Sirius.. you're back?

According to Kant's moral philosophy, we, as members of society, have a duty to tell the truth at all times, under any circumstances, regardless of consequences, whether they be good or bad. Do you agree with this? Why or why not?

One cannot properly agree with this without seeming immoral. However, I would like to offer an alternative to this. We don't have to lie, we just have to tell a misleading truth. In the murderer analogy, we can tell the murderer something like, "I saw my friend an hour ago at the mall." Which is true, but still misleads the murderer into believing your friend isn't around.

wow sunrise you're chinese?

you're the first chinese guy I'v met in WL to be fluent in English...

@Sunrise: 有 IPOD Warlight App 所以回來了 :)

@Pulsey, he made a thread about "is any player from Taiwan?"

@Sirius: 你沒電腦?
@Pulsey: Thank you.

@Sunrise:

That only works if the murderer doesn't start asking more specific questions. i.e. Where is your friend now? That is also logical reasoning, not moral.

Telling a lie, regardless of the reasoning behind the lie, is viewed as immoral in every world religion (Abrahamic, Hindu, Buddhist, Taoist, Shinto, etc), which is what is used in many societies as a measurement for what is moral or immoral. It depends from what platform you are arguing from. Since the question asks about what is moral, rather than say logical, it would be immoral to lie or even tell a misleading truth, but it would also be immoral to hand your friend over to the murderer.

To be moral in such an instance would be to say something along the lines of "I cannot tell you where my friend is, because you wish to do him harm and by telling you where he is I would bring harm unto him." That may get you tortured or killed, but would be a morally acceptable answer.

So is it our duty to always tell the truth?

Who can really answer that question? Morals are based on faith and every man and woman chooses where to put their faith. One man's faith may vary from another. If one man puts his faith in logic, than the truth would be a tool to use when it suits the situation best, otherwise a lie may be more beneficial.

Good reply.

Next Question:
In your opinion, which of the following army recruiting systems is the best, and why?
A.Conscription
B.Conscription with the allowance of paid substitutes.
C.Non-Conscription

Edited 10/5/2013 12:59:24

Method B with minor adjustments.

Explanation:
Conscription is important in any modern society. Traditionally, fathers have passed down to sons the necessary skills to defend their villages (towns, etc). In a modern society, fathers are often gone working and children are now raised more and more by their teachers and peers. Skills in self-defense are often neglected.

People, in their ignorance, believe that we live in a "safe" and "peaceful" world. Anyone who actually pays attention will notice that safety and peace never goes long without being threatened by some mishap or another. Rather than becoming frightened rabbits, asking the government to take away their rights in return for more "security" it is important to train men and (it is my belief) women in the task of self-defense. Conscription of men and women into the armed forces for a period of time will give them the confidence AND ability to do this and provide discipline as well, which is ever lacking in our modern societies.

Adjustments:
Individuals who are not considered fit for combat can be put into other areas such as engineering and other brainy fields, not everyone needs to shoot a gun in the army. Mentally handicapped would be dismissed (they are anyways).

More importantly though, there would be no paid substitutions, however, individuals could postpone conscription after high school to go to college or to join an organization as a volunteer (this is following the German conscription method, before it was abolished in 2010-11).

Most importantly, men AND women should be conscripted into the armed forces. Honestly, women die just as quickly (if not more quickly) in war as men do. They're raped, tortured, imprisoned or enslaved because no one thought to give them a gun and some training. Women aren't cattle and they don't have to put on 20 kg of armor like they did in feudal Europe. A little training and they're just as capable as any man at aiming and shooting a gun.

That's my 2 cents, cheers.

@sunrise, still to your question about lie and truth: If you "tell" a lie or truth you need to take into account that the meaning of language itself is different depending on the one writes/speaks and the one who reads/listens. In light of this, the task to determine if something is perfect truth or perfect lie may reveal to be much more challenging than anticipated. For more information see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludwig_Wittgenstein

Btw to Pulsey's old comment, almost every Taiwanese person I've met (that being about 2 dozen at most, so not the best survey study) speaks English at a partner tongue level or better. Good schools or worried parents (preparation in case China mainland ever invades?).

@Hauptmann: Good schools. They can't be compared to U.S. or U.K. schools, but most new generation Taiwanese have an okay understanding of English. On a side note, I don't recommend spreading your view about China and Taiwan around.

@Mosquitero: Good point.

Taiwan is part of China.

Period.

Taiwan does not consider itself under China's rule or control.

Taiwan does not consider itself part of China. Most of the world accepts this and so does China. But officially Taiwan is still part of China and even better as no peace treaty was signed between the 2 Chinese forces from back in the civil war, the 2 sides are still officially at war.

are you sure, skunk?
i know the 2 koreas are still officially at war... but china and taiwan too?

I was just commenting on the military build up on the mainland of China near the point where Taiwan and China are closest. Also the naval build up. Also the fact that China claims hegemony over Taiwan and the East China Sea. Also the fact that if it came to an invasion half the population of Taiwan would flee to America (an* English speaking country) which is perhaps the reason they're so serious about learning English, so they can fit in once they get there.

I was just making an ironic joke, sorry it got blown out of proportion. *(It was a joke, though there may be some truth in it)

To note what Skunk said, that's not entirely true, the ROC declared the conflict over in 1991, but the PRC didn't say anything to that and there has been fighting since that date over the Taiwanese Straight. #TheMoreYouKnow

Edited 10/7/2013 16:05:42

@Hauptmann: If it comes to attack, a vast majority of us would likely be dead. The PRC has around an estimated 1600 missiles aimed at our island.

^What Sunrise said is true :/

But, lets not get into more political topics here :D Lots of people are sensitive about these kinds of things.

@Pulsey, .......... -_____-""""" .........

Edited 10/8/2013 15:30:59

@Sunrise: missiles that were produced and manufactured in China, they'll be lucky* if half of them leave the launchpad - let alone make it across the straight. Let's be happy that the US has a massive fleet in the area and that Chinese and Taiwanese relations have improved of late. <- Feeble attempt to lighten the mood that your observation set ^^

...and with that I'll take Sirius' advice and move on to other topics. Conscription, right? Someone give an answer/rebuttal so we have something to talk about :D

Edited 10/8/2013 16:37:02

I both disagree and agree with you answer. Quoting you,

Conscription is important in any modern society. Traditionally, fathers have passed down to sons the necessary skills to defend their villages (towns, etc). In a modern society, fathers are often gone working and children are now raised more and more by their teachers and peers. Skills in self-defense are often neglected.

People, in their ignorance, believe that we live in a "safe" and "peaceful" world. Anyone who actually pays attention will notice that safety and peace never goes long without being threatened by some mishap or another. Rather than becoming frightened rabbits, asking the government to take away their rights in return for more "security" it is important to train men and (it is my belief) women in the task of self-defense. Conscription of men and women into the armed forces for a period of time will give them the confidence AND ability to do this and provide discipline as well, which is ever lacking in our modern societies.

But what about freedom? Shouldn't we have the freedom to choose? If the government trains us in self defense, why not open a self-defense class? And if everyone has the same level of fighting skill, wouldn't it render your army training useless?