As if invading & taking over Iraq wasn't about oil

[Informal Logic]

The difference I have seen is that the right say they are protecting the "greater good" and the left say they are protecting you/<insert popular interest group here>.

After removing any confusion regarding bad people (Saddam?) and various examples such as that of self-defense with how to define the "greater good," and substituting “Bush supporters” with “right wing” people, we can get back to the main points:

You don't think Bush, or even his supporters, would prefer that it wasn't necessary to deceive every now and then? Do you think that they just enjoy lying to people?

The matter of why it is necessary to deceive, or should we say why Americans would not have accepted the truth so had to be deceived, is summed up as follows:

if invading irak was really for the greater good then bush didn't had to to lie... and may be, its ok for me or you to lie, but it's not ok that the president of the world most powerfull nation to invade countrys based on lies...

After all, it's supposed to be a democracy and what the mayority wants should be done.. if the mayority decide ,express themselfs or vote based on lies,, then it's not a democracy. it's a dictatorship

If a police officer is arrested for anything, even a DUI, he/she will lose their job, because it is their job to uphold the law, and cannot rise above the law. The highest-ranking official in our country, who also is the leader of the free world, therefore should be held to high standards. The American people also are responsible for practicing good citizenship as their role in a democracy. If right wing people who support Bush understood this, I doubt he would have been reelected.

 

[loseyourname]

So neither defender of lying for the “greater good” in this thread is a “Bush supporter.” Sorry about the incorrect assumption, and I suppose it also would be wrong to now assume you both voted for Kerry?

I voted for Bush. What I meant was that I don't support many of his policies and/or actions. I just support more of his policies and actions than I did Kerry's policies and actions. Voting isn't as straightforward as "I like this guy, I like everything he does, so I'm voting for him." I can't stand Bush and it pained me to vote for him. I just didn't see a better alternative.

Does it matter? It does from the original line of reasoning regarding justification of lying for the “greater good” as specifically connected to Bush and those who support him.

It matter if two conditions obtain: 1) You believe that lying 'for the greater good' is always the wrong thing to do, and 2) you believe that only Bush supporters feel the other way. Even if these conditions obtain and whether I not I support Bush suddenly becomes relevant to SOS's personal inquiry, it still isn't relevant to the matter of whether or not my position is correct. That does and should stand alone.

There were general concepts being put forth by more than one member, so sometimes a general reply is appropriate.

I don't mean to criticize your method of response. I just sincerely wish that people would address me individually because it would make it easier to respond without misunderstanding. You addressed me personally this time and so I was able to tell exactly what you were responding to. That makes it easier for me to know what to respond to and how to respond. Call me selfish.

I’ve read the forum rules, but can’t help notice criticism about how other members post, and how you would like members to post, including this:
The idea of forums is that members will have different ideas, different styles for expressing ideas, and different ways to express their ideas. As long as the rules of the forum are followed, why should everyone cater to your dictates? Maybe you really just don’t like what these members post.

I don't like it when what Vanesch posts is a clear misunderstanding of my intention that could have easily been cleared up had he simply read the comment in context with all of my other comments along with what was being responded to. Had he done so, he could have seen that what he quoted had absolutely nothing to do with how I feel a regime should behave, making what he said in response completely irrelevant, inapplicable, unnecessary, and a waste of his and my time. Don't get me wrong. If it's on-topic and in accordance with forum regulations, he has every right to post it, but it's still bad for discussion. I have every right to point that out.

So back to the thread…a new conclusion would be that Bush supporters are not the only people who feel lying is justified if for a “greater good” (though I have yet to hear this from “left-wing” members or otherwise), but it remains a point I disagree with.

Fair enough. I don't think you've provided an adequate justification of this position, but it's not like this is a straightforward, deductive matter. Either of us could easily be wrong.

 

[vanesch]

Read my posts in context, Vanesch. The example from the ethics class was meant only to point out why I thought the original question posed by SOS was too broadly worded. I posted in quite a bit of detail how I feel a ruling regime should behave with respect to honesty and deception separately, and the two are not related. Respond to each in turn.

Well, I did read through the whole thread (maybe not everything in detail before posting).

I think our fundamental point of difference is this:

I'd even go so far as to say that 90% (rough estimate based on no stats, admittedly) of the people out there agree in practice (if not in principle) with deceiving, even for their own good.

I can tell you, I don't want to be lied to. Ever. I can accept not to be told, if I'm not concerned. I find it disturbing that people would like otherwise, and nevertheless require, for themselves, some "power of decision" ; that was what I was trying to outline in my example. If you are misinformed, you're bound to make decisions which are not in agreement with what you think is fundamentally right, even concerning that so-called "higher goal".

To come back to your example of your ethics professor. Now imagine that the "murderer" was in fact a former policeman, against whom the "professor in the office" had complotted because that policeman discovered that the professor was in fact a leader in a terrorist organisation, but that the complot was so very well organized that the policeman realizes that he cannot ever convince anybody before a terrible terrorist attack will take place, organized by the professor. So the policeman has decided to kill the professor, even if afterwards, he knows that he will be punished etc... He is sacrificing himself for a "higher good". So the ex policeman comes and asks you if the professor is inside because he needs to kill him. Again, should you lie or not ?

The point is that you cannot make a decision which will "serve the higher good" if you are misinformed, and so cannot do the policeman if you lie to him.

Another point, altogether, is: who is in the right place to decide what is "a higher goal" to achieve ? I would think that one of the pillars of a democratic society is that NOBODY by himself has that right, only the people have. But in order for those people to be able to make a decision (by voting) they need to know some correct information. If all information is subject to be desinformation for the "higher good" they are supposed to install, how the hell do you hope that that system will work ?

EDIT: If you think it is, in certain specific cases, "justified to lie about X to obtain agreement on Y which you consider a higher good" then this is maybe only an indication that the necessity to lie about X is a sign that Y, which you consider a higher good, is finally not viewed that way by the people you're lying to.

In the specific example of Iraq: if the higher good Y is in this case "remove a dictator by waging war" and X is "dictator S is threatening you with nuclear weapons", then if it is necessary to lie about X (he's in fact not threatening your) in order to wage war, to realize Y, then MAYBE, just maybe, Y is not, after all, a consensus of what constitutes a higher goal. Maybe most people think that removing a dictator is just NOT worth waging a war. In their book, this is NOT a higher good.
But maybe it IS. Maybe there WAS a consensus that Y is indeed the right thing to do. In that case, lying about X is not necessary!

So, there are two possibilities: or, there is a clear consensus that Y IS a higher good. In that case, lying about X is not necessary (and even harmful). Or there is NO SUCH CONCENSUS. In that case, you shouldn't consider Y as being a higher goal to be pursued ; it is just the opinion of a few people in power, and apparently not a consensus opinion. Lying about X is, again, harmful if you believe in democratic values, because it distorts the true opinion of people about the "goodness" of Y.

The thing becomes even more ironic when Y is extended into "removing a dictator in order to instore democratic values", but this is another story...

I think there are 2 acceptable attitudes, for EVERYBODY, including gouvernment:
1) tell the truth to their very best ability.
2) shut up.

In all other cases, the system fails miserably and will be rotten, serving the hidden agendas (redefining the "higher goals") of individuals which misuse the system.

 

[loseyourname]

Well, I did read through the whole thread (maybe not everything in detail before posting).

I think our fundamental point of difference is this:

I can tell you, I don't want to be lied to. Ever.

That's fine, but even then, what you posted was not a political comment on my part. It was again just a response to SOS's initial question and why I felt it was too broadly worded. How can 'lying for the greater good' be considered a bad thing by many people when those same people lie for their own good? I don't mean political manuevering here, and I should have been more clear on that. I'm speaking of small lies like telling your wife she doensn't look fat in order to avoid a fight. Or, in a case no one will disagree with, lying to save the life of your professor. It's things like this that make me wary of people who say things like "I don't want to be lied to. Ever." Perhaps you're being sincere. Perhaps you wouldn't even lie to save your professor. Personally, I don't believe that because I don't believe you to be a rotten person. I think you're just making a reactive and overly broad statement without deeply thinking about it. First off, what I think you really mean is that you don't want an administration to lie to you. Ever. Even in that case, however, consider the scenario of an extraterrestrial race making contact with the government and announcing intentions to invade. Studies have indicated that revealing this to the general public would cause a widespread panic, resulting in a good deal of death and destruction. There is also a small military faction that believes it has a good chance of warding off the invasion before it occurs. What do you think the administration should do in this case? I certainly don't think they should be honest with the public. I hope that you'd feel the same way. In which case, there are circumstances under which you wouldn't mind the government lying to you. In believing that you and the other posters in here like SOS and 2Cents are reasonable people, I think that your real objection is not with government's lying per se, but specifically about certain lies that have been told, in particular the perception that Bush lied to bring the US into a war. Fine then. Say that. I just don't like overly broad rhetorical statements like "I don't want to be lied to. Ever." And "lying for the greater good is bad." Absolutes like do not work in the real world. There are always exceptions, sometimes a great many exceptions.

 

[loseyourname]

By the way, I'll respond to your more specific objections later. Thank you for posting them. I mean it.

 

[vanesch]

How can 'lying for the greater good' be considered a bad thing by many people when those same people lie for their own good?

Ah, I misunderstood that. I had read: when those same people WANT TO BE LIED TO for their own good.

I don't mean political manuevering here, and I should have been more clear on that. I'm speaking of small lies like telling your wife she doensn't look fat in order to avoid a fight. Or, in a case no one will disagree with, lying to save the life of your professor.

I really try hard never to do that (I mean lying), even to my wife (and yes, we have a lot of arguments :-)) But of course there is a limit between what I would call a "lie" and what is just polite and nice social behaviour.
Lying has a purpose: you give wrong information because you want to influence the behaviour and decisions of the one you're lying to. If someone asks you if you're ok (even if you have some problems) then it is not "lying" to just say: "Hi Jack, I'm ok, and you ?"

If I'm in a situation where I'm supposed to be lying for the greater good, I just say I don't want to talk about it.

It's things like this that make me wary of people who say things like "I don't want to be lied to. Ever." Perhaps you're being sincere. Perhaps you wouldn't even lie to save your professor. Personally, I don't believe that because I don't believe you to be a rotten person.

Look at my example concerning the professor :-) He's in fact a terrorist.
And you're forgetting that I leave an option: that is NOT TO SAY ANYTHING.

consider the scenario of an extraterrestrial race making contact with the government and announcing intentions to invade. Studies have indicated that revealing this to the general public would cause a widespread panic, resulting in a good deal of death and destruction.
...

Yes, the gouvernment shouldn't say anything. That's not lying. I can accept secrets. In fact, it would even be very silly to lie in this case: imagine suddenly a lot of state-funded ads appearing everywhere: 'NO WE WILL NOT BE INVADED BY AGGRESSIVE EXTRATERRESTRIALS !' :-)

And yes, there are always exceptions. But those exceptions should remain exceptional, so we shouldn't fix rules of when it is acceptable to lie :-). The reason why lying is bad in general is not because jesus said so or something of the kind. The reason why lying is bad is that it invalidates a communication channel. And the more important the communication channel, the worse is its loss ; the worst of all being the gouvernment's communication channel to the people.

Look at Bush. Imagine now that he REALLY has some intelligence information that, say, Iran has some weapons of mass destruction, and that there REALLY is a plan to, say, attack Western cities with it. Who is going to believe him now ?

 

[loseyourname]

Look at my example concerning the professor :-) He's in fact a terrorist.

I actually didn't give a full description of the situation. The gunman is a classmate that you know got a bad grade and intends to kill the professor because he is disgruntled. The other problem is that a covert counterterrorism agent would not come in waving a gun announcing his intention to kill the professor. I think in the example given, you are justified in lying.

And you're forgetting that I leave an option: that is NOT TO SAY ANYTHING.

If it honestly eases your conscience to do so, but there's a good chance that if you say "I don't know," the gunman will take a peek himself. Seems to me the best thing to do is to just lie.

Yes, the gouvernment shouldn't say anything. That's not lying. I can accept secrets.

Fair enough. It's just that oftentimes, people will ask questions and the government will be forced to deny things that are true, which is lying. My example is a bad one since it isn't likely that the press will come up and ask whether or not we're vulnerable to an alien invasion. You never know, though.

And yes, there are always exceptions. But those exceptions should remain exceptional, so we shouldn't fix rules of when it is acceptable to lie :-).

Of course. I'm not advocating systematic deception. I'm just saying that it can be necessary in certain circumstances. We can't just say that it can never be done, period.

Look at Bush. Imagine now that he REALLY has some intelligence information that, say, Iran has some weapons of mass destruction, and that there REALLY is a plan to, say, attack Western cities with it. Who is going to believe him now ?

Good point. Although in this particular case, it isn't entirely clear that Bush lied. He may have sincerely believed that Iraq had WMDs or at least that they would at some point if we allowed Saddam to remain in power. He might have even had good reasons to believe so, even though it is obvious at this point that he overstated his case and was overzealous in his rush to go in. It certainly seems that he had ulterior motives. Whether or not those motives were the overall good of the middle east, the potential downfall of occupations in Palestine and Lebanon, and perhaps revolution in Iran, or just control of a large oil supply, depends on who you ask. I wouldn't put either past him.

 

[vanesch]

I'm just saying that it can be necessary in certain circumstances. We can't just say that it can never be done, period.

But we SHOULD say that it can never be done. In that case, when it is necessary, that will then be an exception to this rule

cheers,
Patrick.

 

[russ_watters]

But we SHOULD say that it can never be done. In that case, when it is necessary, that will then be an exception to this rule

That doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

 

[vanesch]

That doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

But it does
An exception is something that doesn't follow the rule. So if you want "lying" to be an exception, you shouldn't make a rule that allows you to do so in certain circumstances, because then you make a rule of it, and it's not an exception anymore

Ok, for those that have a hard time following, an example:
Do you agree that you should never murder your mom and dad (against their own will - to avoid all useless discussion) ?
You are going to say now, well... there might sometimes be an exceptional circumstance where killing your mom and dad is a good thing. For instance, if your mom and dad are running a succesfull concentration and extermination camp.
Now, should we make a rule, that "one should not kill one's mom and dad, except if they run a concentration camp" ?

I think that moms and dads that run concentration camps are rather rare, and that you could potentially think up of other examples in that category. And it avoids advocates of people who do kill their parents to play on the theme that it is not completely excluded that the accused was convinced that his parents WERE running a concentration camp...

So let us stick to the rule: "you should never kill your mom and dad".

And there could be exceptional exceptions to the rule, such as there are to every rule, no matter how well-tinkered.

In the same way, I think it is a good thing to make as a rule: "one shouldn't lie". And NOT to state: "one should never lie, except if it is for a greater good".

 

[Informal Logic]

...In the same way, I think it is a good thing to make as a rule: "one shouldn't lie". And NOT to state: "one should never lie, except if it is for a greater good".

Exactly. But it probably isn't fruitful to continue debating how this conclusion is reached. This rationalization of the right-wing exists because it justifies the right-wing agenda. The right wing argument would change if this thought process were used to justify a "greater good" that they don't agree is the "greater good."