[ExI] The void left by deleting religion

[Samantha Atkins]

Russell Wallace wrote:
> On 5/4/07, *Stathis Papaioannou* <stathisp at gmail.com 
> <mailto:stathisp at gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>
>     You obviously believe that the truth is better than falsehood and
>     you're probably right. However, it is at least logically possible
>     that widespread belief in a Noble Lie might have a net positive
>     effect. In that case, is it still better to destroy the Lie
>     regardless of the consequences?
>
>
Truth is not better than falsehood as a free floating abstraction.  
Truth is better than falsehood if you want to accomplish anything much 
in reality, rather than in fantasy.    It is doubtful that  most "Noble 
Lies" are at all noble.   I do not believe that religion or religious 
beliefs are truly noble Noble Lies.


> This would be a conflict between utilitarian morality and ethical 
> constraints. My answer would be that I am ethically probihited from 
> lying even if I think it will have positive utility; but I am not 
> ethically prohibited from keeping my mouth shut and refraining from 
> comment either way, so that is what I would do.

When would you lie?  Presumably you would  lie to protect your own life, 
the lives of those you love or  humanity.    So what are the 
extenuations on your ethical prohibition against lying?

- samantha