The "noble lie"

[Citizen James]

Some people believe in a concept of the "noble lie" - that is a lie that convinces people to agree to an act that is in the national interest (with the assumption that they know best what is in the national interest), but the people would not go along with were the truth told - is not only acceptable, but good governing policy.

What do you folks think?

Are the people too shallow and foolish to weigh the facts of national and international policy for themselves?   Is the concept of Democracy flawed, in that we would be better off being run by those in the power elite who know better than the common rabble?    Are there exceptions where a lie is acceptable, as long as it is not common practice, or is "no comment" the only proper way to protect national secrets?

What think you?

[dazzleman]

I'd love to say that there is never any excuse for lying to the public, that a leader should put the facts before the public and let the people decide the best policies based upon the truth.

This would work well if one assumes a fully informed and engaged public.  We all know this is not the case, so in critical situations, the view that the public must always be told the truth presents a few problems. 

One, the public is fairly inattentive and ignorant of certain issues.  Also, the public can be very short-sighted and unwilling and/or unable to see the negative consequences of following the policy they may prefer.

The best example I can think of the necessity to lie to the public in a critical situation is the early World War II period.  The American public was isolationist, and unwilling to face up to the ramifications of a German victory.  At any given time, President Roosevelt was ahead of the public in recognizing the need for a stronger military, aid to Britain, convoying in the north Atlantic, etc.  In all these areas, Roosevelt lied to and deceived the public until the public perception caught up to events.  Had he not done this, the change in public perception would have been too slow, and by the time the public woke up, the US would have been alone and isolated in a hostile world, most of which was controlled by the Nazis.

So in this case, it turned to be a very good thing that Roosevelt tricked and deceived the public about his real intentions and his policies.  If the public had known the full story about what he was doing, he probably would have been defeated in 1940.

And the public is very childish in that it will blame its politicians for bad outcomes even if those politicians did what the public wanted.  It's like the kid who was spoiled, and then blames his parents as an adult for not disciplining him.

The whole concept of the noble lie is a slippery slope, but it must be available for certain critical situations. 

[Gustaf]

I think the term noble lie was coined by Adolf Hitler.

Yeah, it does apply. Pretty much every moral principle can, at times, be ignored.

[John Dibble]

Well, as much as I'd like to say that it would never be acceptable, I can't say that. There are some situations where it would be the correct course of action, however I think the only way to justify it is if the government does it with the intent of protecting the rights of it's citizens.

[dazzleman]

I think the term noble lie was coined by Adolf Hitler.

Yeah, it does apply. Pretty much every moral principle can, at times, be ignored.

Sometimes, situations occur where it is imperative to ignore rules or principles.  The trick is knowing when that's really the case, and not using inappropriate situations as a rationalization to ignore moral principles that you should be following.  It's a slippery slope.

[Gustaf]

I think the term noble lie was coined by Adolf Hitler.

Yeah, it does apply. Pretty much every moral principle can, at times, be ignored.

Sometimes, situations occur where it is imperative to ignore rules or principles.  The trick is knowing when that's really the case, and not using inappropriate situations as a rationalization to ignore moral principles that you should be following.  It's a slippery slope.

Yeah, exactly, I was too lazy too spell taht out.
It is also what separates great political leaders from worse ones - they know when to make a stand and when to cut a deal.

[JohnFKennedy]

Sometimes, situations occur where it is imperative to ignore rules or principles.  The trick is knowing when that's really the case, and not using inappropriate situations as a rationalization to ignore moral principles that you should be following.  It's a slippery slope.

What if we are dealing with a departure from legal principles?

I think in a system of common law that a departure from legal principles would be wholly unwise. While sometimes situations may occur where it would be best to depart from such principles, the precedent set by that departure could have greater negative consequences.

[Citizen James]

I think the term noble lie was coined by Adolf Hitler.

Yeah, it does apply. Pretty much every moral principle can, at times, be ignored.

I think you may be thinking of the big lie which was started by Hitler, then refined by Goebbels to infer that if you lie big enough, loud enough, and often enough, people will believe you.   How much that goes on in modern politics is another matter of debate.

My understanding is that the idea of the "noble lie" comes from Plato, and is a part of Straussian philosophy which is one of the major influences on the neoconservative movement.

I'll confess that I believe that deception may at times be the lesser evil in some circumstances, but it is a very slippery slope and one not to be taken lightly.   Better in most instances is simply "no comment" (such as, say, on specifics of ongoing millitary operations), and let the speculation lead where it will.  (which led to brilliant misinformation in the opening part of the land segment of the first gulf war).

[dazzleman]

Sometimes, situations occur where it is imperative to ignore rules or principles.  The trick is knowing when that's really the case, and not using inappropriate situations as a rationalization to ignore moral principles that you should be following.  It's a slippery slope.

What if we are dealing with a departure from legal principles?

I think in a system of common law that a departure from legal principles would be wholly unwise. While sometimes situations may occur where it would be best to depart from such principles, the precedent set by that departure could have greater negative consequences.

It's a balance.  I think you are right in most cases, but the law must be subordinate to the purpose it is trying to serve.  There will be times when following the letter of the law will undermine the intended and legitimate purpose, and in that case, it can be imperative to bend or break the law.  But it's true that being too loose with that can set a bad precedent.

[Gustaf]

I think the term noble lie was coined by Adolf Hitler.

Yeah, it does apply. Pretty much every moral principle can, at times, be ignored.

I think you may be thinking of the big lie which was started by Hitler, then refined by Goebbels to infer that if you lie big enough, loud enough, and often enough, people will believe you.   How much that goes on in modern politics is another matter of debate.

My understanding is that the idea of the "noble lie" comes from Plato, and is a part of Straussian philosophy which is one of the major influences on the neoconservative movement.

I'll confess that I believe that deception may at times be the lesser evil in some circumstances, but it is a very slippery slope and one not to be taken lightly.   Better in most instances is simply "no comment" (such as, say, on specifics of ongoing millitary operations), and let the speculation lead where it will.  (which led to brilliant misinformation in the opening part of the land segment of the first gulf war).

No, there's a Hitler quote that goes something like "There are necessary lies". That was what I was thinking of. Though Plato definitely rings a bell too...

[John Dibble]

I think the term noble lie was coined by Adolf Hitler.

Yeah, it does apply. Pretty much every moral principle can, at times, be ignored.

Sometimes, situations occur where it is imperative to ignore rules or principles.  The trick is knowing when that's really the case, and not using inappropriate situations as a rationalization to ignore moral principles that you should be following.  It's a slippery slope.

I don't think it's so much ignoring rules or principles, more that you have to forgoe following lesser ones to ensure that the greater, more important ones are followed. Since you can't always follow every principle at the same time, you have to sometimes pick which ones are the most important or you will fail in your endeavors. Of course, if you ignore all the moral principles then the lie cannot really be justified, and if you outright start ignoring the lesser principles you likely will eventually ignore the greater ones - as you say, slippery slope. So, no matter what you should never outright ignore any moral principle, rather all should be weighed first.

[Gustaf]

I think the term noble lie was coined by Adolf Hitler.

Yeah, it does apply. Pretty much every moral principle can, at times, be ignored.

Sometimes, situations occur where it is imperative to ignore rules or principles.  The trick is knowing when that's really the case, and not using inappropriate situations as a rationalization to ignore moral principles that you should be following.  It's a slippery slope.

I don't think it's so much ignoring rules or principles, more that you have to forgoe following lesser ones to ensure that the greater, more important ones are followed. Since you can't always follow every principle at the same time, you have to sometimes pick which ones are the most important or you will fail in your endeavors. Of course, if you ignore all the moral principles then the lie cannot really be justified, and if you outright start ignoring the lesser principles you likely will eventually ignore the greater ones - as you say, slippery slope. So, no matter what you should never outright ignore any moral principle, rather all should be weighed first.

True, but there is also the issue of survival, or simply choosing a lesser evil. THat is, "not breaking the principle would lead to even less principles people gaining power". Also, people without cinvictions are usually better with power than people with wrong convictions...

[dazzleman]

True, but there is also the issue of survival, or simply choosing a lesser evil. THat is, "not breaking the principle would lead to even less principles people gaining power". Also, people without cinvictions are usually better with power than people with wrong convictions...

That's probably right.  With no principles, there's probably an even chance the person will do the right thing, but with the wrong principles there's no chance.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

The Government should never lie. Misinform, distort, spin, fiddle, censor and all that is o.k at times. But not telling flat out lies.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

The Government should never lie. Misinform, distort, spin, fiddle, censor and all that is o.k at times. But not telling flat out lies.

The government shouldn't do that either. Of course the Bush adminstration has flat out lied many times.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

The government shouldn't do that either.

It has to

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

The government shouldn't do that either.

It has to

Why? I demand a truthful government.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Why?

To protect the public

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Why?

To protect the public

What? The truth protects the public. Educate them.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

What? The truth protects the public.

Don't be niave

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

What? The truth protects the public.

Don't be niave

What do you mean by "protects" the public? You seem way too trusting of authority.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

What do you mean by "protects" the public?

I don't think that the government should be telling the public everything. Every little detail of defense or security policy? No way is that a good idea.
The public should know everything that the public needs to know.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

No, I'm just not paranoid

[Gustaf]

True, but there is also the issue of survival, or simply choosing a lesser evil. THat is, "not breaking the principle would lead to even less principles people gaining power". Also, people without cinvictions are usually better with power than people with wrong convictions...

That's probably right.  With no principles, there's probably an even chance the person will do the right thing, but with the wrong principles there's no chance.

Yeah, and someone without principles is likely only trying to maximize his own benefits, and thus won't bring about horrible changes. A person with the wrong principles might do truly terrible things in name of those principles.