Principles

[fast]

When we talk about someone that has principles, what are we saying? I'm especially concerned about frequency of deviation. There's a way I view things that I think differs sharply from how others might. Let me give you an example. Take a person that has lied. Most people would call that person a liar. I wouldn't. Most people would say that because he has lied, he is therefore a liar. I disagree with that. I don't think a person is a liar just because a person has lied. Strange huh. Let me give another example. Consider a person who has stolen something. A thief, right? Nope, not necessarily. To me, it takes something else before I'll label a person as a thief for stealing or a liar for lying.

Because of that, I may tend to say that a person has and lives by principles despite what might appear as clear and obvious evidence to the contrary. So why then; why don't I call a liar a liar or a thief a thief? That's just it though, I would and do; it's just that I actually don't think a person is in fact a liar just because a person has once lied or a thief because he has once stolen. So, again, what's going on in my head? Well, again, there is a missing necessary condition that (to me) must be present before i'll judge a person to be a liar or thief.

It has to do with frequency. How often there is an occurance.

The single occurance is enough for you and others, but with me, there needs to be a readily recognizable pattern of repeated behavior. Lying twice or stealing twice is insufficient, and to me, an extremist you are if you lump someone who has lied twice in with someone who lies or steals pervasively. If it's not apart of their character, then it seems to me to be a bit harsh of a standard bar to hold people to.

The problem (or glaring problem) is that to be consistent, I'd have to deny that a person is a murderer unless he has murdered more than once or twice. I have a strong suspicion that denying that a person is a rapist just because he's only raped once or twice is a claim that no person in their right mind is going to accept.

So then, fine, if we take the extreme approach and I follow suit in thought, then I'm left with saying some mighty strange things when at the other end of the spectrum. For instance, I find it ludicrous to call a person a carpenter just because he has nailed a single nail.

No, he's not a math teacher. He's a history teacher. He's taught history for 20 years and substituted in a math class for just one day, so no, call him a math teacher if you want to just because of a single one time indiscretion, but to me, no, he's a history teacher.

No, the guy on the stage is not a magician. It's his second magic trick in 45 years. He's a painter. It just happens that he helped out once 20 years ago and is doing it again today. So, my position is that he's a painter who has performed two magic tricks in his life, but the extremists among us would have me think he's a magician.

This brings us full circle and to the topic at hand; just how strict are we supposed to be before we deny that a person has any principles? I think an habitual liar is clearly a liar. Heck, even if there is no habit to it yet it's an often occurance, he's still a liar.

I just in my mind see such a stark and contrasting difference between a person who lives by no care or concern for his transgressions and lies and steals at will versus a person who has consistently made the right decisions over and over with extremely few exceptions.

The message I could others articulating is that there are no principles when there are exceptions. My question is quite bluntly, is that true? Are we taking the stance that is so hardcore that once a liar always a liar? With that twisted and completely asinine logic, who the hell is alive today that has principles? Sorry sir, we can't include him, he lied when he was three.

Do we not now see what I mean by frequency of deviation? Must the sum of a transgression be zero on the nose? Over that and despite the frequency, conclusion: we're looking in the eyes of someone with no principles?

 

[humbleman]

I think I get what you are saying, but what I see from your examples is quite different.

Stealing, lying, even killing in order to call a person burglar, liar or killer, I might check his intentions.

I don't want to include religion here, but the example comes from it.

There is a biblical character called Moses. This individual saw an Egyptian abusing the Israelite slaves and going in their defense he killed the Egyptian. No place in that book this killing is taken as such because if the narration is correct, this individual Moses didn't plan the killing, he just acted in defense of someone.

I won't call him a killer even if the facts prove that he killed another human being.

No matter of the value of the item or the level of a violation or the consequences of doing harm against someone.

To me what should decide if the person is a liar, a burglar or a killer is his/her intentions at that moment.

 

[fast]

Consider a woman who never lies. She lives by some principle that she adheres to such that she never lies. One might call her a woman of principles, so even in times where lying might benefit her, she chooses not to lie. This goes from little things to even big things, but one day, she made an agonizing choice to lie. She did so of her own free will, and she did so intentionally knowing that it went against everything she ever stood for. She lied.

That being said, one might quip, "so much for her principles; she is a liar." Ought we agree? I think not. It's not apart of who she is as a person. It is with great pains that she lied, and because it's not apart of her character of being the kind of person who will lie just because it suits her interest, she is therefore not a liar but merely a person who has lied.

What then is a liar if not a person who has lied? It's a person who generally lies. Thus, extreme few isolated exceptions is an important aspect of a person with principles. In other words, we can rightfully say that a person does live by principles despite the rare exception. I have this notion, however, that others lump such people in with those that depart regularly from idealized principles.

A person that rarely lies but rather tells the truth even when it's hurts to not lie is markedly different than a person who lies without care or concern.

 

[humbleman]

You remind me a Chinese teaching about lies. It is very similar to your thoughts.

It is about children in a household who never experienced what danger is. They were taught a kind of education from their parents to never be afraid and take things around without the idea those can be harmful.

One day, the parents went away but forgot to extinguish the fire in the kitchen area, which was separated from the rest of the house. The children were told to secure the door and not open it until they came back home.

The kitchen went on fire and was reaching the rest of the house.

The neighbors started to scream loud to the children in order to escape from a sure death by fire. But the children didn't understand the warnings because they ignored what danger was and saw no threat even when they felt the house was getting warmer in the side colliding the kitchen.

The wise man of the town ordered the rest to keep silence. He knew about the way the children were educated. With calm voice told the children that their parents told him to give them candy and other delicious snacks, but the children must have to come out of the house.

The wise man didn't have any candy with him, but simulated it taking his hands into a cloth bag.

The children felt the temptation for the delicious snacks the old man was offering, they opened the door and came out. The children were saved thanks to a lie.

 

[fast]

You've given two stories, one of a man who has killed we might otherwise be better off not describing as a killer and one of a man who has lied we might otherwise be better off not describing as a liar. Yet, one has killed and one has lied. Like an officer protecting an innocent, we won't describe thee who has killed as a murderer, but not as a killer? Why not? The greater good of thee who lied was that children were saved, so immoral he was not, just as who killed was justified.

In both instances, we need not deny the wrongs committed. All we need to do is show that a cost benefit analysis shows the good far exceeded the bad such that the net good was so great that it would be remiss to judge the acts as morally inferior. Like you said, just look at the intentions.

That being said, what do you call a person who never stole a dime whether opportunity arose or not. Never told a lie. Refused to tell a lie and refused to steal. Then, one day masterminds a great heist stealing a fortune and in the interim tells a many of a lie. No higher moral intent. No justification. Stole, he did. Lie, he did.

I'm not looking to weisel out of the label in virtue of some greater good. It's bonefied theft and dishonesty with no moral escape. I'm saying a full time thief is a thief, and I'm saying a part time thief is a thief. However, im saying a one-time crook is no crook at all. A person who does janatorial work for just a day is no janator. Working on a math problem makes not he a mathematician. Join the Boy Scouts and quit after a day; he's no Boy Scout.

Maybe I'm mistaken. Let's say I am. What does this say about principles? What's it like to have principles? Does a mistake make a difference? "Mistake" is euphemism. Does an intentional transgression destroy principlehood? Does the person who has done good all his life now render him bad after a single faulter?

All in all, I'm curious as to just how strict the straight and narrow must be to declare it true that someone has principles.

 

[Juma]

You overthink this.
A X is a person about whom it matters that he is an X.

 

[bilby]

You overthink this.
A X is a person about whom it matters that he is an X.

Well, let's not be hasty. Is he in the habit of overthinking things, or is this a one-off example of overthinking, that standing on its own shouldn't be taken as evidence that he is an overthinker? If he overthinks this just once, is it reasonable to declare him an overthinker on that basis? Or does that require a more persistent pattern of overthinking?

 

[ruby sparks]

I like this question, and at this time I can't think of a consistent 'rule' that allows me to say that someone who lies only once is not a liar but also allows me to say that someone who murders only once is a murderer.


I suspect it's got something to do with informal linguistic conventions rather than a 'rule' but it is puzzling nonetheless and I hadn't thought about it before so now it's exercising my brain.

 

[Juma]

I like this question, and at this time I can't think of a consistent 'rule' that allows me to say that someone who lies only once is not a liar but also allows me to say that someone who murders only once is a murderer.


I suspect it's got something to do with informal linguistic conventions rather than a 'rule' but it is puzzling nonetheless and I hadn't thought about it before so now it's exercising my brain.

I gave you the rule.

 

[untermensche]

As free agents we are not the slave to any rule.

All decisions should be made by circumstance, not rule.

No movie or novel is honest. Honesty does not make for good entertainment.

In terms of what other people deserve?

They deserve honesty under some circumstances and dishonesty under others.

Inflexible rules are for robots and are unfit for humans.

 

[ruby sparks]

I like this question, and at this time I can't think of a consistent 'rule' that allows me to say that someone who lies only once is not a liar but also allows me to say that someone who murders only once is a murderer.


I suspect it's got something to do with informal linguistic conventions rather than a 'rule' but it is puzzling nonetheless and I hadn't thought about it before so now it's exercising my brain.

I gave you the rule.

Could you illustrate how you think it operates for both liar and murderer?

 

[Bronzeage]

When humans evolved to develop higher reasoning, this new ability was accompanied with an incredible memory. In order for memory to serve any purpose, we must be able to classify, categorize, and organize the world around us. The labels we apply to people and things, serve only one purpose, and that is to help us remember them and understand them, and most importantly, decide what to do next.

If a person lies, we may label them a liar, but still believe most of what they say. There's no real contradiction here. For every human action, there is a reason. It may be obvious, or arcane, it may be completely irrational, and the actor may not be able to articulate it, but it's still there. Most decisions are made with incomplete information.

This dilemma is at least as old as Sir Gawain and the Green Knight, and probably much older. There is no set of principles, rules for living and behavior, for which circumstances can't be constructed, where a person would be compelled to do something contrary to the goals of the principles. In the tale of the Green Knight, Gawain is faced with one situation after another, where he has to violate one principle, in order to abide by another. There is no way to live by every principle in every situation.

Even a monk who has taken a vow of silence is expected to yell "Fire!" when he see flames in the monastery.

 

[ruby sparks]

Yeah, but personally, I tend to agree with the OP, that we (ie most people) do not or would not tend to define someone as being a liar just because they have ever lied, once. We might even think of them as basically honest, but for that exception. For us to think of a man as being a liar, he'd (usually, I'm suggesting) have to be a habitual liar.

Whereas if a man commits murder just once, would most people not tend to call him a murderer?

The suggested rule, that someone 'is' something when it matters, seems promising. Or is at least the only 'rule' suggested so far.

Though it suggests that it generally or always 'matters' that someone has committed a murder once, and it suggests that it doesn't generally or always 'matter' (so much) that they lied once. Why would that be? Does this 'rule' seem to apply to typical situations that we could think of?

Obviously, predicting the behaviour of or making a judgement about a murderer could be said to be of utmost, life or death importance, as a risk assessment. We could call it 'a potential survival issue'. But wouldn't this also be true quite often about a liar?

 

[bilby]

Inflexible rules are for robots and are unfit for humans.

Always.

 

[untermensche]

Inflexible rules are for robots and are unfit for humans.

Always.

Do you have an example where they are not?

 

[bilby]

Inflexible rules are for robots and are unfit for humans.

Always.

Do you have an example where they are not?

When applied to humans. At least, according to some random idiot on the Internet. But I don't think he thought through the implications of what he was writing. As usual.

 

[Alcoholic Actuary]

When we talk about someone that has principles, what are we saying? I'm especially concerned about frequency of deviation. There's a way I view things that I think differs sharply from how others might. Let me give you an example. Take a person that has lied. Most people would call that person a liar. I wouldn't. Most people would say that because he has lied, he is therefore a liar. I disagree with that. I don't think a person is a liar just because a person has lied. Strange huh. Let me give another example. Consider a person who has stolen something. A thief, right? Nope, not necessarily. To me, it takes something else before I'll label a person as a thief for stealing or a liar for lying.

Because of that, I may tend to say that a person has and lives by principles despite what might appear as clear and obvious evidence to the contrary. So why then; why don't I call a liar a liar or a thief a thief? That's just it though, I would and do; it's just that I actually don't think a person is in fact a liar just because a person has once lied or a thief because he has once stolen. So, again, what's going on in my head? Well, again, there is a missing necessary condition that (to me) must be present before i'll judge a person to be a liar or thief.

It has to do with frequency. How often there is an occurance.

The single occurance is enough for you and others, but with me, there needs to be a readily recognizable pattern of repeated behavior. Lying twice or stealing twice is insufficient, and to me, an extremist you are if you lump someone who has lied twice in with someone who lies or steals pervasively. If it's not apart of their character, then it seems to me to be a bit harsh of a standard bar to hold people to.

The problem (or glaring problem) is that to be consistent, I'd have to deny that a person is a murderer unless he has murdered more than once or twice. I have a strong suspicion that denying that a person is a rapist just because he's only raped once or twice is a claim that no person in their right mind is going to accept.

So then, fine, if we take the extreme approach and I follow suit in thought, then I'm left with saying some mighty strange things when at the other end of the spectrum. For instance, I find it ludicrous to call a person a carpenter just because he has nailed a single nail.

No, he's not a math teacher. He's a history teacher. He's taught history for 20 years and substituted in a math class for just one day, so no, call him a math teacher if you want to just because of a single one time indiscretion, but to me, no, he's a history teacher.

No, the guy on the stage is not a magician. It's his second magic trick in 45 years. He's a painter. It just happens that he helped out once 20 years ago and is doing it again today. So, my position is that he's a painter who has performed two magic tricks in his life, but the extremists among us would have me think he's a magician.

This brings us full circle and to the topic at hand; just how strict are we supposed to be before we deny that a person has any principles? I think an habitual liar is clearly a liar. Heck, even if there is no habit to it yet it's an often occurance, he's still a liar.

I just in my mind see such a stark and contrasting difference between a person who lives by no care or concern for his transgressions and lies and steals at will versus a person who has consistently made the right decisions over and over with extremely few exceptions.

The message I could others articulating is that there are no principles when there are exceptions. My question is quite bluntly, is that true? Are we taking the stance that is so hardcore that once a liar always a liar? With that twisted and completely asinine logic, who the hell is alive today that has principles? Sorry sir, we can't include him, he lied when he was three.

Do we not now see what I mean by frequency of deviation? Must the sum of a transgression be zero on the nose? Over that and despite the frequency, conclusion: we're looking in the eyes of someone with no principles?

You want us to come up with some rules for labels that you want to or are allowed to use?

aa

 

[untermensche]

Do you have an example where they are not?

When applied to humans. At least, according to some random idiot on the Internet. But I don't think he thought through the implications of what he was writing. As usual.

This is not an example of anything.

Idiots are people who are full of fury but when pressed to explain, asked for an example, cannot ever seem to find one.

 

[bilby]

Inflexible rules are for robots and are unfit for humans.

Always.

Do you have an example where they are not?

When applied to humans. At least, according to some random idiot on the Internet. But I don't think he thought through the implications of what he was writing. As usual.

This is not an example of anything.

Idiots are people who are full of fury but when pressed to explain, asked for an example, cannot ever seem to find one.

Indeed, idiots seem to really struggle with spotting examples, even when they are pointed out to them directly and explicitly - and even when the example originated with the idiot. That's idiocy for you. The ability to completely miss what is right in front of their nose.

 

[untermensche]

Idiots like to shout as well.

You have no point.

Saying there are no rules that apply to every circumstance is not a rule.

It is a claim. And if someone who is not an idiot disputes the claim they have to provide a rule that applies to every possible circumstance.