- Joined
- Jan 15, 2015
- Messages
- 3,378
- Reaction score
- 4,619
PLEASE go with option #1. I will await your next topic.
I exaggerated my EC's on AMCAS and I got called on it.
- Thread starter METTA WORLD PEACE
- Start date
- Joined
- May 5, 2014
- Messages
- 812
- Reaction score
- 795
Ok, your logical fallacies clearly suggest you are one lost to reasoning... Aiding? Abetting? Getting out scott free? Nope, my whole thing has been about discussing, understanding, and accountability...
I understand why you'd feel that way, but it's not "you're for us or you're against us". Anyway...
- Joined
- May 5, 2014
- Messages
- 812
- Reaction score
- 795
The fact that you were even willing (despite the strong personal feelings we all share about this) makes me feel like you're someone I'd want on my team. And, I like your handle.
- Joined
- May 5, 2014
- Messages
- 812
- Reaction score
- 795
OP, what did the request seek? They wanted verification for the activity and hours? Did they mention what kind of verification would suffice?
- Joined
- Jul 2, 2014
- Messages
- 3,336
- Reaction score
- 5,899
Just rising to the helpful tone you set. SDN could use a lot more discussion, accountability, and understanding. Kudos for bringing it.
I think the judgement is useful also. It is important boundary setting by the community. It happens in a harsh way sometimes, but hopefully someone else who considers going down this route will be dissuaded by it.
- Joined
- May 5, 2014
- Messages
- 812
- Reaction score
- 795
- Joined
- Jul 2, 2013
- Messages
- 12,267
- Reaction score
- 17,952
Warning, this addresses multiple points and may be very long...Y'all have been warned.
No, prestige and making money are not a part of many people's reasons for going into medicine. Many fields are not nearly as lucrative as many people in the general public seem to imagine it to be. Yes it's a comfortable lifestyle once you're out of debt, but if you're going into medicine for primarily those reasons, you need to take a HUGE step back and re-evaluate why you're going into medicine. If those are really your primary reasons, you're setting yourself up for a very unhappy future as you can easily live as comfortable, if not more comfortable of a lifestyle in other fields without going through the extra 7-10 years of training, immense debt, and working 50-60 hour weeks until you retire.
Once again, there's a difference between going from 95-->100 hours, where you're either rounding or were just 'a little off' with your estimations and knowingly adding 150 hours to your volunteering. I'm sure many pre-meds 'fudge their numbers' a little, but not nearly to the extent that you did.
Also, consider this: once licensed, physicians must complete CME hours. Some of the courses are great and docs look forward to going and learning. Some of them, like the volunteering you describe, they go and sit there on their phones so they can check off their hours. Let's say a doctor is required to get 100 hours to maintain their license but only does 90 hours, then 'fudges' the last 10 hours to meet the requirement. Not only is that unethical, it's potentially grounds for losing their license and being banned from practicing medicine ever again. It's not far off from what you did, and it has very, very real consequences in terms of their careers.
I don't think anyone has said that you're a criminal. I do think plenty of people are viewing you as a ***** that doesn't seem to understand the basic premise of what a lie is and why it's wrong. The "everyone else does it" excuse is a bs rationalization, and if this is your general view of life/medicine I hope you reconsider that before you start seeing patients. I'm not saying this out of malice, but you seem to genuinely be ignorant to the basic importance of ethics in the medical world, or at least the ethical standards that we set for ourselves. There are already enough lazy, crappy docs out there, we don't need anymore, and it would benefit everyone, yourself included, to step back from this thread for a bit and ask why a patient would be upset by seeing a physician who has been previously dishonest, even if it is for something seemingly insignificant.
Plenty of people do it to help others or because they actually enjoy it. I coached a peewee kids team because I liked the sport and enjoyed teaching kids how to be better at it. If I wasn't enjoying it, I wouldn't have done it. There are plenty of volunteer opportunities you could pursue that you (or anyone) would probably enjoy. If you can't find any clinical/medical volunteering that you enjoy at all, then you either aren't looking hard enough or you might want to reconsider entering medicine and look for something you would enjoy doing. If you enjoy doing it for free, then think of how much more fun it would be to get paid to do it.
I'll give it a go.
As you said, degree of the lie is a factor which should be considered. For instance, if a person states that they did 100 hours of volunteering instead of 95, then it is indeed a lie. However, it's intent may not be to greatly increase their chances, but instead a mistake or a number which can be chalked up to a certain degree of uncertainty. If I said that 55% of pre-medical students provide inaccurate information information in their application, but the stat was actually 53%, it would be a lie. However, it may not have been intentional or significant as it does not change the overall message or intent behind which it is conveyed. So I agree, to a certain extent, with your thought there given the definition of 'ethics of lying' you provided.
To address the bolded, and this is the more important part. There are plenty of ways to tactfully state that you "want" to attend school B because you could not get into school A. That also doesn't have to be the primary portion of your statement. Every school that I applied to had something about it that I liked or I saw as a positive. Just because it wasn't my number one choice, does not mean there wasn't a reason I wanted to be there. In terms of DOs, there are many reasons that I would want to go to a DO school OVER an MD school. If one's only reason for wanting to go to a DO school is because they couldn't get into an MD school and just wanted to be a physician, they could say something like "I think DO school X will provide me the best, most efficient route to becoming a physician". It's true, and it addresses the question properly. Besides, a DO school will already know by your stats whether or not you would have been competitive at an MD school. Their Adcom members aren't stupid.
No, the application game is about taking what you have as an applicant and marketing yourself in the best light possible, not about skewing your stats/activities and lying in order to create an untrue or unrealistic image of who you are. People who lie or significantly change their app to make themselves look better lack confidence in their capabilities to get in and feel the need to compensate for their shortcomings through lies and exaggerations. This is not the kind of person I want to treat me or my family members. If they aren't good enough, then they can put in the extra work to prove they are. After all, med school grades and board scores are 0% about how others perceive you and 100% about the work you put into them.
I'm not sure what the intent behind the bolded statement is, but if you're trying to say that DOs are lesser than MDs I highly suggest you re-evaluate that statement before entering the medical profession. There are plenty of DOs that are far superior doctors to their MD counterparts and vice versa. A lot more goes into the competency and ability of a physician than the letters behind their name. I say this as someone who turned down MD interviews to attend a DO school.
No, prestige and making money are not a part of many people's reasons for going into medicine. Many fields are not nearly as lucrative as many people in the general public seem to imagine it to be. Yes it's a comfortable lifestyle once you're out of debt, but if you're going into medicine for primarily those reasons, you need to take a HUGE step back and re-evaluate why you're going into medicine. If those are really your primary reasons, you're setting yourself up for a very unhappy future as you can easily live as comfortable, if not more comfortable of a lifestyle in other fields without going through the extra 7-10 years of training, immense debt, and working 50-60 hour weeks until you retire.
Once again, there's a difference between going from 95-->100 hours, where you're either rounding or were just 'a little off' with your estimations and knowingly adding 150 hours to your volunteering. I'm sure many pre-meds 'fudge their numbers' a little, but not nearly to the extent that you did.
Also, consider this: once licensed, physicians must complete CME hours. Some of the courses are great and docs look forward to going and learning. Some of them, like the volunteering you describe, they go and sit there on their phones so they can check off their hours. Let's say a doctor is required to get 100 hours to maintain their license but only does 90 hours, then 'fudges' the last 10 hours to meet the requirement. Not only is that unethical, it's potentially grounds for losing their license and being banned from practicing medicine ever again. It's not far off from what you did, and it has very, very real consequences in terms of their careers.
I don't think anyone has said that you're a criminal. I do think plenty of people are viewing you as a ***** that doesn't seem to understand the basic premise of what a lie is and why it's wrong. The "everyone else does it" excuse is a bs rationalization, and if this is your general view of life/medicine I hope you reconsider that before you start seeing patients. I'm not saying this out of malice, but you seem to genuinely be ignorant to the basic importance of ethics in the medical world, or at least the ethical standards that we set for ourselves. There are already enough lazy, crappy docs out there, we don't need anymore, and it would benefit everyone, yourself included, to step back from this thread for a bit and ask why a patient would be upset by seeing a physician who has been previously dishonest, even if it is for something seemingly insignificant.
Plenty of people do it to help others or because they actually enjoy it. I coached a peewee kids team because I liked the sport and enjoyed teaching kids how to be better at it. If I wasn't enjoying it, I wouldn't have done it. There are plenty of volunteer opportunities you could pursue that you (or anyone) would probably enjoy. If you can't find any clinical/medical volunteering that you enjoy at all, then you either aren't looking hard enough or you might want to reconsider entering medicine and look for something you would enjoy doing. If you enjoy doing it for free, then think of how much more fun it would be to get paid to do it.
I'll give it a go.
As you said, degree of the lie is a factor which should be considered. For instance, if a person states that they did 100 hours of volunteering instead of 95, then it is indeed a lie. However, it's intent may not be to greatly increase their chances, but instead a mistake or a number which can be chalked up to a certain degree of uncertainty. If I said that 55% of pre-medical students provide inaccurate information information in their application, but the stat was actually 53%, it would be a lie. However, it may not have been intentional or significant as it does not change the overall message or intent behind which it is conveyed. So I agree, to a certain extent, with your thought there given the definition of 'ethics of lying' you provided.
To address the bolded, and this is the more important part. There are plenty of ways to tactfully state that you "want" to attend school B because you could not get into school A. That also doesn't have to be the primary portion of your statement. Every school that I applied to had something about it that I liked or I saw as a positive. Just because it wasn't my number one choice, does not mean there wasn't a reason I wanted to be there. In terms of DOs, there are many reasons that I would want to go to a DO school OVER an MD school. If one's only reason for wanting to go to a DO school is because they couldn't get into an MD school and just wanted to be a physician, they could say something like "I think DO school X will provide me the best, most efficient route to becoming a physician". It's true, and it addresses the question properly. Besides, a DO school will already know by your stats whether or not you would have been competitive at an MD school. Their Adcom members aren't stupid.
No, the application game is about taking what you have as an applicant and marketing yourself in the best light possible, not about skewing your stats/activities and lying in order to create an untrue or unrealistic image of who you are. People who lie or significantly change their app to make themselves look better lack confidence in their capabilities to get in and feel the need to compensate for their shortcomings through lies and exaggerations. This is not the kind of person I want to treat me or my family members. If they aren't good enough, then they can put in the extra work to prove they are. After all, med school grades and board scores are 0% about how others perceive you and 100% about the work you put into them.
I'm not sure what the intent behind the bolded statement is, but if you're trying to say that DOs are lesser than MDs I highly suggest you re-evaluate that statement before entering the medical profession. There are plenty of DOs that are far superior doctors to their MD counterparts and vice versa. A lot more goes into the competency and ability of a physician than the letters behind their name. I say this as someone who turned down MD interviews to attend a DO school.
Last edited:
- Joined
- May 5, 2014
- Messages
- 812
- Reaction score
- 795
agree that the judgement is a necessary aspect to understanding the ramifications and gravity of one's actions. Thanks for engaging in (attempt) a productive conversation.
Honestly, it is stupid to be less than honest on one's application--whether for school or for a job. I think there are a number of intelligent people here that understand "...an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure."
- Joined
- Nov 24, 2007
- Messages
- 8,451
- Reaction score
- 9,784
God damn those honest bastards who judge you for lying!
I wonder if my oath to not lie, cheat, steal or tolerate those that do still applies? I'll assume it does. It's a good way to go through life. Good luck OP.
$50 says the OP comes back in 6 months to say he got a scholarship to an ivy.
#TrollTown
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2012
- Messages
- 6,232
- Reaction score
- 7,580
6 months? Probably 6 weeks.
- Joined
- Apr 6, 2014
- Messages
- 14,146
- Reaction score
- 22,796
A lie is fundamentally unethical under absolutist moral theory (eg Kantian deontology) but the immorality of a lie is dependent on context in relative moral theory (eg consequentialism/utilitarianism). Most people are the latter category; they would say in general it is usually immoral to lie/steal/kill but under certain context say these actions become moral (such as the death of some innocents in a military operation that saves the lives of many more innocents).
So I would disagree that the ethics of lying is based around violating a "spirit of truth" but rather around the harm lies usually cause to others.
In this case both moral theories agree OP behaved unethically. Relative: Falsely presenting yourself as a better candidate than you are to admissions is harmful, since if you fool them and get a spot, you deny society access to care from someone else that was actually the better candidate. Absolute: It's wrong to lie.
On a side note, this is why I disagree with the use of study drugs off-prescription but think it is fine with a prescription. Most absolute-ethics people get hung up on ideas of "cheating/fairness" or "leveling the playing field for those with disabilities". I say that's a ridiculous approach, a process that heavily rewards intelligence can't be called "fair", and obviously nobody wants to advocate for easier questions or extra time on the MCAT to level the playing field for someone born with a low IQ. I think of it as wrong because you've falsely inflated your performance to a level that does not reflect what you'll be like down the road when you stop taking the drugs. For someone who will be taking the drugs for life, it's an accurate presentation of what you'll be like down the road, and thus fine.
- Joined
- Jun 17, 2014
- Messages
- 63,099
- Reaction score
- 154,758
This is why no one really likes Kant.
- Joined
- May 5, 2014
- Messages
- 812
- Reaction score
- 795
actually, I quite like Kant. And I'd argue moral relativism differs from utilitarianism. Utilitarianism can be relative (as can all moral theory), but it is not necessarily inherently relative. Moral relativism actually directly challenges the notion of ethics altogether...
- Joined
- Mar 28, 2013
- Messages
- 627
- Reaction score
- 1,083
To my knowledge, it was a random screening. It wasn't something I was comfortable asking...
It's not too surprising. Financial aid offices periodically ask for additional documenatipn. It's the luck of the draw.
- Joined
- Apr 6, 2014
- Messages
- 14,146
- Reaction score
- 22,796
Whoops...for the unfamiliar, Moral relativism is an entirely different culture-focused concept (though one that also rejects absolute rules) that says all morality is arbitrary and right and wrong are socially developed ideas. I shouldve been more clear and called it relative or context dependent ethical/moral theory. I am NOT referring to moral relativism
- Joined
- Apr 2, 2015
- Messages
- 364
- Reaction score
- 407
My personal belief is that lying itself has no intrinsic ethics, and that the immorality can only be measured through consequences, especially when the consequences are intended by the liar. If I were to tell my mom I had the walls of my apartment pained green when in reality they are brown, I would feel no ethical concern whatsoever. A lie is bad only in so far as it deprives the lied to of information. Moreover, the degree of unethical behavior concerned is based on the vitality of information obfuscated or denied.
@Stagg737
My point was not that it was ethical to lie, but that the interview involves obfuscation information which is more vital to your acceptance. You must know you are probably in the sub 1% of D.O applicants who feel strongly about osteopathy compared to allopathic. I feel both can be competent physicians, but 99% are obfuscating the real truth via "spin" when they answer the question "why do?". Those 99% are acting more unethically than op with his explicit lie because the distinction between the results of the truth and the results of the lie is greater in the long run, thus more vital for adcoms.
In terms of selling yourself, the following is my belief. In an ideal world, the interviewer would immediately know all answers to the questions in complete and absolute truth. In other words, if he wanted to know your hobbies, an immediate list of actions and time performed would be available. Any deviation from this absolute truth on the interviewees part is a lie. Selling yourself is obfuscating the truth, and for that same reason, equally as unethical as a lie to the same effect.
- Joined
- Jul 21, 2014
- Messages
- 1,318
- Reaction score
- 2,781
This thread is SO pre-allo.
Anyway, it does raise one valid concern, this whole process has become so inbred and distorted that people now just assume its ok to lie on their applications in order to compete with the thousands of other applicants lying-- erm, excuse me-- exaggerating on their applications as well. What a joke.
This is exactly why medical schools should start using the extracurricular section as a test of ethics for potential students instead of looking for more high numbers. Who cares if you volunteered at the hospital for 400 or 4000 hours anyway. Anything past 200 hours is overkill to begin with. If you reported accurate numbers though, that should actually stand for something.
Anyway, it does raise one valid concern, this whole process has become so inbred and distorted that people now just assume its ok to lie on their applications in order to compete with the thousands of other applicants lying-- erm, excuse me-- exaggerating on their applications as well. What a joke.
This is exactly why medical schools should start using the extracurricular section as a test of ethics for potential students instead of looking for more high numbers. Who cares if you volunteered at the hospital for 400 or 4000 hours anyway. Anything past 200 hours is overkill to begin with. If you reported accurate numbers though, that should actually stand for something.
- Joined
- Apr 6, 2014
- Messages
- 14,146
- Reaction score
- 22,796
Lucca does
- Joined
- Jun 17, 2014
- Messages
- 63,099
- Reaction score
- 154,758
Really? In that case, I will defer and launch a separate convo with you, @Lucca, me and @ImmunoLove about this.
- Joined
- May 5, 2014
- Messages
- 812
- Reaction score
- 795
Thanks for the clarification. I was a bit confused, and I'd be a bit remiss if I didn't admit that I was also a little disappointed (I do not tend to look favorably on moral relativists, and you are one whom I've come to admire through SDN, and so it totally threw me off).
- Joined
- Apr 6, 2014
- Messages
- 14,146
- Reaction score
- 22,796
You're a utilitarian ! Kant sux amirite
I'd actually want the interviewer to know the truth of your motivations for your ECs and how you felt while doing them, rather/more than just knowing what you did. Tons of volunteer and research hours may be legit, but also worthless if it was all to get an acceptance and they don't really like either !
- Joined
- Jul 2, 2014
- Messages
- 3,336
- Reaction score
- 5,899
I do see a downside in lies even when they aren't harmful, but it isn't because of an inherent wrongness in lying.
We are a social species. The perceptions that others have of you, the reputation you build, that matters.
If people know that you don't have a problem lying or exaggerating over small things, they will assume that you will gladly do so in other settings as well. I don't feel an ethical concern about hurting my mom by telling her a lie about the walls of my apartment, but if she ever found out that they weren't green, she would have less faith in other things that I've told her.
With physicians, this is important, because the nature of our work requires people to place a lot of faith and trust in us. By being very scrupulous in how we comport ourselves, we earn that faith. The profession as a whole, its various practitioners, all benefit when each individual maintains high standards of ethical behavior. Thus, pro-social behavior can be seen as enlightened self-interest.
- Joined
- May 5, 2014
- Messages
- 812
- Reaction score
- 795
I think this example of wall colors was posited with the notion that a lie is defined by its consequences. I personally feel lies are not good (nothing good really comes of it). In this case, as you say, if mom finds out the walls aren't what you said, then I do believe that would damage trust. Thus, I don't see the point in lying, because even an innocuous one may threaten a greater social fabric.
- Joined
- Apr 6, 2014
- Messages
- 14,146
- Reaction score
- 22,796
This is still in agreement with utilitarianism, risks of damage to trust and social cohesion are a form of harm/lead to suffering!
- Joined
- Apr 6, 2014
- Messages
- 14,146
- Reaction score
- 22,796
You must love those URM threadsomg efle, way to make a good forum fight a complete drag
- Joined
- May 5, 2014
- Messages
- 812
- Reaction score
- 795
Yeah I'm arguing that point (that lies are "bad" even by utilitarianism). My personal feeling is that lying is morally unethical, regardless of the consequences.
- Joined
- Jul 14, 2005
- Messages
- 6,713
- Reaction score
- 8,032
Nope!! lol You really think I meant that? Just putting them altogether for posterity!
- Joined
- Apr 6, 2014
- Messages
- 14,146
- Reaction score
- 22,796
The real test would be a thought experiment in which you could tell a lie that harms nobody else (or even helps them), and could never be discovered. For example, your friend makes a really ****ty painting and asks you whether you like it. You lie and say you really enjoy it. Your actual belief is private and impossible to discover, and your lie avoided potentially harming their feelings. You feel that this was in any way an unethical action? I'd say behaving this way was not only entirely not wrong, but in fact was entirely right.
- Joined
- May 5, 2014
- Messages
- 812
- Reaction score
- 795
Yeah thought about that...I'd be honest. Tactful, but honest....I could point out things I enjoy in the painting (truthfully), but would also suggest areas that didn't resonate with me. But that's just me. I don't think everyone has to do it "my way", I don't even know if what I'm doing is really the best way to do it. I don't think it would be wrong of someone to lie in that case for them, if they adopt a philosophy consistent with their actions (e.g. sparing feeling/no harm done= good).I only take issue when there's an internal inconsistency between one's moral method (e.g. rule utilitarianism) but their conclusions (e.g. because they apply case utilitarianism). I do think it's nice of someone to say they like the painting to spare hurt feelings, though. I can appreciate the intent.
- Joined
- Nov 19, 2014
- Messages
- 9,272
- Reaction score
- 11,011
I'm confused. How can you believe in absolute morals yet believe they need not be applied universally?
- Joined
- May 5, 2014
- Messages
- 812
- Reaction score
- 795
So I like deontology, my only issue with is that it doesn't allow for prima facie arguments, which I think are legit. So my own personal moral "system" has a series of "rules" which have set prima facie arguments...
Does that make any sense? I in no way want to suggest to others how to think or live their lives...I was just sharing my own personal thoughts.
Saying anything that did not totally make it clear to your friend that his painting was ****ty could be considered lying if we take this to its roots.
- Joined
- Apr 6, 2014
- Messages
- 14,146
- Reaction score
- 22,796
Are you asking how rule utilitarianism can be a thing?
- Joined
- Jun 17, 2014
- Messages
- 63,099
- Reaction score
- 154,758
- Joined
- May 5, 2014
- Messages
- 812
- Reaction score
- 795
I'd disagree...depends on the level at which you're evaluating. The whole painting may by crappy and I may say I don't like the whole painting. I'd also say I like X aspects of it (assuming true), and don't like Y aspects, and the dissonance between X and Y together doesn't work in the painting as a whole...
But that's just me, and my friends (shockingly) seem to like this aspect sufficiently. Again, it is done with tact.
- Joined
- Apr 2, 2015
- Messages
- 364
- Reaction score
- 407
You likely have a point. I think if you could theoretically guarantee absolute inconsequentialness of a lie it wouldnt be intrinsically unethical.
Fundamentally though, if a genie were to cast a spell on one applicant which prevented any obfuscation of the truth whatsoever (ie: spin) that applicant would be almost guaranteed to fail to get into any medical school they applied to. The interview is fundamentally about presenting yourself in a positive light, which I feel is the same as lying. I agree with what you said earlier involving the reasons for participation being important, but those reasons should be just as absolutely true and accessible to the interviewer. This kind of absolute frankness if nothing like the current interview system and would likely result in nothing but rejection. I think anyone on here who believes they are this level of absolutely honest in an interview is likely full of it.
At the end of the day, maybe I'm just a spectacularly terrible person since I have to obfuscate truths about myself for any chance to get in and everyone else here is just spectacularly great applicants. But I don't legitimately belive that, and even if I did, I would still behave unethically by "selling myself" at an interview, but I wouldn't think myself any better than op who explicitly lied on his work experiences.
Right, I am just saying a little lying is fine. Tact is a small form of deception.
Its no different than me telling something "nice try" or some variant after a poor test performance. In reality, they simply did not try hard enough, but people dont like to hear the pure truth.
- Joined
- May 5, 2014
- Messages
- 812
- Reaction score
- 795
Hm, I see what you're saying, but I disagree. It might be a matter of semantics. Sometimes "nice try" means "nice try", and it isn't because they didn't try hard enough, but just that they didn't meet the bar. We could analyze why (and perhaps discover it was due to lack of effort or trying hard enough, or understanding or whatever...) But that's neither here nor there. One can deliver a hard truth softly, as physicians often do ("told to pt in no uncertain terms grim prognosis, held hands, answered questions, comforted, discussed options"). I think you mean perverting facts through delivery, and in this case you'd be right (presenting facts inaccurately would be a lie), but you can also present the truth gracefully, without perverting them.
- Joined
- Nov 26, 2014
- Messages
- 1,748
- Reaction score
- 2,340
Ah, can be quite entertaining. A new one is long overdue
- Joined
- Apr 6, 2014
- Messages
- 14,146
- Reaction score
- 22,796
Universality can be seen as a subset of absolutism, former saying all people facing decision X under conditions Y must choose Z, latter saying all people facing decision X under any conditions must choose Z. If something is absolute, it is always also universal. So Zed's objection stands, though I doubt he intended to be using such specific language.
It's interesting to note that in this sense the core of utilitarianism (because it is a universal moral code) is an absolute statement: you should always act in that way which maximizes happiness and minimizes suffering for the greatest number. This gets a bit messy and meta though, and when people talk about absolute vs relative they mean rulesets to guide behavior, not whether an ideology has pursuit of a value monism at its core.
- Joined
- Sep 16, 2013
- Messages
- 4,541
- Reaction score
- 5,933
How has this thread reached 7 pages?!
😵
😵
- Joined
- Nov 19, 2014
- Messages
- 9,272
- Reaction score
- 11,011
Correct me if I'm wrong (I haven't had any formal training in philosophy😛) but if one believes that lying is always wrong, in every scenario, with zero wiggle room, then by definition you think it is wrong for everyone to lie. How can one believe that it is always wrong for john to lie yet sometimes ok for jake to lie and call oneself an absolutist? By definition that is relativism...
- Joined
- Jun 17, 2014
- Messages
- 63,099
- Reaction score
- 154,758
That sounds backwards. If universality is a subset of absolutism, then something that is universal is necessarily (but not sufficiently) absolute.
I don't have formal philosophy training either. I just learn bits and pieces from discussions with efle, Lucca and ImmunoLove.
I suppose by absolutism, the line between right and wrong is established, whereas for universality, everyone has the follow the distinction. Despite its condemning name, absolute moral philosophy doesn't authorize everyone to specifically follow what is right and wrong, which universalism expects. It is also possible for everyone to universally accept and follow the moral principle that is viewed to be wrong under certain absolutist standards (like for example, everyone accepts the death penalty).
Last edited:
- Joined
- Nov 24, 2007
- Messages
- 8,451
- Reaction score
- 9,784
That's how I'd approach it. "I like the vibrancy of the colors, the boldness of the brushstrokes there, the way you composed the ..." all the while internally thinking it's derivative crap.
- Joined
- Nov 19, 2014
- Messages
- 9,272
- Reaction score
- 11,011
Why even make the distinction? What is the point of saying these absolute morals exist yet they need not be implemented by anyone?
- Joined
- Apr 6, 2014
- Messages
- 14,146
- Reaction score
- 22,796
I like this newly surfaced idea (from Mad Jack and Cyberdine iirc) that Asians don't actually have a higher bar set for them, they just are disproportionately competing for tougher spots to get (eg many in California that lack an accessible state option) driving up the matriculant numbers a tad above whites.
Although, Occam's razor would seem to support that what happens at the undergrad level (which we have some proof of, white apps with score below X are screened out, asian apps with score Y are screened out, Y > X) just continues. I have a hard time believing that race-blinding med schools would have zero impact on asian admissions.
The idea is that:
P1. One should always act to maximize happiness/minimize suffering for the most people.
P2. There are some actions which always have a net suffering (eg genocide)
_______
C1. There are some actions which can be forbidden as a rule.
So basically they agree with act utilitarianism and just tag on an extra idea saying some acts are always bad.
- Joined
- Jun 17, 2014
- Messages
- 63,099
- Reaction score
- 154,758
See the edited post.
Distinctions under absolutism should be aimed to be objective (not always so), but people as a whole may not follow them.
Is there an inverse of P2? Namely, are there some actions which always have a net happiness?
