      Comment Hidden ( show )
      1
      1
    • Anonymous Post Author
      11 years ago

      What don't you think you understood?

      Comment Hidden ( show )
      0
      0
        -
      • dappled
        11 years ago

        Well, any of it. I thought it was just hypothetical but people answering seem to be talking about a person (and about potatoes). If you just give me a name or point me at a link, I can go and look but I can't seem to work it out from anything that's been said.

        Comment Hidden ( show )
        0
        0
          -
        • flutterhigh
          11 years ago

          I thought it was pretty clearly about the 2003 invasion of Iraq (and the conflicts leading up to it), and other preemptive 'anti-terrorism' strikes/occupations in the Middle East. The man on the rock is the Bush/Blair administrations, Group X is Saddam Hussein, al-Qaeda, or just the Iraqi people, and the "opportunity" in question is the 9/11 attacks. So the US baits the terrorist attack, and uses the leverage to consolidate power in the ensuing confusion and fear.

          I'm guessing OP just woke up from a ten year nap.

          Comment Hidden ( show )
          0
          0
            -
          • dappled
            11 years ago

            I think I have a bit of a gap in my brain for some things. I wouldn't have got that in a million years. But yes, that does look to be what it's about.

            Comment Hidden ( show )
            0
            0
          • dom180
            11 years ago

            That was definitely my interpretation too. Which is why I think it's an over-simplification; 9/11 (and terror in general) was far from the only reason the US/UK invaded Iraq, although it was a major one.

            I only answered from a hypothetical stand-point though. It isn't strictly necessary to know what the story is a metaphor for to give an answer the question (although it might help, and it did take me a few reads to get to understand).

            Comment Hidden ( show )
            0
            0
              -
            • flutterhigh
              11 years ago

              I definitely think it's an oversimplification. I'm against the war and always was, but making a reductionist metaphor (that already assumes that the motives were false) isn't doing anyone any favors.

              Comment Hidden ( show )
              0
              0
  • NotFloydzie
    11 years ago

    This isn't Psychology class.

    Comment Hidden ( show )
    0
    0
  • crazyladii
    11 years ago

    He wasn't lying it was premeditated in his conspiracy to cause conflict amongst the people

    Comment Hidden ( show )
    0
    0
  • Anonymous Post Author
    11 years ago

    Oshit! I just realized I spelled potato wrong.

    What would life be without our idiosyncrasies, I ask you?

    Comment Hidden ( show )
    0
    0
  • anti-hero
    11 years ago

    Way to spell potato!

    OP = Dan Quail.

    Comment Hidden ( show )
    0
    0
  • dongwhan
    11 years ago

    Truth or justice I do not know,but I would imagine the man that stood on the rock for 90 days would have been quite parched.

    Comment Hidden ( show )
    0
    0
  • GuessWho
    11 years ago

    I will comment that I will potatoe...

    Comment Hidden ( show )
    0
    0
  • dom180
    11 years ago

    Maybe. We never find out if Group X was already plotting to take over or not, or, if they were, whether the man actually knew that or not. How can we ever know?

    That's not to say what the man did was morally justifiable; he invited people to attack other people. Whether he lied or not is either here nor there; the fact that he allowed people to die which is the real moral failing. The fact that he did it for his own selfish gains is even more reprehensible.

    Comment Hidden ( show )
    0
    0
      -
    • Anonymous Post Author
      11 years ago

      "for his own selfish gains"

      Why do people look at take overs as purely selfish? Can't it be because we think it's the right thing to do?

      Maybe the methods were under-handed but just maybe Group X was bad and the man truly did feel it was time they were dealt it.

      Just maybe. :P

      Comment Hidden ( show )
      0
      0
        -
      • dom180
        11 years ago

        Maybe it is. But if he needs to create false evidence as a reason for this, it probably isn't. If the group was a genuine threat there would be plenty of evidence to suggest it without needing to create some by using a trap. Resorting to under-hand methods would be unnecessary if the threat was real.

        Comment Hidden ( show )
        0
        0
          -
        • Anonymous Post Author
          11 years ago

          What false evidence? The most he did was not tell them that he was the very man they were wanting to kill.

          And that's not lying. That's just omission of the truth.

          Besides, if these people have murder in their heart how good could they have been to have around? Don't you think that's evidence enough of their being a threat?

          The man never took away their willpower. They made a choice of their own free will, yes?

          Comment Hidden ( show )
          0
          0
            -
          • Anonymous Post Author
            11 years ago

            Let me put it another way-

            If not for their own actions, nothing would have happened. Everything was in their court.

            If anything, the whole situation is their fault.

            Comment Hidden ( show )
            0
            0
              -
            • dom180
              11 years ago

              If it wasn't for the man's actions nothing would have happened either. At least, there is no proof it would have.

              I'll put what I said before another way. If he needed to tempt them into making an attack, that means they would not have done it of their own accord; ergo, not a threat.

              Comment Hidden ( show )
              0
              0
    • dom180
      11 years ago

      Also, if you are presenting an extended metaphor, I can't help but think you are over-simplifying the scenario you're attempting to analogise. All political and military interactions are far more complex than a small handful of short paragraphs.

      Comment Hidden ( show )
      0
      0
  • Finding_Peace_In_A_Mad_World
    11 years ago

    Considering how much I love potatoes (as anyone who has seen my profile already knows), of course I had to choose the "I will potato" option.

    Comment Hidden ( show )
    0
    0
      -
    • Anonymous Post Author
      11 years ago

      Lol for some reason I thought of your picture when I made this poll O_o

      Comment Hidden ( show )
      0
      0
        -
      • Finding_Peace_In_A_Mad_World
        11 years ago

        Haha I'm flattered :D

        Comment Hidden ( show )
        0
        0
  • Darkoil
    11 years ago

    No it's a lie, he was talking in the present tense and the event actually happens in the future.

    Comment Hidden ( show )
    0
    0
      -
    • Anonymous Post Author
      11 years ago

      "I'm going to be 30 someday"

      Since it's not true now, by your definition I'm lying yes?

      Comment Hidden ( show )
      0
      0
        -
      • Darkoil
        11 years ago

        Fuck me, are you really that retarded you don't understand the concept of past, present and future? No? Well fuck off then you dumb little shit.

        Comment Hidden ( show )
        0
        0
      • TerryVie
        11 years ago

        no, but he was claiming something being a fact NOW(stately that group X wants to take over, or has intentions of doing so in the future), when it was NOT.

        "I am married" would be a better example.
        Even if i would eventually be, it's not true now. Just because i may be later does not make it any more true now.

        Comment Hidden ( show )
        0
        0
          -
        • Anonymous Post Author
          11 years ago

          I think you're missing my point here. What I'm saying is that although it's not true in the present it's going to be.

          Saying it's a lie because it's not true in the beginning is like saying, "it's not a cake...coz it wasn't in the beginning".

          No matter what is was before, it is a cake now.

          Comment Hidden ( show )
          0
          0
            -
          • TerryVie
            11 years ago

            yeah, but those eggs, flour and milk will not become a cake by itself.

            If you KNOW you are going to make a cake, thats pretty obvious, but in YOUR scenario, it depends on the actions of others, so ultimately, you are claiming those ingredients WILL become a cake, no, you CLAIM they will be a cake tomorrow, then try to convince someone to bake one. Either it's all a setup, then there never was a lie to begin with, thus no lie that could become a truth. Or you lied and just hoped it would be the outcome you suggested, then it's a lie nontheless.

            Comment Hidden ( show )
            0
            0
  • TerryVie
    11 years ago

    "The winner writes history"

    Doesn't make it any more true. It's lies all over. If you lie about stuff long enough until something happens that supports what you say(especially if that was premeditated) guess what? You still lied about stuff up until that point. After that, you can truthfully say those same things(even if you arranged them) but right up until that point you lie. simple as that.

    Comment Hidden ( show )
    0
    0
      -
    • Anonymous Post Author
      11 years ago

      I still don't see how it was a lie if what he said came true.

      It's like me saying, "Tomorrow it's going to rain!!" when today it's sunny.

      If tomorrow it rains, how did I lie?

      Comment Hidden ( show )
      0
      0
        -
      • TerryVie
        11 years ago

        because it would never become true without his interaction.

        If the US, after the war, had smuggled weapons of mass destruction into iraq, claiming Iraq had weapons of mass destruction is no more true.

        If you cause what you claim, it's still all lies up to the moment it actually happens.
        Think about it like this: With the weather, you have no influence. So the better analogy would be saying:"It's going to rain really soon!" over and over again. It's all lies, with the sun shining for the next 5 days, even IF eventually it will rain at some time, making it come true at that moment.

        it's just a mental jerkoff-exercise of making oneself feel better about lying. If you are that ruthless, just admit you're lying to achieve your ends from the beginning. *shrug* (you of course being your theoretical person, not you personally)

        Comment Hidden ( show )
        0
        0
          -
        • Anonymous Post Author
          11 years ago

          How did the man cause it tho? As I told dom everything was in Group X's hands. Everything was up to them all along. They could have just as easily said, "You know, we disagree with him but we're not gonna stoop that low"

          I appreciate the rest of your comment but I feel its sadly irrelevant. What does Iraq have to do with this?

          And how is he ruthless for trying to get rid of people he fears are evil?

          By the same standard, wouldn't you be evil for getting rid of thieves and criminals? How ruthless of you!

          Comment Hidden ( show )
          0
          0
            -
          • TerryVie
            11 years ago

            and that first part is why he lied. He had no sure way to predict that outcome. It was dependent on others. Claiming that outcome as something set in stone is a lie.

            Claiming it's a possibility would be fine, but again, would be dependent on the people. If "group x" was peaceful anti-violence people, there's no real option of this happening no matter how much he tries to agitate them.

            Claiming something as true while you can't influence it does not make your claim and more true if by CHANCE it becomes true. Up to the point it does, it's poor speculation and claiming otherwise is lying.

            Comment Hidden ( show )
            0
            0
  • wigsplitz
    11 years ago

    I can count to potato but I can also eat potatoes.

    Comment Hidden ( show )
    0
    0
      -
    • Anonymous Post Author
      11 years ago

      Potatoes are yummy :)

      Comment Hidden ( show )
      0
      0
  • bananaface
    11 years ago

    He was lying.

    Comment Hidden ( show )
    0
    0