The Morality of Lying and Deception. American Constantines.

 Why truth needs moral investment to matter

The morality of lying and deception may depend on the conditions under which these acts occur, and on their motives, purposes, and consequences. An approach to the morality of lying and deception may therefore be to consider whether there are circumstances that mitigate the prima facie moral wrongness of acts that are intended to mislead or deceive people1 (although the liar may in some cases know that he has no hope of misleading or deceiving people, and he may in such cases merely hope to subvert the notion of truth).

The morality of lying may also depend on whether lying as an act of self-interest is able to reconcile itself with the interests of others. Another approach to the morality of lying may therefore be to consider whether the liar’s motives are predominantly egoistic or altruistic, and whether the act of lying produces harmony or disharmony between the liar’s self-interest and the interests of others.

According to deontological theory, lying is morally wrong if the liar has a duty or obligation to be truthful. Lying is not necessarily morally wrong if the liar does not have a duty or obligation to be truthful. The obligation to be truthful may apply to all, most, or only some situations.

According to consequentialist theory, lies that have harmful consequences may be judged as more morally wrong than lies that are harmless (if lies can be harmless). If lying has only good (or more good than bad) consequences in some cases, then it may be good (or more good than bad) in those cases. If it has only bad (or more bad than good) consequences in some cases, then it may be bad (or more bad than good) in those cases. If it has only bad (or more bad than good) consequences in all cases, then it is always bad (or more bad than good).

According to utilitarian theory, lying is good if it promotes a greater total amount of happiness (or the sum of the happiness experienced by the liar and the unhappiness experienced by his/her victims) than telling the truth. Lying is also good if it promotes a greater total amount of happiness for a greater number of people than telling the truth. The moral quality of lying is determined by the degree to which it promotes the greatest amount of pleasure or happiness for the greatest number of people.

According to pragmatic theory, lying is bad if it is unsuitable for the circumstances in which it occurs or if it hinders adaptation to the demands of experience. However, lying may in some cases be considered suitable for immediate circumstances and yet be unsuitable for less immediate or more distant circumstances. The supposed immediate or direct advantages of lying must be carefully weighed against the possible long-term or indirect disadvantages of lying. For the liar, the act of lying may initially seem to have desirable consequences and yet may later have undesirable consequences. According to pragmatic theory, if lying about one aspect of personal experience prevents the liar from getting into satisfactory relation with other aspects of personal experience, then this must also be considered in determining the moral value of lying.

A lie may be described as a statement that misrepresents, conceals, distorts, or suppresses the truth, and that is usually made for the purpose of deceiving someone. The act of lying is usually an act of intentionally trying to deceive someone by making a false statement or misrepresenting, concealing, or distorting the truth.

According to this description, a lie does not necessarily have to be a successful act of deception in order to be called a lie. Even if a liar knows that his act of lying will not deceive anyone, his act may still constitute an endorsement of falsity or an attempt to subvert the notion of truth.

The nature of the moral responsibility that a liar must bear for telling a lie may partly depend on whether, prior to telling that lie, he was aware, or should have been aware, of the possible consequences of telling that lie. The nature of his moral responsibility may also depend on whether he lied impulsively or deliberately. If he lied impulsively, then before he lied he may not have had sufficient opportunity to reflect on the possible consequences, and he may not have been as aware of the possible consequences as he would have been if he had lied deliberately.

A liar is a person who intentionally makes false statements, usually for the purpose of misleading or deceiving others. A liar may be a person who knowingly tells mistruths in order to deceive others into having false impressions of things. A liar may be fully aware that his statements or actions are false and deceptive, but he makes those statements or performs those actions because he has some purpose that can be fulfilled (or he perceives some advantage to be gained) by misleading or deceiving others. He may at the same time lie to himself about the nature and extent of his own lying.

A hypocrite may be described as a person who pretends to have qualities or virtues that he does not actually have or who pretends to have beliefs, attitudes, and principles to which he does not actually subscribe or remain faithful. A hypocrite may also in some cases be a liar. He may lie to himself as well as to others about the nature of his beliefs, attitudes, principles, values, and conduct. Hypocrisy may be a form of self-deception.

However, it may sometimes be difficult to know when one is lying to oneself and when one is being hypocritical. Hypocrisy may often be accompanied by reluctance or unwillingness to determine whether one’s actions are consistent with the values and principles that one has pledged oneself to uphold.

A person may in some cases deceive herself about whether she is lying. A person may not think of herself as a liar when in fact she is a liar. A person who does not initially intend to lie about something may, for a variety of reasons, still lie about that thing. On the other hand, a person who initially intends to lie about something may find that, for some reason, her beliefs or principles prevent her from lying about that thing.

A person who makes an unintentionally false statement may in some cases be perceived as a liar, even though she did not intend to deceive anyone. A person who is perceived as having some motive or reason for lying may be perceived as a liar, even though she may actually be telling the truth. A person whose nonverbal behavior arouses suspicion or mistrust may also be perceived as a liar, even though she may actually be telling the truth.

A person who thinks that, and acts as if, he is telling the whole truth about something may not actually know the whole truth about that thing, and thus he may be viewed as an untrustworthy and unreliable source of information by those who are aware of his incomplete knowledge of that thing. If he is actually aware that he does not know the whole truth and yet claims to know the whole truth, then he may be trying to deceive others about the extent of his knowledge, and he may in fact be lying. If it is not possible for a person to know the whole truth about something, then it might be mistaken for him to pretend that he knows the whole truth about that thing if he intends to mislead or deceive others into having false beliefs about that thing. Those who are aware of his incomplete knowledge of the truth may perceive him as a charlatan, confabulator, prevaricator, or liar.

There may in some cases be degrees of truth and falsehood about things. Statements that are true in most cases may not be true in all cases. Some statements may, for the most part, be true, while others may, for the most part, be false. There may also in some cases be half-truths about things, and half-lies about things.

A habitual liar may not always know whether the statements that he is making are actually true or false. Thus, he may accidentally tell the truth. Telling the truth may be intentional or unintentional, deliberate or accidental.

It may be argued that the rightness or wrongness of making a true or false statement about something may depend on the particular situation. If telling the truth in a particular situation is harmful to another person, then it may not necessarily be good to tell the truth in that situation.

In some cases, it may be morally wrong to tell the truth (for example, if telling the truth is harmful to another person). In some cases, lying may be excusable or morally justifiable (for example, if lying can protect another person from harm). If there is no value in telling the truth in a particular situation, then it may perhaps not be morally wrong to tell a lie in that situation (if telling a lie is not intrinsically wrong, or wrong regardless of the particular situation in which it occurs).

A City Rich In History, Traditions and Cultures. Jerusalem.

“Ten portions of beauty, God gave to the world;
nine to Jerusalem and one to the remainder.
Ten portions of sorrow, God gave to the world; 
nine to Jerusalem and one for the rest of mankind.”
Jerusalem is a religious center sacred to all three monotheistic religions: Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. Religious pilgrims from all nations continue to congregate in the Holy City and millions of people flow through the gates of Jerusalem each year.References to the city of Jerusalem appear throughout the entire Scriptures.The Scriptural history of Jerusalem (known then as “Salem”), begins when Abraham meets “Melchizedek”(King of Justice) about 2000 BC. Through the ages it has been called by many names: Urusalim, Salem, Mount Moriah, Adonai Urah, Jebus, Jerusalem, Zion, the City of David, Ariel (Lion of God)
God has declared that this is the place He will establish His Name and will dwell there forever.
David conquered Jerusalem by defeating the Jebusites in 1052 BCE (Chronicles 1 11:4-9), nearly 3000 years ago.In history, No other city has been beloved and fought over as Jerusalem. After David’s death, Solomon (in 1015 BC/BCE) began to “build a house for the Name of the Lord” (Chronicles 2 2:1). It took seven years and 183,300 men to build it (Kings 1- 5:13-16; 6:38). It measured nearly 90 feet in length, 30 feet in width and 45 feet in height (1 Kings 6:2). The Holy Of Holies occupied one-third of the interior space, and the Holy Place, two-thirds. The complete details are described in Kings 1 – 6 & 7. When it was completed, the Glory of God filled the Temple (View the model of Ancient Jerusalem) (Chronicles 2 7:1).Israel was divided after Solomon’s death (979 BCE). The kingdom of Israel was in the north, while Judah was in the south.Jerusalem was the capital of Judah (the Southern Kingdom). It was ruled by a succession of twenty kings from 979 BCE to 586 BCE. Their reigns lasted from as short as three months (Jehoahaz and Jehoiachim) to as long as fifty-five years (Manasseh). The disheartening history of the declines of Judah is told in Kings 1 12:1-2, Kings 25:30, and 2 Chronicles 10:1-36:21.

Jerusalem was entirely destroyed by Nebuchadnezzar in 586 BC/BCE. The city and the Holy Temple were completely demolished and the articles of the Temple and its treasures were carried off to Babylon.
The inhabitants that were not killed were also taken to Babylon. Jerusalem was to lie desolate for seventy years in order that the land might enjoy its Sabbaths 
(Chronicles 2 36:17-21/Leviticus 26:34).

Seventy-one years later (445 BCE) In 539 BCE, Cyrus, king of Persia issued a proclamation to rebuild the Holy Temple in Jerusalem, a total of 42,360 people returned to Jerusalem and Judah to help rebuild the Temple, (not including male and female servants and the musicians), All gave according to their ability, in order to finance the work.

In the first year, Jeshua and Zerubbabel led a group to build the altar in order to offer sacrifices in accordance with Torah.
It was finally completed in 516 BCE and took twenty-three years.
In 167 BCE the Greeks converted the Temple in Jerusalem into a show place to Greek idols

In 40 BCE the Romans being the super power of that time dispatched an army of 30,000 infantry and 6,000 cavalry to take Jerusalem. Jerusalem and its Temple were incinerated.

When Christianity became the official religion of the Roman Empire under Constantine, the basilica of the Holy Sepulcher was built in Jerusalem, the most important and prominent building in the city at the time.

During the Byzantine era (330-640 CE) many impressive Christian architectural monuments were built in the city. Jerusalem was a major Christian center, attracting pilgrims from all over the Roman Empire. Monks and clergy from the various sects started to settle in the city, and pilgrims from different countries filled Jerusalem’s streets: Ethiopians and Armenians, Copts and Nestorians, Syrian Jacobites and Gregorians and, above all, Greek-Orthodox, who became the dominant Christian group in the city.

At the end of the 11th century, Seljuk tribes invaded the country. The city passed from one ruler to another until the arrival of the Crusaders who ruled about two hundred years (1095-1187) CE and again after a brief period, from (1189-1348).

Christian Crusaders order in Jerusalem was extremely brutal, especially at the beginning of the period, and the domination of the city was accompanied by a massacre of most of the Jews and Moslems residing there.

Jerusalem has been fought over by armies of the Assyrians, Babylonians, Egyptians, Greeks, Ptolemies, Seleucids, Romans, Byzantines,Persians, Arabs, Seljuks, Crusaders, Mongols, Mamelukes, Turks, British, Jordanians, Egyptians, Syrians, Lebanese, and Iraqis. Today the nations of the entire world consider it their responsibility and obligation to intervene in her politics and destiny.

This is a city that has been besieged about forty different times and destroyed (at least partially) on thirty-two different occasions. The rulership of Jerusalem has changed hands some twenty-six times. From the time of the establishment of the State of Israel in May of 1948 until 1967, the city was divided. Walls, barbed-wire fences and a desolated strip of non-man’s land cut through the very heart of the city, especially excluding the Jews from the Old City and the Temple Mount. During that time the Jewish Quarter was leveled and its synagogues burned. Jewish graves and monuments were desecrated or turned into latrines, Since 1948 Jerusalem has experienced four wars. Jerusalem, “The City of Peace” has known wars and destruction since it existence was first known to us from the Biblical record.

Today, Jerusalem is more of a city of religion, art, culture, and museums than an economically viable regional marketplace or a center of business activity. Yet Jerusalem thrives in our time as a city full of mystical attractiveness and endless fascination.

Jerusalem has played, and will continue to play, an important part in God’ deliverance of the earth, His Holy City, and our involvement in it.  By Lena Mor –