First I would like to distinguish that a lie is a lie. We should not think that a white lie should be any better. Alright.
Bok goes after justifying lies for the public good and in doing so dips her hands in some mud. Another week in political ethics, another tough subject.
Starting off with three different kinds of lies; avoidable harm, a "non issue" lie and protection of secrets, Bok tells us that these subject often mingle with one another. I think the problem that we have on saying dirty hands are inherent in politics, is that we always think of lies as bad things. If lies are good, and lies are always told (for the public good), are politics inherently dirty? There will not always be lies for the the public good in politics. One lie I would think justifiable would be our government and the present economic crisis.
Our government has information that if we do not support an economic stimulus bill, the Unite States is doomed. Our congresspeople tells us to support this bill to keep the cash flowing, knowing that if it did not pass, an economic collapse would be absolute. Would it be justifiable, and for the public good to tell a lie, and say support this stimulus bill to keep cash in the banks and not say support this bill or "Armageddon!" If that was the case, I think of the old film scene from "Its a Wonderful Life," where a run on the bank happened. If was for the public good that our congresspeople told us to support the stimulus bill and not digress all the details.
Should we hold politicians responsible when they tell a lie that they are going to one country then show up in another. Ex, Bush going to Crawford but then a surprise trip to the troops in Bagdhad. I think I lie is a lie and for the safety of our own president it was an integral part of the plan to tell a minor lie, so in essence I am acknowledging that lies are o.k. as long as they are petty and not... say... Dick Cheney on "Meet the Press," exclaiming, "we do not torture."
Lies for personal gain also do not sit well with me. To get elected I don't think you have to lie unless we include all campaign promises into one category of lies. Although, I do think as Bok pointed out LBJ and Roosevelt, lying to get elected is not in the public good because, as in the example of LBJ it deprived the public of voting for a non escalation of the war in Vietnam.
How does one like Bok, put safeguards onto lies? No war or focusing event are the same. She knows that rules like safeguards would be "hard to satisfy." In the end I agree with Bok that some lies are o.k. I think I can still say that politics are not inherently dirty and still support some lies if they are for the common good.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Adam, I think where I (and Bok) would disagree with you in regards to your hypothetical Armageddon Economy situation is the public's ability to handle such information. Bok says, "The powerful tell lies believing that they have greater than ordinary understanding of what is at stake; very often, they regard their [constituents] as having inadequate judgment, or as likely to respond in the wrong way to truthful information."
ReplyDeleteI think this is too often the case with our government, most recently (and especially, in my experience) the Bush administration. It has been assumed that the public is less capable of dispassionately considering the situation at hand, and that if we knew the truth we would react negatively and in an impassioned fit chaos would ensue. Now, we all know public opinion is fickle, but it is my opinion that this derives in great measure from the public not knowing what to believe.
Take the economic situation you gave, for example. The government could (a) lie and say things aren't as bad as they really are and use deception to get the measure passed, or (b) comprehensively explain why the stimulus plan is needed and assure the people that it is the best way to avoid severe economic times.
If that happened today, people would likely become disoriented and panic, but this is not because people are mindless sheep panicking at the first sign of trouble. Instead, it is because they will have concluded that if the GOVERNMENT is actually admitting that it's this bad, it must actually be worse. If the government were in the habit of telling the truth, even in difficult times, it would be more able to tell the truth and retain the confidence of the people. Thus, if we had an honest government, it could tell us the truth about the necessity of a stimulus and we could handle it and keep our confidence in dire times. However, as it is we have no faith in our government and therefore the government faces the risk of no confidence if it tells the truth.
It's a painful, despicable irony that could be avoided if the government had not abused its power to deceive in the past. In my view, this strengthens Bok's argument that deception of the public should be avoided rigorously and can only be justified under the most extreme circumstances.
Thank you for commenting Jon, but I would articulate my argument with three option. (A) The government lies to say times are perfect and that there is no financial problem, (B) Support the stimulus bill, but were are not going to tell you everything behind it (as to not tell the public full information ex. closed media coverage of banking hearings in the senate), (C) the public is told the true reality of of our economy. A & C did not happen, but the government chose a middle ground, such as option (B). I think of (A) & (B) as both lies to the greater public. Although the government did not flat out lie, full information to the masses was not available to the public. The speed at which the bailout bill passed was extraordinary.
ReplyDeleteThe government chose option (B) in October or November when the bailout bill passed, and as you stated above it is clear public confidence in our treasury has eroded significantly. There is a fuzzy middle ground that gets a little muddy for me.