Grey lies

On Tuesday the general consensus of our group was that lying was bad, but there are exceptions. We decided also that there are less strict circumstances in which lying is permissible. One thought that came to mind was foreign relations. Take for example, if Barack Obama is having dinner with other key international players, and is asked by one of the men if their suit looks good. Barack will respond with yes, whether he actually believes this is so or not. So, lies based on opinion can cause no harm, and thus are o.k.

However, most of the time lies are not ok. These discussions have lead me to stray from my usual stance on things, a more Kantian approach. If lying is bad, it is bad in and of itself, and it is bad in every situation. Thus, if people did not lie, it would be better for society because it would make the covenants formed by people more reliable, and in general would make society easy to live in. I guess that is hard to prove, seeing as it is just an ideal situation. However, here comes the curve ball: whether public officials lie or tell the truth from here on out has no effect on the public opinion.

The fact that society is driven to believe that what they are hearing from the government is only partially true is what ruins the ideal. On top of that, there will be outliers, you cannot convince everyone to think the same way. Insofar as there is a need for this situation in which are government does not lie to us for trivial reasons, there is no mechanism to drive it into existence. Perhaps, assuming we suddenly "got smart" and decided to go with this 'all truth, all the time' policy, there would be a decline in scandals involving lying politicians.

It really is a grey area. You cannot choose to have lying public officials or not to, because there is always going to be that one circumstance in which you would need to lie in order to fulfill some greater outcome. This is similar to torture in that respect, but should we put similar restrictions on it? I mean, from my understanding we concluded with Sullivan, saying that there needs to be a ban on all torture and that if people feel the need to absolutely use it, they must be willing to suffer the consequences. Should people be held accountable for their lies? I think the obvious answer is yes. However, it could be another dirty hands dilemma, where the system forces them to lie in order to achieve the agenda they are after. I guess, the lying situation is hard to determine even given the motivational factors associated with it.