Two Plus Two Older Archives  

Go Back   Two Plus Two Older Archives > Other Topics > Science, Math, and Philosophy

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 12-20-2005, 10:23 PM
peritonlogon peritonlogon is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 120
Default Ethics of spreading false information

This question is alluding to a very popular thread today, however, I'm asking a general question.

Is it ever ethical to spread false information?

For the purposes of this discussion I do not consider it spreading false information if you quote someone or reference an idea in the context of a refutation or an analogous circumstance, but do consider the statement spreading false information if it is merely a quote or the idea is simply stated.

Also, when there is an informative point to the quote, it is not spreading false information. For example,

Here is something pretty funny that Aristotle says in On Marvelous Things Heard "It is said that in the island of Gyaros the mice eat iron."

This question seems even more important in the electronic/internet age in light of these facts.
1) Most peer review journals articles are not available for free on the web. Which means most articles of value to in depth internet style discussion are unavailable for linkage.
2) Changing a person's Stereotypes/Beliefs has less to do with the validity/reason of the point/argument and more to do with the quantity of times the person is exposed to a differing Stereotype/Belief.
3) The repetition of points/arguments has more to do with how divicive it is rather than how true it is.
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 12-20-2005, 10:30 PM
hashi92 hashi92 is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 6
Default Re: Ethics of spreading false information

are you talking about the war in iraq
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 12-21-2005, 02:29 AM
peritonlogon peritonlogon is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 120
Default Re: Ethics of spreading false information

[ QUOTE ]
are you talking about the war in iraq

[/ QUOTE ]

No I was actually referring to the rediculous racist thread that was started by one of the authors.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 12-21-2005, 05:22 AM
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Ethics of spreading false information

It can definitely be ethical in situations where the general public aren't intelligent enough to correctly interpret the actual information.

If you give them the truth they will act in ways which are detrimental to themselves, so false information can be better.

Thats all Machiaveli really said, he got a bad reputation from misunderstanding of the idea.

A good example is telling communities that a God exists, in order to encourage them to follow the law, put full effort in to battles, avoid food poisoning, etc. This seems to be pretty much why Constantine encouraged the cult of Christianity into a main-stream religion.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 12-21-2005, 05:48 AM
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Ethics of spreading false information

No it's not.

We should treat other human beings as free thinking autonomous agents, when we lie or present false information we take away from them the opportunity to make decisions for themselves based on reality. That's a theft of liberty, and avoiding that should be valued above and beyond any other perceived benefit.

You can't build a strong foundation on misinformation. And asides from the fundamental ethics of truth, which is enough reason in it's own right, that kind of misinformation has a way of propogating like a virus in ways we couldn't predict - and coming back to bite us in the ass.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 12-21-2005, 05:54 AM
peritonlogon peritonlogon is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 120
Default Re: Ethics of spreading false information

[ QUOTE ]
It can definitely be ethical in situations where the general public aren't intelligent enough to correctly interpret the actual information.

If you give them the truth they will act in ways which are detrimental to themselves, so false information can be better.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not to be argumentative, but could you give me an example.

[ QUOTE ]

Thats all Machiaveli really said, he got a bad reputation from misunderstanding of the idea.

[/ QUOTE ]

So all that stuff about fortune being like a woman and using everything to your advantage meant nothing? And substituting 'convenient' for 'good' was all in the interest of public good? In the Discources on Livy, he does come closer to what you're claiming, but in The Prince he was claiming quite the opposite.

[ QUOTE ]
A good example is telling communities that a God exists, in order to encourage them to follow the law, put full effort in to battles, avoid food poisoning, etc. This seems to be pretty much why Constantine encouraged the cult of Christianity into a main-stream religion.

[/ QUOTE ]
WHAAA? the Romans at the time were quite stoic... ie that was the wide spread religion/philosophy of the time from Emperors to Slaves.... literally... And this has been a long time claim of the intelligentsia that, as far as I can see, has no proven truth to it, but has certainly been used as a rational for some serious swindling and other types of screwing over of unwitting people.

BTW, "no atheists in a fox hole" is just a load of crap that a lot of atheists find offensive..... didn't stop the Russians in WW2 they certainly put in full effort. And in WW1 when a whole lot more people were God fearing, there were alarming rates of soldiers not firing their weapons in battle. IMHO religion plays, if not no role, then next to no role in getting people to follow laws or fight for their cause.

I will agree that a little philosophy is a bad thing...But I think information is different.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 12-21-2005, 07:03 AM
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Ethics of spreading false information

I gave on example, religion is definitely mis-information designed to control people.

A better example may be something like voting on whether to join a single currency. Lets say the correct answer is 'Yes' (I'm not sure after a BA Finance). Maybe 200 people in the UK actually understand the issue at hand and which decision best increase UK EV, but the general public will vote on it, and they will vote "no" because they are on average patriotic racists with no clue about money.

Either we get them all to do PHDs in finance, or we tell them they need to vote in x direction or they will all lose their jobs and aliens will invade and commence wide-spread anal probing.

I would have no problem propogating that misinformation if it would be for their own good and they will be financially better off with no other downsides.

EDIT: I love the idea of treating people as intelligent "free thinking autonomous agents". But they ARE too stupid. Thats why the UK has a huge problem with debt on credit and store cards. Ideally there would be little tax, no benefits, and everyone would make independent decisions about their destiny and take responsibility for their actions. But it doesn't work.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 12-21-2005, 08:54 AM
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Ethics of spreading false information

[ QUOTE ]
I gave on example, religion is definitely mis-information designed to control people.

A better example may be something like voting on whether to join a single currency. Lets say the correct answer is 'Yes' (I'm not sure after a BA Finance). Maybe 200 people in the UK actually understand the issue at hand and which decision best increase UK EV, but the general public will vote on it, and they will vote "no" because they are on average patriotic racists with no clue about money.

Either we get them all to do PHDs in finance, or we tell them they need to vote in x direction or they will all lose their jobs and aliens will invade and commence wide-spread anal probing.

I would have no problem propogating that misinformation if it would be for their own good and they will be financially better off with no other downsides.

EDIT: I love the idea of treating people as intelligent "free thinking autonomous agents". But they ARE too stupid. Thats why the UK has a huge problem with debt on credit and store cards. Ideally there would be little tax, no benefits, and everyone would make independent decisions about their destiny and take responsibility for their actions. But it doesn't work.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is an issue I have tendency to rant about, so will try not to [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img] I expressed how I feel about a lot of this on the stupid laws thread that just died.

Yes, a lot of people are stupid, and yes, those people will make poor decisions based on that stupidity. But as far as personal decisions go, they will pay the price for that stupidity. It gets a bit more complex on social issues where stupid people are voting, but that's a price I'm more than happy to pay for living in society that treats it's citizens as adults.

It's not the role of government to be our parent, and that's what presenting misinformation on the grounds that people don't have the brainpower to process the truth accurately is doing. I want my government, not to mention everyone in my private life, to be honest with me so that I'm free to make my own mind up. That's IMO possibly the most fundamental way in which liberty presents itself.

And even setting aside the principles involved, that kind of disinformation has legs and all kinds of undesirable consequences subsequently - where do you think the xenophobic and isolationist motivations that have people voting that way on the single currency issue come from in the first place?
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 12-21-2005, 11:41 AM
imported_luckyme imported_luckyme is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 1
Default Re: Ethics of spreading false information

[ QUOTE ]
Yes, a lot of people are stupid, and yes, those people will make poor decisions based on that stupidity. But as far as personal decisions go, they will pay the price for that stupidity. It gets a bit more complex on social issues where stupid people are voting, but that's a price I'm more than happy to pay for living in society that treats it's citizens as adults.

[/ QUOTE ]

Treating them as adults would be too unrealistic, that's why good constitutions are so important in a democracy. Constitutions act as the rubber walls so these 'adults' can't hurt themselves permanently in their decision making fiascos.

luckyme
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 05:20 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.