Would it be immoral?

[Fred Cole]

Would it be immoral to create a conspiracy theory I know to be false, and then unleash it on the world?

[Selene]

Yes.

[studiodekadent]

Would it be immoral to create a conspiracy theory I know to be false, and then unleash it on the world?

Indeed. Very immoral. It clearly counts as deception.

Now, if you're unleashing lies upon, say, a psychopathic murderer that wants to know the location of your significant others so said murderer can slice them up, then that's totally legitimate. You don't owe honesty to psychopathic murderers.

But "the world" is full of innocent people, and you should always be honest to them. People don't want to trade with those that have a record of deceit.

[Fred Cole]

Wow, talk about an ambiguous answer...

Yeah, i had pretty much come to that conclusion myself, but I hoped there was a loophole or something.

The further I get into the skeptic movemnt and the more legal scams I hear about, well, sometimes I wish I

Well, I don't wish I wasn't moral, because that's a non sensical statement. But it bugs me that I sweat my ass off to eek out a living when homeopaths make so much money.

[Selene]

If a person "feels better" afterwards, does it matter to the person whether it is snake oil? Hmmm, maybe we should start a company called Placebos to Go!

Homeopathy

(pronunciation:

i

/

ˌ

h

oʊ

m

i

ˈ

ɒ

p

ə

θ

i

/

; also spelled

homoeopathy

[1]

or

homœopathy

) is a form of

alternative medicine

in which practitioners treat patients using highly diluted

[2]

[3]

preparations that are believed to cause healthy people to exhibit symptoms that are similar to those exhibited by the patient. The collective weight of

scientific

evidence has found homeopathy to be no more effective than a

placebo

.

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

The basic principle of homeopathy, known as the "law of similars", is "let like be cured by like." It was first stated by German physician

Samuel Hahnemann

in 1796. His "law of similars" is

taken on his word

[8]

as an unproven assertion, and is not a true

law of nature

based on the

scientific method

.

[9]

Homeopathic remedies

are prepared by

serial dilution

with shaking by forceful striking on an elastic body, which homeopaths term

succussion

. Each dilution followed by succussion is assumed to increase the effectiveness. Homeopaths call this process

potentization

. Dilution often continues until none of the original substance remains.

[10]

Apart from the symptoms, homeopaths examine aspects of the patient's physical and psychological state,

[11]

then homeopathic reference books known as

repertories

are consulted, and a remedy is selected based on the totality of symptoms.

Wiki link here

[Fred Cole]

Why'd you post that?

[Selene]

Why'd you post that?

First, because I can...lol.

Second, as an FYI for us folks who do not know the details and history of homeopathy which was in your post.

Adam

hoping Fred is OK with this answer...

[9thdoctor]

Would it be immoral to create a conspiracy theory I know to be false, and then unleash it on the world?

Are you talking about writing something fictional like Foucault’s Pendulum, The Crying of Lot 49, or (egads!) The Da Vinci Code? In the last case, the author tried to claim the book was based on facts, making him a permanent target for mockery, albeit one with an ample bank account.

Or are you thinking of taking the David Icke route? He was a sportscaster who suddenly began claiming the world is run by reptiles in human disguise, making himself a permanent laughingstock.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=glmd7AtnQrI

There’s a good Oscar Wilde quote about bad art always starting with good intentions (or maybe it’s the inverse).

[Fred Cole]

Why'd you post that?

First, because I can...lol.

Second, as an FYI for us folks who do not know the details and history of homeopathy which was in your post.

Adam

hoping Fred is OK with this answer...

No, I'm very ok with it. I was just mystified.

Not as grand as the DaVinci code or David Icke. Something smaller, more subtle and non profit making.

Btw, I love David Icke.

[Reidy]

Oliver Stone, Michael Moore, Hilary Clinton, Robert Kennedy Jr. and the DNC, to name a few, have beaten you to it. A list like that proves that it's at least tacky.

[Xray]

Would it be immoral to create a conspiracy theory I know to be false, and then unleash it on the world?

What do you hope to gain from asking this purely rhetorical question?

[equality72521]

Disinformation is not immoral. Selene and I usually see eye to eye on most things however in this case we diverge. This is war people, we are in a philosophical war to the death. To answer the question it would depend on a number of things, not the least of which is, why, and what.

[Xray]

Well, I don't wish I wasn't moral, because that's a non sensical statement. But it bugs me that I sweat my ass off to eek out a living when homeopaths make so much money.

Not every homeopath is a deceptive charlatan. Keep in mind that many who practice homeopathy really believe it works.

Disinformation is not immoral. Selene and I usually see eye to eye on most things however in this case we diverge. This is war people, we are in a philosophical war to the death.

I don't understand why you would call the exchange of diverging opinions on a question about morality "war to the death".(?)

[bolding mine]

Are you talking about writing something fictional like Foucault’s Pendulum, The Crying of Lot 49, or (egads!) The Da Vinci Code?

Aah, the mysterious 'Tristero' in The Crying of Lot 49! Still vividly in mind since I've read it only recently (your tactic of getting people curious to read it worked quite well in my case). ;)

Edited July 16, 2011 by Xray

[anthony]

Or are you thinking of taking the David Icke route? He was a sportscaster who suddenly began claiming the world is run by reptiles in human disguise, making himself a permanent laughingstock.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=glmd7AtnQrI

There’s a good Oscar Wilde quote about bad art always starting with good intentions (or maybe it’s the inverse).

Terrifying. Shape-shifters. To consider that these people live amongst us.

One moment they look and sound like decent, serious humans, then they morph into slavering lunatics, and a million other loonies buy their books.

[Xray]

Or are you thinking of taking the David Icke route? He was a sportscaster who suddenly began claiming the world is run by reptiles in human disguise, making himself a permanent laughingstock.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=glmd7AtnQrI

There’s a good Oscar Wilde quote about bad art always starting with good intentions (or maybe it’s the inverse).

Terrifying. Shape-shifters. To consider that these people live amongst us.

One moment they look and sound like decent, serious humans, then they morph into slavering lunatics, and a million other loonies buy their books.

Is a fully rational society possible at all with so much irrational substrate still clogging the human mind?

[anthony]

Is a fully rational society possible at all with so much irrational substrate still clogging the human mind?

Hmm,

I like that - "irrational substrate clogging the mind." Mind if I borrow it sometime?

As long as it's not you or I, Angela. One at a time.

Rational selfishness, yeah?

(By Jove, I think she's getting it!)

[Selene]

Disinformation is not immoral. Selene and I usually see eye to eye on most things however in this case we diverge. This is war people, we are in a philosophical war to the death. To answer the question it would depend on a number of things, not the least of which is, why, and what.

Alan:

Whoa! Don't "understand my answer too well!"

My answer was that it is immoral. Not whether an immoral act, could be implemented in a given set of situations.

Adam

[9thdoctor]

One moment they look and sound like decent, serious humans, then they morph into slavering lunatics, and a million other loonies buy their books.

I don't think it was a good career move for Icke, and I doubt he's sold millions of books. He was probably on an acid trip or something like that when he came up with his story. Is it really so different from J. Neil Schulman's mind-morph with God?

The big question for Fred Cole is: how do you plan to make money with your scheme? That'll probably determine its moral status. The people who made up the Flying Spaghetti Monster deserve applause and sizable book sales.

[Xray]

Hmm,

I like that - "irrational substrate clogging the mind." Mind if I borrow it sometime?

Not at all.

As long as it's not you or I, Angela. One at a time.

Rational selfishness, yeah?

(By Jove, I think she's getting it!)

While I personally find the idea of rational selfishness quite appealing, I think it is more an epistemological than a moral category and imo herein lies the problem when trying to work with the term in ethics.

I think we can all agree on selfishness as such being a universal human drive.

Now when we examine the various acts of selfishness in terms of their (ir)rationality, it quickly turns out that irrational selfish acts have to do with a misinpretation of reality, (like wanting to become an opera singer without being able to carry a tune) which is really an epistemological, not an ethical problem.

Therefore the issue of irrational selfishness has far more to do with not facing reality than with faking reality.

What's more, within the Objectivist philosophy, the virtue of rational selfishness can clash with another dominant principle: not to fake reality. If rational self-interest refers to what is 'in a person's best interest', and the person, in a specific situation, profits from faking reality more than from telling the truth, there would be a contradiction due to conflicting premises.

Per Rand, if one gets a contradiction, it means one of the premises must be false. Which premise is false in this case?

From ND's post:

In the last case, the author [of The Da Vinci Code] tried to claim the book was based on facts, making him a permanent target for mockery, albeit one with an ample bank account.

Suppose the author told a deliberate lie here, he would be faking reality. The ample bank account he got from his bestseller would make him a success in the book business though. For this is clearly no Keating-like second-hander but obvioulsy produced that stuff himself.

In addition, we would have to build in another Objectivist principle into all that: passing moral judgement.

So how do we proceed? Do we have an ethical Objectivist premise here topping all others and from which we can then work our way 'down'? (The ultimate value, "man's life" is of no use here, since this is no issue of life and death).

Edited July 16, 2011 by Xray

[Xray]

Would it be immoral to create a conspiracy theory I know to be false, and then unleash it on the world?

What do you hope to gain from asking this purely rhetorical question?

The big question for Fred Cole is: how do you plan to make money with your scheme? That'll probably determine its moral status.

Ah, now I'm finally getting it: Fred probably has considered using the faked conspiracy theory as a business idea! (Correct me if I'm wrong, Fred).

The people who made up the Flying Spaghetti Monster deserve applause and sizable book sales.

They call themselves Pastafarians, lol!.

Edited July 16, 2011 by Xray