Are Jedi Against Deception

in the case of heroin - ive done heroin, and ive seen people dead from heroin. ive even saved at least one person on at least one occasion from a heroin overdose

i remember in middle school they used to have this program called "mendez"

it was a drug education program, and it worked pretty much on the principle you describe

police officers basically came to the school and lied to all the kids about drugs and drug use and drug users

the consequece of this was that thousands and thousands of kids came to realize that they had been lied to
tricked

in the case you mention i would have to ask; why lie to your friend? you could just as easily say "its easy to find out how many people die from heroin and how addictive it is amd learn from countless examples that its a bad bad idea"

this would be true and probably more convincing BECAUSE its true, if your friend has any development of his/her "bullshit detector" going on

i concede the basic idea that there are situations which can justify deception

my position is that there are very few of them

also i wanted to respond specifically to the heroin example you gave because i can tell you that if you ever meet someone willing to put a needle in their arm then the last thing youre going to find effective is any sort of insincerety

---

EDIT SO I DONT DBLE POST

also i would ask that since it is impossible to know the full scope of the consequences of any given decision, isnt true that the consequentialist perspective is actually predicated on the INTENDED consequences?

doesnt that sort of poke a hole in the idea that "the intention of an act doesnt matter"?

Perhaps my example was wrong. What I meant to say is that in the case that deception is necessary to prevent greater evil, it must be employed.

The consequentialist perspective insofar as I am concerned determines the moral status of actions only after the consequence has been established. The action has no moral standing until after the consequence has happened, and the intention does not matter. For example, if I throw a baseball with the intention that someone hits it, it misses, and flies into someone's head, giving them a concussion, then my intention didn't matter; I am responsible for that person being hurt.

i feel like that sort of logic leaves one no moral alternative to suicide

the consequences of ones acts are unpredictable

when you take this logic to its natural conclusion my great great grand parents become responsible for the actions of my great great grand children

i must be missing something

all i can get out of this is that it is a philosophy of guilt but not of guidance

i agree that we are responsible for the consequences of our actions, but for a philosophy to have pragmatic value - functional value - it must offer guidelines as to what actions we ought to choose, or why we ought to choose them, rather than only to say "you are responsible"

and that is where adherence to principles such as honesty comes in to play

because i cannot predict the consequences of my actions

people may die as a result of my decisions

in all honesty, probably some have

but this will be equally true if i act to the yes or to the no - someone eventually in the course of my life is going to suffer greatly in consequence of my choices, no matter how i choose

so in understanding this i have to develop method of choosing

adhering to principles imo is a more fortifying method of choosing in this regard than making justifications

I think that collateral damage is often taken by insurance and dealt with . By the way the wrong place , it's all deception come in . but what about the effort for all the years of baseball . purposely or not I think there's a different between intentional and unintentional gesture a both mistake can be deception .

So different kind's of gesture can be deceiving so by that sort of gesture we can learn from are deception without being completely in to failure .

Into learning a deception is not the most wanted feeling I think the realization is to come . That's for those who want's to fell better .

How can one be against something which is so deeply part of us?

We are so easily deceived by so many agencies including most notably ourselves...

The art of illusion (prestidigitation) amuses and entertains us. Riddles and jokes are based upon deception. Chess is the art of unveiled deception.

We are deceived because we can be, it is built-in to our neural paths.

What is there to be against...?