Ethics

The Poker Argument

1.it is morally acceptable to deceive when playing poker

2. if 1, then it is morally acceptable to deceive when doing business.


3. so it is morally acceptable to deceive when doing business

L1

A lie is a) a false statement b) made with the intention of deceiving

L2

a lie is a) a false statement b) which the speaker does not believe to be true and c)is made in a context in which the speaker warrants the truth of what he or she says.

L3

a person P1 lies to another person p2 just in case a) p1 makes a false statement b) p1 does not believe it to be true c)in doing so, P1 warrants the truth of the statement to P2.

The argument from self-defense

1. bluffing in a negotiation is a form of self-defense.


2. If 1, then bluffing in a negotiation is morally permissible.


3. so, bluffing in a negotiation is morally permissible.

Lying is worse than mere deception

It is worse to lie to someone than it is to deceive them.

Example

Parents are gone for the weekend. Girlfriend is not allowed over. Parents call and ask what the boy is doing. Girlfriend is on her way over, but the brother says that the girlfriend is not there. Not lying, merely deception.

The argument from endorsement

1. bluffing is endorsed by any rational negotiator.


2. If 1, then being a negotiator is a role in which bluffing is morally permissible.


3. so being a negotiator is a role in which bluffing is morally permissible.

The state of state of nature

a state of war
no awesome stuff
not just imaginary

Elements of the state of nature

Equality of need
scarcity
equality of power
no altruism (we cannot rely on our own strength or the strength of others)

The "That Never Happened" argument

1. there was never any state of nature


2. if 1, then the social contract theory is false


3. so, the social contract theory is false.

The "What if I can get away with it" argument

1. I can get all the benefits of accepting the government without any of the costs.
...