Are Little White Lies Okay?
Statement
As my daughter was getting ready for a date, I told her she looked beautiful even though she had a pimple on her neck.
Q1 Analysis
This is a Q1 violation if you believe that lying is always wrong or you believe that you must always be completely honest with your child.
Q2 Analysis
This is a Q2 violation if you would want to be told the truth in a similar circumstance, and may be a violation if you know that your daughter wants to be told the truth.
Discussion
Most people do not wish others to speak the truth at all times. Unwelcome truths might include, "Even if you try your best, I don’t think there’s any way you’ll succeed," "That outfit you made looks cheap," and "What an average baby."
But are these "little white lies"? A little white lie might be a lie where the untruth has no significant negative impact (and, possibly, has a positive one), the truth would have a negative impact, and the truth does not have significant ethical value. "I’m happy to help you" could be a little white lie. Neither "I didn’t take the money" nor "Sorry, Mr. Axe Murderer, Fran isn’t home" are little white lies (because the truth of the matter is ethically very significant.)
Despite what some may think, lies of omission are not automatically white lies. "I never said I wasn’t sleeping with your sister" is an admission of deception by omission, not something an honest person would say.
You might also consider some kinds of nonverbal communication to be little white lies. Smiling at someone you aren’t actually happy to see, for example.
If a lie does qualify as little and white, is it moral to tell it? The answer depends largely on Q2. If you would want to be lied to in a given circumstance, then you might justify lying to another in that same circumstance. Before deciding if you would want to be lied to, you need to consider whether the lie is for your benefit or for the speaker’s. Would you want someone to lie to you purely to save themselves embarrassment? You should also consider how you would feel if you were lied to and then found out the truth. If discovering that you were lied to would make you mad, you probably didn’t really want to be lied to.
Which of the following would you consider to be morally allowable little white lies? Are they white lies at all? And do the circumstances in which the lie is told make a difference?
- "I just love this hand-knitted scarf."
- "Your painting is interesting. I’ve never seen anything like it."
- "I don’t have time to look at your petition right now."
- "You’re the only man I’ve ever truly loved."
- "I’d love to drive you to the airport, but I have a lot of important errands to run."
- "I’m sure you’ll be fine."
- Giving a guy at a party a fake phone number so he’ll leave you alone.
- A sticker on the window of your car that says "No radio in car" when there’s a radio in your car.
- Mildly exaggerating your qualifications on a resumé.
- A married man not wearing a wedding ring on a business trip.
- Telling an attractive person at a cocktail party that you are a doctor when your doctorate is in philosophy.
- Wearing a padded bra or combing your hair over a bald spot.
- Misrepresenting your age.
- Misrepresenting your gender.
- Giving the blessing when you are invited to do so before a family-reunion dinner, even though you are an atheist.
- Misrepresenting your opinion to someone taking a telephone poll to help skew the answers in a certain direction.
You are encouraged to leave your answers to the questions posed in this post in the comments section. This post is based on an excerpt from Ask Yourself to be Moral, by D. Cancilla, available at LuLu.com and Amazon.com. See the 2Q system page for details of the philosophical system mentioned in this post.
Should I Tell My Children that Santa Claus Exists?
Statement
I tell my young child that Santa Claus is real.
Q1 Analysis
This statement does not violate Q1 unless you are making a special case for Santa Claus that you would not make for some other, equal imaginary things and don’t have a justification for doing so.
Q2 Analysis
This statement does not violate Q2 unless you would condemn another parent for treating imaginary stories as true for similar reasons.
Discussion
Many things have to be considered before you can decide whether or not it is moral to tell your child that Santa Claus is real. For example, is telling your children that Santa exists a lie? If not, then how is this different from telling other falsehoods? If you argue that it is not a lie because Santa is (for example) "the spirit of giving" and not a physical being, then are you sure your child understands this or are you deceiving your child by not being more clear in the first place? Would you be upset if your child told you a similar story (for example, that she hadn’t lied about playing hooky because she had been "going to school in spirit")?
Is your reason for telling your child that Santa is real defendable? If you’re doing it because it’s fun or because you like how your child acts when believing in Santa, are those sufficient reasons? Would you be deceptive about other things for the same results? If you do it to teach your child a lesson — that people shouldn’t be trusted, for example — are there other ways to teach this lesson without deception? If you are doing it so that your child will have a sense of magic in the world, are you making a special case for Santa or do you also talk about other imaginary things as if they are real? If you assume that your child knows you are just playing a game, are you completely sure? If you are treating Santa as real because your parents did the same, is this sufficient reason?
And, most importantly, are you sure that your reasons for saying Santa is real are actual reasons and not simply justifications for doing something you enjoy?
If you have a defendable reason, then you must decide how much deception is morally allowable. Is simply saying that Santa is real enough? Is it allowable to leave evidence? What would you do when questioned by your child about inconsistent evidence? Would you continue to try to prove Santa’s existence after your child figured out the truth?
If your child learns that you were deceptive about Santa, are you prepared for the possibility that your child may doubt you about other issues (such as religious beliefs or the risks associated with recreational drug use and premarital sex)?
You may think that in some cases it is justified to tell a lie to achieve a good end. In which of these situations would a lie be justified?
- You’d like to inspire your child to be honest by telling him the story of George Washington and the cherry tree (even though it never happened).
- A neighbor child asks you if Santa Claus is real (her parents would say he is).
- A panhandler asks if you have any change (you do).
- The electric company calls to ask if you’ve sent a payment (you haven’t).
- Your boss asks how the big project is going (you forgot all about it).
- An insanely jealous man asks if you went to lunch with his wife (you did, as a friend).
- Your dying grandmother asks where her husband is (he’s been dead for a year and she was at the funeral).
- Police ask if you knew your brake lights were out (you did).
- Police ask if you know who caused an accident (it was you).
- Police ask if you can alibi your mother (you can’t).
- Abusive parents call to ask if their runaway daughter is hiding in your house (she is).
- A paranoid-seeming customer asks if your restaurant is shielded to keep out electromagnetic mind-control radiation at 3.5 MHz or above (you have no idea).
You are encouraged to leave your answers to the questions posed in this post in the comments section. This post is based on an excerpt from Ask Yourself to be Moral, by D. Cancilla, available at LuLu.com and Amazon.com. See the 2Q system page for details of the philosophical system mentioned in this post.
Unanswered prayers and atheism
This message was left as a comment on one of my posts. I replied directly to the poster via e-mail.
My 21 year old son is an atheist. We had him in a christian school for four years, we went to church every sunday. When his grandfather died in our driveway on Christmas and my husband and I prayed for him to live our son was so upset that God did not answer the prayer that my Dad would live and our son has been disbelieving in Jesus ever since. Any advice would be welcome. Thank you! I will print this out for our son.
I am very sorry to hear about your loss on Christmas. This sounds like a terrible tragedy, and I can imagine it was emotionally difficult for the entire family for a number of reasons.
You asked for my advice regarding your son who began to disbelieve in Jesus after your prayers did not save his grandfather from death. Since I am an atheist, I wouldn’t expect prayers to result in a miracle, but I do have a few things I’d like you to pass along to your son. The remainder of this message is for him.
First and foremost, I would say that a prayer not being answered isn’t sufficient reason to become an atheist. I don’t know what your family’s specific religious beliefs are, but I know of no Christian religion that teaches that every prayer will be answered, or that even the most wonderful individual is immune to tragedy. The death of your grandfather might give you doubts about your family’s religion, but unless their religion teaches that sincere wishes prayed for are always granted, rejection of a prayer is not evidence that the religion is wrong, only that you do not understand (or disagree with) God’s actions.
If you have doubts about your family’s religion, I encourage you to seek clarification from both religious and non-religious sources before making up your mind. You should be open about these doubts with your parents, and invite them to help you seek answers. If they are strong in their religious beliefs, then they are confident that you will not have any questions that cannot be answered and should have no fear of intelligent inquiry. If you do decide that atheism makes more sense than theism, set your mind toward building a strong, rational moral system, both for yourself and to reassure your parents that atheism and immorality are not at all the same thing.
Finally, I would like to say something about prayer from an atheist’s perspective. While it is true that prayer did not save your grandfather’s life, that does not mean that prayer is without meaning. For many religious people, prayer is a very important part of dealing with grief or tragedy. I don’t believe that there is a God listening to prayers, but I know that for many people praying is a way of finding comfort during strife. If your parents’ prayers did help them get through the death of your grandfather — one of your parent’s father — then in a sense you might say that their prayers were answered.
I am going to post this e-mail on my blog so that my readers may comment if they like. If you would like me to comment further, please feel free to write.
In: About atheism, Help, Personal account
Should Children Be Taught "Fringe" Beliefs?
Statement
The law should not allow parents to deny their children medical care.
Q1 Analysis
This is not a Q1 violation unless you believe that parental rights are inalienable or that medical decisions should be left to individuals.
Q2 Analysis
This is not a Q2 violation unless you object to others making decisions about how you raise your children or about what medical practices are effective.
Discussion
Most people would agree that parents are primarily responsible for their children’s medical care. Most people would also agree that, at some point, parents should be considered negligent if their child is not receiving adequate medical care or is not in a healthy environment. Difficulty arises because there are a number of competing philosophies regarding what "adequate medical care" means.
For instance, some people believe that parents should only be allowed to choose among medical practices that have been scientifically investigated. Others believe that historical or "alternative" medical practices are also valid, regardless of whether they have been shown scientifically to be viable. Still others believe that any disease other than a broken bone can be overcome with faith, or that prayer can heal anything. And, of course, many people use more than one of these beliefs in some combination.
So before we decide whether or not a child should be taken from its parents’ care because of lack of medical care, we have to decide on a definition of "medical care" that is sufficient for these purposes. By Q2, you would probably want to set the bar high enough that relatively minor disagreements do not lead to major consequences — for example, you wouldn’t want your child taken away because you didn’t say a prayer for the healing of her skinned knee, gave him homeopathic medicine for a mild headache, or gave him acetaminophen when an anti-inflammatory analgesic would have been more effective. But the bar should be low enough that extremes are dealt with— a severed artery must be immediately treated medically, particularly since no parent has ever seen such an injury heal without some kind of assistance.
One way to set the bar would be to look at different methods of treating serious conditions and see if there are significant differences in their expected efficacy. For example, if 80% of children recover from a life-threatening disease using treatment A and 10% recover using treatment B, you might agree that it is irresponsible to prefer treatment B if both treatments have similar risks. This reasoning is fine so long as, by Q1, you continue to use it even when treatment B is preferable to you for personal reasons.
Other things to consider:
- What about parents who reject certain treatments (e.g., those derived from animals) for philosophical reasons?
- Can parents be held responsible for tragic consequences if it can be shown that they sincerely believed they were helping their child?
- Can parents be held responsible for tragic consequences if it can be shown that they had more than sufficient evidence that their philosophy or belief is wrong but remained unconvinced?
- What if literature promoting a fringe medical practice is copious and compelling to many people, but wrong?
- Does it matter if the parents’ beliefs are unpopular or "weird"?
- At what age is a child old enough to responsibly decide to risk siding with its family’s decisions?
- Should parents only use objective criteria to judge medical practices, or is subjective criteria also acceptable (e.g., "it feels right")?
- Can criteria other than effectiveness be used (e.g., how natural the treatment is, how nice the doctor is, cost, tradition)?
- Should a procedure with a low success rate be forced on a child?
- What if there is a reasonable chance the child will recover without treatment?
- What if the family doesn’t think a treatment is immoral but just thinks that the doctor is wrong?
You are encouraged to leave your answers to the questions posed in this post in the comments section. This post is based on an excerpt from Ask Yourself to be Moral, by D. Cancilla, available at LuLu.com and Amazon.com. See the 2Q system page for details of the philosophical system mentioned in this post.
What is caused?
From the IAmAnAtheist.com comment form and personal correspondence
Your unending conversation is pointless. If there was a big bang then there was a being that caused it. Nothing that comes into existence does so without a cause. What’s so hard?
I’d be happy to discuss this with you. Just to make sure we are on the same page: you say that everything that comes into existence has a cause. Can you give me an example?
Pedantic much? Cars built by mechanic, baby born to mother, stars formed from a collection of dust. EVERYTHING that comes into existence has a cause except, you say, the universe.
Cars, babies, and stars don’t come into existence. Rather, something (an engineer, biological processes, gravity) causes raw materials to form into cars, babies, and stars. Are you saying that the universe was made from raw materials?
By the way, I don’t say that the universe was uncaused. But we’ll get into that after we agree what your question means.
Are you just word games? If there wasn’t a star then gas compresses into a star, then the star came into existence. The universe was not made by God out of raw materials because there was nothing before
This isn’t a word game; it’s an important part of our discussion. If you can say that a star came into existence when a cloud of dust contracted, can you also say that a small cloud of dust “came into existence” when a larger cloud of dust contracted? The small cloud wasn’t there before, after all.
Your argument seems to boil down to this:
1) Whenever something is rearranged to create something new, there is a cause.
2) The universe came from nothing.
3) Therefore the universe had a cause.
That just doesn’t follow. If I’m incorrect about what you mean in one of these steps, let me know.
1 is wrong. I am not talking about rearranging but about creating. 2 is wrong. The universe was created by God. 3 is true. Quantum physics is an example of things coming from nothing.
In #1, you have not shown me why you distinguish rearranging from creating. Adding God to #2 assumes what you are trying to prove.
Quantum physics is of no help to you here. If virtual particle pairs appear uncaused from nothing, then either you have to show that a creator makes them directly or you’ve just disproven your own argument by giving an example of something coming uncaused from nothing .
Rearranging is moving around. Creating is making something new. Whenever something is created there is a designer. The universe was something new out of nothing so there was a designer.
Even with your definition, you’ve still not shown how creating out of raw materials is analogous to the Big Bang unless raw materials also went into the Big Bang. And if the Big Bang used raw materials, then it could just have been the result of a natural process. God — any designer — is not implied.
You are also now saying that anything that is created has a creator. So are you saying that stars had creators? If you say that God is their creator, then once again you are assuming what you are setting out to prove. Saying “God must have made the stars, therefore God must have made the universe” isn’t at all compelling to someone who doesn’t think that God made the stars in the first place.
You’re an a*****e. You deny God, you deny that things are created by a cause. New things come into existence all the time and they are all caused. The universe came into existence so it was caused. It came into existence form nothing so God is the cause. It’s not brain surgery.
I agree that things that are created (by your definition) have a cause. I agree that new things come into existence, in the sense that new things are made out of existing materials. I agree that it is reasonable to assume that the universe had a cause. I disagree that the universe necessarily came from nothing. Why couldn’t there have been something natural before our universe? God is not necessary anywhere in any of this.
You don’t even listen.
The Pirate King: a parable
Constance had a small shipping business, delivering food and clothing at charitable prices to people all over the world in her private boat. Being a realist, Constance knew that because of where she sailed and the amount of time she spent on the water, it was only a matter of time before she was confronted by pirates. There was nothing she could do about this, and Constance was resigned to face the situation bravely when it arose.
Sure enough, one day Constance’s ship was boarded by pirates. She thought it would end there, with them either killing her or making her pay something and letting her go on her way. But instead, Constance learned that she had been captured not by ordinary pirates but by someone calling himself the Pirate King!
“Now,” said the Pirate King when Constance was dragged before him, “we will decide your fate. Tell me, have you dedicated your life to following the commands of the Pirate King?”
The question took Constance by surprise. “No,” she said. “In fact, I didn’t think you even existed. I’d heard stories, but they said you were as old as the sea itself and rode in a magic ship. There were no reliable witnesses and the stories were so old and ridiculous that I saw no reason to believe they were true. They just sounded like legends, and the book that’s supposed to be by you was obviously written by a bunch of other people.”
The Pirate King laughed hearty and loud. “What foolishness! You will know my wrath for rejecting me.”
“I didn’t reject you,” Constance replied. “I just wasn’t convinced that you existed.”
“Denial and self delusion will not save you! So tell me, have you stored up enough treasure to make you worthy of being in my presence?”
Constance shrugged her shoulders, “How much would that be? I have cargo worth about half a million dollars.”
Again the Pirate King laughed. “Even if you had a million such cargos it would not be enough to make you worthy. Have you accepted my son, the Pirate Prince into your heart and asked him for forgiveness?”
“Who?” asked Constance.
“The Pirate Prince! Me! My son! Have you asked him to forgive your debt?
The question took Constance by surprise. “No,” she said. “In fact, until this moment I had never even heard of him.”
The Pirate King laughed even louder than before. “Ridiculous! You knew in your heart that the Pirate Prince existed. If you had accepted the gift he offered, he would have used his infinite wealth to pay the debt you owe me and you could have become an honored member of my crew. Unfortunately for you, although I am infinitely forgiving and would love to just let you go, I am also infinitely just. As such, and because you did not pay your debt and are not worthy of being in my sight, I will take your ship and all that you have and order my crew to beat and torture you until the end of your days.”
“Hang on,” Constance said. “Now that I’ve got all the facts, I’m more than willing to change my mind. I’ll accept your son’s offer to pay this debt you talked about and become a member of your crew.”
“Too late! If I let you accept the Pirate Prince now that you’ve been captured, that wouldn’t be fair to all of the people who trusted in him when they had no solid proof that he was real. You had plenty of time to search your heart and find the Pirate Prince back when you were sailing blithely about, but instead you decided to be apiratical so you could indulge your seafaring ways without regard to the rules of the sea.”
“But I obeyed all the rules of the sea! I’m an excellent sailor!”
“You may have obeyed the rules, but why did you obey them? Not out of fear of the Pirate King, so you said yourself! Where did you think those rules came from if not from me?”
“Well, they just made sense, and I earned plenty of honest treasure following them.”
“Ha! All the treasure you stored while following those rules is barnacles to me! You did not truly follow the rules. Only my son has sufficient treasure to pay your way clear and you rejected his offer. Take her away!”
And Constance was dragged screaming from the room and thrust into the bowels of the ship where she was starved and whipped, her cries of pain and anguish pointless and unheard. It made the Pirate King sad to hear those cries, but what could he do? Justice had been served.
Evidence for the Bible
From the IAmAnAtheist.com feedback form
Your web-site makes it sound as if there is no evidence that the bible – specifically, the old testament – is true. Do you really feel that there is no evidence that the Bible was written by God?
I mean, I know you don’t think it was written by God. However, nevertheless, are you at the point where you really feel that there is NO evidence that it was?
I am a biblical scholar, and I can offer you some evidence. SO YOU CAN MAKE AN INFORMED DECISION (I just got finished informing an atheist (with advanced degrees); he is no longer an atheist; do you really think we have no arguments up our sleeves?
I have found no compelling evidence that the Bible was written by God. I do know that many Bible-believing people have arguments “up their sleeves,” and have read a great many of them.
I am definitely interested in hearing what you have to say, and I will gladly share it with the readers of my atheism blog so that all can benefit. In the interest of saving us some time, I would appreciate it if you could start with your most compelling argument. If it truly is compelling to someone unconvinced that God exists, odds are good that I have not heard it.
Addition: I want to draw a distinction between “the Bible is true” and “the Bible was written by God.” I do agree that some of the historical information in the Bible (but not all of it by any means) is likely true.
Should There Be Universal Health Care?
Statement
The government should provide health care to everyone for free.
Q1 Analysis
This is not a Q1 violation if "health care" and "free" are well defined, you are not against socialized medicine, and you think that socialized medicine is ethically at least equal to the free market.
Q2 Analysis
This may be a Q2 violation if there are other social services that you think the government should not provide but cannot say why they are significantly different from health care.
Discussion
Health care is expensive but, obviously, desirable. You can purchase health-care insurance if you have enough money or a job with health-care benefits, but many people do not have this option. Alternately, you can pay for health care out of pocket, but the cost of treatment for one significant illness can be enough to financially wipe out an entire family. All of this makes the prospect of free government-provided health care very desirable.
Before you can say that you are a proponent of free health care, you have to define what you mean by "free." Do you mean:
- There is no out-of-pocket charge at the time you receive health care.
- There is no direct charge to be part of the health-care system.
- The cost of the health-care system is included in the taxes you pay.
- Health care is available at no charge to those who cannot otherwise afford it.
- Nobody — not even the government — pays anything for health care.
- Some combination of the above items.
You also have to define "health care" for the purpose of this statement. Which (if any) of these would be included in free health care?
- Treatment necessary to correct a disease or injury.
- Treatment for long-term and terminal illnesses.
- Living facilities for long-term and terminally ill patients.
- Medicine to promote general well-being without treating a specific condition.
- Treatment to prolong life as long as possible, even when there is no hope of recovery or improvement.
- Reproductive health (contraceptives, artificial insemination, etc.)
- First-aid supplies.
- Reconstructive plastic surgery that is not medically necessary.
- Voluntary plastic surgery or body modification.
- Rehabilitation therapy.
- Treatment for emotional problems.
- Treatment for addiction.
- Assistance for families of seriously ill individuals.
- Experimental medical treatments.
- Medical treatments that have not been proven effective by the medical establishment.
- Reimbursement for medical treatment performed in other countries.
Finally, you must consider who would receive free health care. Would it be:
- All legal citizens.
- All legal citizens currently living in the country.
- Anyone currently living in the country.
- Anyone in the country, even if they are just visiting.
After all of these items have been clarified, examine your argument for free universal health care and see if it could be applied to other basic human needs, such as housing, food, clean water, and clothing.
You are encouraged to leave your answers to the questions posed in this post in the comments section. This post is based on an excerpt from Ask Yourself to be Moral, by D. Cancilla, available at LuLu.com and Amazon.com. See the 2Q system page for details of the philosophical system mentioned in this post.
A guarantee
From the IAmAnAtheist.com comment form:
Just give it a chance to believe in the Lord and he will change your life! guarnteed
Define “give it a chance.” I think I have given religion plenty of chances, and I continue to examine my own views and seriously consider questions of religion on a daily basis.
It is my opinion that if I abandoned my reasoning and somehow decided to believe in God, my life would indeed change, but not for the better.
Should Athletes Be Allowed to Use Performance-Enhancing Drugs?
Statement
Athletes should not be allowed to use chemicals to improve their performance.
Q1 Analysis
This is not a Q1 violation so long as you are clear about what authority is restricting the use of chemicals, and you have carefully defined "chemicals" and "improve their performance." It may also be a Q1 violation if you think that artificial means could be used to improve performance in other professions.
Q2 Analysis
This is a Q2 violation if you would use chemicals to improve your physical performance as an athlete.
Discussion
This statement has a number of issues which must be carefully considered and defined before it can pass muster. First, when you say that using chemicals to enhance performance "should not be allowed," by what authority should it not be allowed? The government? A sports authority? Personal morality only? And does the type of competition matter? Should professional sports, amateur sports, school sports, or the Olympics have separate rules? What about sports that are not organized (pickup basketball games, billiards in a local bar) or someone who engages in competitive sports as a hobby or pastime?
You must also define what you mean when you are talking about "chemicals to improve performance." Are you only talking about man-made pharmaceuticals, or are natural substances allowed? Would non-chemical types of performance enhancement also be disallowed? Would you consider correcting a medical condition to be improving performance? What if the performance being enhanced is unrelated to the sport (a professional chess player using steroids to build muscles, for example)? Or if the athlete thinks the chemical will help but it really won’t? If a person uses such chemicals, are they permanently disqualified, or only disqualified so long as the drug has an effect on performance?
Which of the following do you think should disqualify an athlete from competition?
- Using steroids to build muscle mass.
- Laser surgery to correct vision to 20/20.
- Sleeping in a special oxygen chamber to increase lung capacity.
- A blood transfusion right before competition to optimize oxygen delivery to the muscles.
- Training at a high altitude to improve performance at lower altitudes.
- Making use of natural advantages (such as above-average lung capacity or a Y chromosome in a woman).
- Using recreational drugs that cannot improve performance (including those that might impede it).
- An artificial leg that is designed to mimic a natural leg as closely as possible.
- A medically necessary pacemaker.
- Taking vitamins to maintain health.
- Drinking a sports drink during competition.
- Professional massages before or during competition.
- Getting a vaccine to improve the immune system.
- Genetic engineering performed before birth to maximize height.
- Genetic engineering performed before birth to cure Down syndrome.
- Training methods to maximize fitness and precision.
- Computer analysis to analyze form.
- A special swimsuit designed to minimize drag in the water.
- A computer-designed, super-light, highly aerodynamic bicycle.
- Eating a good breakfast the morning before a competition.
You are encouraged to leave your answers to the questions posed in this post in the comments section. This post is based on an excerpt from Ask Yourself to be Moral, by D. Cancilla, available at LuLu.com and Amazon.com. See the 2Q system page for details of the philosophical system mentioned in this post.
