What if you are Jewish and are trying to stop a Hitler from coming to power and the best means would be to spread a deliberate lie about him. Are you saying that the worse the outcome would be, the less likely you would be to lie?
Nobody in this discussion is confronting a present or potential totalitarian state bent on murder so this feels like a tangent. In fact, this is a hypothetical that very few people are ever confronted with and therefore it isn’t relevant to a question of practical ethics. Very few people are skilled enough at predicting the future to know when the situation is dire or whether dishonesty will work; very few people are skilled enough manipulators to pull it off.
For the range of social issues the participants in this conversation are likely to confront, I think it’s a good policy to be more careful and honest the higher the stakes. Among other things, the higher the stakes, the likelier a lie or mistake is to be caught. And being caught lying doesn’t generally achieve any goal of the liar.
Obamacare only became law because Obama lied by saying that under the law “If you like your health care plan, you can keep it.” PolitiFact made this their lie of the year.
I suspect that many on the left knew at the time Obama was lying about this but kept quiet because they really wanted the law to pass. They won.
I suspect that many on the left knew at the time Obama was lying about this but kept quiet because they really wanted the law to pass. They won.
[upvoted for giving a crisp recent, and plausible example of people getting away, at least in the short term, with dishonesty. I was a little squeamish about the politicization of the topic but I think it’s hard to avoid giving a real political example in a conversation about political dishonesty]
I take the point that there’s a complicated collective-action problem here where if enough people repeat something they wish were true, it can become relatively accepted, at least for a while.
The catch is that, as happened here, people often get caught having been dishonest. And we will see how painful the consequences are for those people personally and politically.
Obamacare only became law because Obama lied by saying that under the law “If you like your health care plan, you can keep it.”
Obama doesn’t use truth as a strategy but that doesn’t change the fact that Cato was a very successful politician when it comes to people respecting his positions.
I suspect that many on the left knew at the time Obama was lying about this but kept quiet because they really wanted the law to pass. They won.
The didn’t lose but they also didn’t get the single payer health care they wanted.
I think US politics is ready for someone like Cato to come up and take it over. You don’t win in politics by telling a bit less lies than your opponents. On the other hand actually being honest has it’s advantages.
Nobody in this discussion is confronting a present or potential totalitarian state bent on murder so this feels like a tangent. In fact, this is a hypothetical that very few people are ever confronted with and therefore it isn’t relevant to a question of practical ethics. Very few people are skilled enough at predicting the future to know when the situation is dire or whether dishonesty will work; very few people are skilled enough manipulators to pull it off.
For the range of social issues the participants in this conversation are likely to confront, I think it’s a good policy to be more careful and honest the higher the stakes. Among other things, the higher the stakes, the likelier a lie or mistake is to be caught. And being caught lying doesn’t generally achieve any goal of the liar.
Obamacare only became law because Obama lied by saying that under the law “If you like your health care plan, you can keep it.” PolitiFact made this their lie of the year.
I suspect that many on the left knew at the time Obama was lying about this but kept quiet because they really wanted the law to pass. They won.
[upvoted for giving a crisp recent, and plausible example of people getting away, at least in the short term, with dishonesty. I was a little squeamish about the politicization of the topic but I think it’s hard to avoid giving a real political example in a conversation about political dishonesty]
I take the point that there’s a complicated collective-action problem here where if enough people repeat something they wish were true, it can become relatively accepted, at least for a while.
The catch is that, as happened here, people often get caught having been dishonest. And we will see how painful the consequences are for those people personally and politically.
Obama doesn’t use truth as a strategy but that doesn’t change the fact that Cato was a very successful politician when it comes to people respecting his positions.
The didn’t lose but they also didn’t get the single payer health care they wanted.
I think US politics is ready for someone like Cato to come up and take it over. You don’t win in politics by telling a bit less lies than your opponents. On the other hand actually being honest has it’s advantages.