Posts
This post was given in letter correspondance format.
In this opus, Agent Mabel found it increasingly a handful to please any and every body around her that she would lie to make sure of it. Let us earnestly investigate like we have always accustomed ourselves and see if she had contravened any 'laws'.
Hey Mabel, thought I could help breathe some ethics and virtues into you! Haha!
A white lie was a lie. A lie was a lie no matter its color or nature. And if a lie was deception was bad, then deception was bad was deception was bad no matter its magnitude or variety. What could be more accurate Mabel?
You were a classic consequentialist in such an instance Mabel, or maybe I could presume most of the time, for you had seek only the ends while disregarding the means. As long as somebody was heartened by your sympathy and empathy, however unauthentic, you were bound to be more heartened yourself. Were we supposed to believe you had been reduced to such a state of misery, Mabel?
NO WAY, Mabel; no way!
For we all in this forum knew about Good Mabel! We wanted to believe in Mabel's nobility of thought and agency; we yet wanted to believe she had laudatory and governing deontological ( or perhaps religious) ethics and virtues that did not relent.
For Mabel, telling white lies was a blatant disservice to governing deontological rules and ethics. It only served to tell us you were a pleasure-seeking animal and indelicate; where as long as there were overarching pleasures as a result of your choice of action over another, you would have the choice you have it to be. Any political entity or government would tell you all the problem there was associated with such a philosophy to life and living; or perhaps Brad could too.
But I understood that neither, Mabel, could you be totally honest with someone, as you had bemoaned, because you would not bear to see the hurt in others' emotions. Therefore, I could fully empathize with you, good Mabel.
Unsurprisingly therefore, Mabel, your choice of operation when you were faced such interpersonal dilemmas must have been a BALANCE OR MODERATION OF BOTH CONSEQUENTIALIST AND DEONTOLOGICAL IDEALS, a point I could not make significant mention any more.
How do you do that, Mabel? Let me give you an example:
If your fiancee personally purchased you a sash as birthday plesantry, and you discovered it was made up of preposterous combinations of colors and wanted to dispute its suitability for a dinner party you were going to attend: you could do so upfront directly by saying it was a terrible choice of sash and proceed to turn it away, thereby creating rejection and a feeling of hurt in your fiancee; or you could tell your fiancee a biggest white lie by saying it was really beautiful and fantastic, and that you couldn't be more happy. In either instance, either consequentialism or deontology has been trangressed, and that ain't too good!
Instead Mabel, if you were a finely balanced human being moderated in all your ways of thought, action and speech, you would say this:
" I've never seen such a sash in my life before, sweetie!"
That---would be TRULY an interpersonal success AT A FUNDAMENTAL LEVEL. Consider why below, Mabel:
First of all, the statement of reply above was delicately and brilliantly packaged so as to contain consequentialist AND deontological ethics. The statement above was moderated to such your fiancee could not take offense nor defence; which reavowed the statement was truly delicate and moderate. Neither were you telling a white lie in the statement above, Mabel, because you weren't saying falsely the sash was beautiful and amazing when it wasn't; instead you gave due regard to deontological ( and also consequentialist's) ethics by restructuring your opinion about the sash to contain both positive and negative elements, which left the interpretation of the opinion up in the air; AND WHICH YOU MUST HAVE WILLFULLY INTENDED NONE OTHER THAN OUT OF RESPECT, LOVE, CONCERN, CARE, FOR YOUR FIANCEE!!!!
You didn't want to lie to him, Mabel: but neither did you want to hurt his feelings by being too honest. Either way, Mabel, you wanted to respect him!!! And the best way to that end was embodied in the statement above!
Any true interpersonal success I supposed, Mabel, must have been allied with handy ethics from philosophy or otherwise!
In this opus, Agent Mabel found it increasingly a handful to please any and every body around her that she would lie to make sure of it. Let us earnestly investigate like we have always accustomed ourselves and see if she had contravened any 'laws'.
Hey Mabel, thought I could help breathe some ethics and virtues into you! Haha!
A white lie was a lie. A lie was a lie no matter its color or nature. And if a lie was deception was bad, then deception was bad was deception was bad no matter its magnitude or variety. What could be more accurate Mabel?
You were a classic consequentialist in such an instance Mabel, or maybe I could presume most of the time, for you had seek only the ends while disregarding the means. As long as somebody was heartened by your sympathy and empathy, however unauthentic, you were bound to be more heartened yourself. Were we supposed to believe you had been reduced to such a state of misery, Mabel?
NO WAY, Mabel; no way!
For we all in this forum knew about Good Mabel! We wanted to believe in Mabel's nobility of thought and agency; we yet wanted to believe she had laudatory and governing deontological ( or perhaps religious) ethics and virtues that did not relent.
For Mabel, telling white lies was a blatant disservice to governing deontological rules and ethics. It only served to tell us you were a pleasure-seeking animal and indelicate; where as long as there were overarching pleasures as a result of your choice of action over another, you would have the choice you have it to be. Any political entity or government would tell you all the problem there was associated with such a philosophy to life and living; or perhaps Brad could too.
But I understood that neither, Mabel, could you be totally honest with someone, as you had bemoaned, because you would not bear to see the hurt in others' emotions. Therefore, I could fully empathize with you, good Mabel.
Unsurprisingly therefore, Mabel, your choice of operation when you were faced such interpersonal dilemmas must have been a BALANCE OR MODERATION OF BOTH CONSEQUENTIALIST AND DEONTOLOGICAL IDEALS, a point I could not make significant mention any more.
How do you do that, Mabel? Let me give you an example:
If your fiancee personally purchased you a sash as birthday plesantry, and you discovered it was made up of preposterous combinations of colors and wanted to dispute its suitability for a dinner party you were going to attend: you could do so upfront directly by saying it was a terrible choice of sash and proceed to turn it away, thereby creating rejection and a feeling of hurt in your fiancee; or you could tell your fiancee a biggest white lie by saying it was really beautiful and fantastic, and that you couldn't be more happy. In either instance, either consequentialism or deontology has been trangressed, and that ain't too good!
Instead Mabel, if you were a finely balanced human being moderated in all your ways of thought, action and speech, you would say this:
" I've never seen such a sash in my life before, sweetie!"
That---would be TRULY an interpersonal success AT A FUNDAMENTAL LEVEL. Consider why below, Mabel:
First of all, the statement of reply above was delicately and brilliantly packaged so as to contain consequentialist AND deontological ethics. The statement above was moderated to such your fiancee could not take offense nor defence; which reavowed the statement was truly delicate and moderate. Neither were you telling a white lie in the statement above, Mabel, because you weren't saying falsely the sash was beautiful and amazing when it wasn't; instead you gave due regard to deontological ( and also consequentialist's) ethics by restructuring your opinion about the sash to contain both positive and negative elements, which left the interpretation of the opinion up in the air; AND WHICH YOU MUST HAVE WILLFULLY INTENDED NONE OTHER THAN OUT OF RESPECT, LOVE, CONCERN, CARE, FOR YOUR FIANCEE!!!!
You didn't want to lie to him, Mabel: but neither did you want to hurt his feelings by being too honest. Either way, Mabel, you wanted to respect him!!! And the best way to that end was embodied in the statement above!
Any true interpersonal success I supposed, Mabel, must have been allied with handy ethics from philosophy or otherwise!
Once again, by the derivation of the arguments made above, and if anybody knew, success of communication MUST THEREFORE ABSOLUTELY HAVE HAD contributing multidisciplinaries consisting in philosophy, sociology, political science, economics, psychology, anthropology, theology, linguistics, even art; or otherwise.
Communication, professional or not, was an entire faculty unto itself; and I would suggest Brad wasted no time pioneering the first.
Cheers
No comments:
Post a Comment