The Morality of Lies in Politics

The anti-bias ideology I believe to be more effective, efficient, sustainable and civilized for politics is grounded in four core moral values, (i) respect for relevant facts and truths, (ii) an attempt to apply less biased reason to the facts and truths, (iii) reasonable reliance on those factors in service to the public interest, and (iv) reasonable compromise with political opposition under existing circumstances. Those moral values are intended to redistribute some power from elites and wealthy interests to the masses. They also act as a barrier against the rise of authoritarian and corrupt leaders because such leaders usually or always rely heavily on lies and deceit to gain and maintain power.

I have been arguing that using dark free speech[1] is immoral and usually damaging to good things such as democracy, the rule of law, honest governance and civil liberties. That raises the question of whether there is a sound rationale to believe that lies, deceit, unwarranted emotional manipulation and other propaganda tactics are often immoral.

Not surprisingly, scholars had considered the moral implications of lying and deceit. Robert K. Fullinwider wrote this in 2007 about an analysis of lying by Sissela Bok in her 1978 book Lying: Moral Choice in Private and Public Life:

Here is the case that Sissela Bok makes for the Principle of Veracity – a principle asserting a very strong moral presumption against lying. What, she asks you, would it be like to live in a world in which truth-telling was not the common practice? In such a world, you could never trust anything you were told or anything you read. You would have to find out everything for yourself, first-hand. You would have to invest enormous amounts of your time to find out the simplest matters. In fact, you probably couldn’t even find out the simplest matters: in a world without trust, you could never acquire the education you need to find out anything for yourself, since such an education depends upon your taking the word of what you read in your lesson books. A moment’s reflection of this sort, says Bok, makes it crystal clear that you benefit enormously by living in a world in which a great deal of trust exists – a world in which the practice of truth-telling is widespread. All the important things you want to do in life are made possible by pervasive trust.

The work of Bok and others has been summarized. Thoughts on the morality of lying include:

• Lying is bad because it treats those who are lied to as a means to achieve the liar's purpose, rather than as a valuable end in themselves Many people think that it is wrong to treat people as means not ends 

• Lying is bad because it makes it difficult for the person being lied to make a free and informed decision about the matter concerned, which can lead people to base their decisions on false information  

• People may suffer damage as a result of lies 

• People lose ome control of their own lives because a lie can lead them to make a decision that they would not otherwise have made

Is it rational to extend the scope of immorality to include all of dark free speech in politics, which is broader than just political lying? Bok defines a lie as an intentionally deceptive message in the form of a statement. Deceit can be based on statements that are true, partly true and on information that is hidden (lies of omission). Is that immoral? Fomenting unwarranted emotional responses, e.g., unwarranted fear, distrust or bigotry by inflammatory or insulting rhetoric, usually leads to a state of mind that makes lies and deceit easier to accept. Is doing that immoral?

Acknowledgement: My thanks to PD at the Books&Ideas blog for recommending the links given in the discussion and mentioning the work of Sissela Bok.

Footnote:
1. Dark free speech: Constitutionally or legally protected (1) lies and deceit to distract, misinform, confuse, polarize and/or demoralize, (2) unwarranted opacity to hide inconvenient truths, facts and corruption (lies and deceit of omission), and (3) unwarranted emotional manipulation (i) to obscure the truth and blind the mind to lies and deceit, and (ii) to provoke irrational, reason-killing emotions and feelings, including fear, hate, anger, disgust, distrust, intolerance, cynicism, pessimism and all kinds of bigotry including racism. (my label, my definition)