Book Review: Lying: Moral Choice in Public and Private Life

The social incentives to deceit are at present very powerful; the controls often weak. Many individuals feel caught up in practices they cannot change. It would be wishful thinking, therefore, to expect individuals to bring about major changes in the collective practices of deceit by themselves. Public and private institutions, with their enormous power to affect personal choice, must help alter the existing pressures and incentives. ..... Trust and integrity are precious resources, easily squandered, hard to regain. They can thrive only on a foundation of respect for veracity.-- Sissela Bok

 

Sissela Bok

Context: The moral landscape

The book, Lying: Moral Choice in Public and Private Life (3rd edition, 1999), was written Sissela Bok, a leading moral philosopher who emphasizes the morality of lies and deceit. Lying is an influential philosophical work on the topic of the morality of  lies and deceit. In my opinion, this topic is a critically important and urgent topic for current public political discourse.

The dismal public track record of false and misleading statements by our president speaks for itself. As of Oct. 9, 2019, his 993rd day in office, our president had made 13,435 false or misleading claims in public. That deceit has been buttressed by conservative political leaders who support and condone the president’s immoral behavior through their silence. In view of the facts, the importance and urgency of coming to grips with the morality of lies and deceit in American politics will be obvious to most open-minded people.

Analyzing lies and deceit

First and foremost, Bok sees unjustified and inexcusable lying and deceit as immoral.[1] She focuses the book mostly on lies because they are the most clear-cut form of deceit. Bok defines lies as a communication of information that the liar believes is untrue but nonetheless conveys to intentionally deceive or mislead listeners. For the purposes of het book, she defines a lie as “an intentionally deceptive message in the form of a statement.” Obviously, lies can be broader than that.

Honest mistakes of fact or logic are not lies, they are just mistakes and thus on different, usually less immoral footing, sometimes or usually including no moral offense at all. Maybe intentional sloppiness about facts and logic can constitute some degree immorality. That raises the curious situation of a liar who makes a mistake and tells truth while believing it is false and intending to deceive. That is immoral because the speaker’s intent is where the immorality arises. Well-intended deceit can be immoral as in a white lie told to spare someone needless shame, pain, embarrassment or emotional stress. In Bok’s view, even well-intended white lies can be immoral when all factors are taken into account.

Bok analyzes lies as starting from a negative or immoral position that sometimes can be excused or justified. The problem with excuses and justifications is bias. The speaker may believe circumstances excuse or justifies his lies, but when examined critically by other people, especially those who have been lied to, the liar's excuses and justifications tend to be much less persuasive than they are to the liar.

A problem that is usually present is complexity. People are complex and so is divining their intent. Bok acknowledges the problem of moral theory in theory compared to making moral judgments in real world scenarios. Influences including psychological, political, social and religious beliefs and biases make analyzing many or most lies difficult and at least somewhat uncertain. The complexity of reality problem has been reduced to some extent by the rise of fact-checking and online access to far more information than was the case when Bok analyzed the situation in 1999.

Harms that lies can cause

Bok describes the kinds of harm that lies can cause to the liars themselves and to people and societies who are deceived:

• Lies lead to loss of trust in fellow citizens, government and social institutions
• Lying is dehumanizing by treating people means to achieve the liar's purpose instead of a valuable end in themselves; in turn dehumanization tends to foment social discord and distrust 
• Lies lead people to base their decisions on false information or flawed thinking, which deprives them of the freedom and power to decide for themselves based on facts and sound logic
• Lies are immoral, an argument that dates back thousands of years, and immorality can beget more immorality leading to loss of social trust and cohesion; lying leads some or most liars to lie more frequently and/or easily
• Reliance on lies can lead to social, physical or economic harm or loss
• The liar exposes himself to loss of trust from others and sometimes damage to self-esteem, which can lead to more bad behavior
• Resort to lies tends to obscure possibilities where lying is not necessary and the same information transfer can be attained without lying
• People who learn they have been lied to may doubt their own ability to assess truth and make their own decisions, which damages their ability to make free and informed choices; sometimes they seek revenge
• When the general level of truthfulness falls, that can encourage or even incentivize some people to lie; if lying becomes a generally accepted practice, trust in others and/or the institutions of society weakens and cohesion decreases, which in extreme cases can lead to actual social collapse

The Principle of Veracity

Bok arrives at a way to summarize the analysis. Her Principle of Veracity states that there is a strong initial presumption that lying is immoral. Lying is wrong but not when it is at least honestly excused and preferably justified. In asserting this moral principle, Bok rejects pure absolutism, which holds that all lies in all circumstances are immoral and thus immoral and unacceptable.

She also rejects utilitarianism, which considers only the consequences of the lie regardless of extenuating circumstances. For utilitarians, a lie that confers more perceived benefit than harm is acceptable. Lies that harm no one are acceptable. The problem is that some harms and benefits cannot be accurately assessed. For example, lies that lead to social distrust and reduced social cohesion. Also, lies can harm the liar as noted above. Bok argues “the more complex the acts, the more difficult it becomes to produce convincing comparisons of their consequences.” She points out that when multiple people are involved, assessing benefit and harm are “well-nigh impossible.”

Some questions

If lies can be considered immoral, can they ever rise to the level of evil? Bok does not appear to have addressed immorality compared to evil. She was focused on morality. If one defines immoral as something not consistent with rectitude, purity, or goodness and evil as something intending malevolence or harm, can a lie rise to the level of evil? If so, and in the context of arguing for civilized evidence- and reason-based politics, is it always counterproductive to call lies and deceit in politics evil or even immoral? Should the labels to confined to just calling lies lies and deceit deceit in the name of comity and keeping minds open?


Footnote:
1. Excuse - the liar speaks to himself: an attempt to extenuate or even eliminate moral blame by arguing to himself that (i) the lie was a joke or mere exaggeration, not a real lie, (ii) the liar isn't responsible and others are to blame for the need to lie, (iii) the liar did not intend to mislead, e.g., because he was high on drugs, (iv) circumstances, e.g., an emergency, made the lie necessary to avoid harm or unfairness to others or to confer a benefit on others

Justification - the liar speaks to others: an attempt to extenuate or even eliminate moral blame by arguing to at least some others to seek other opinions about the moral culpability of a lie; excuses can be presented to others and they can cast a moral judgement; this attempts to reduce the role of bias and self-deceit about the morality of lying and deceit; sometimes the others are seen as “reasonable people” and reciprocity (a form of the Golden Rule) applies: Don't do to others what you don't want them to do to you

The test of publicity: which lies, if any, would survive the appeal for justification to reasonable persons

Touring the Dark Side(TM)

So, for several reasons I've been posting over at a site for British reactionaries called Going Postal:

• I wanted to see if I could place behavior over politics.
• I wanted to see if we could find any common agreement on major topics.
• I wanted to see if it would change me at all, influencing my behavior or my politics.

My experiences with Going Postal are that they have been welcoming, and we've found ourselves in agreement over several major points: Honoring Brexit, our distaste for the corporate ruling class, our horror at the state of the political landscape in general, our frustration at the lies of politicians, and our concern for what happens next. I've even updated some of my views, like I'm far more empathetic for the plight of UK citizens in the face of their immigration crisis - it's ugly over there right now.

The downside is the virulent racism is hard to take. That's really the main thing that makes the site cringeworthy to me, but there's no changing some people. So my best option is to look to myself for solutions, and one solution is to not respond to it, or to ask pointed questions about it. I alternate.

One surprising thing to me, is while it took months, I've found myself more empathetic of them in general. I guess it's easier to understand people and harder to hate people who treat you like a neighbor and fellow human being, and it's hard to hate people you insist on humanizing. That's important.

The other major surprise I had was just how welcoming they were. They knew I was leftist right away (for reasons) and it didn't matter. They were friendly. This is so important!

I've even come to appreciate some of their politically incorrect humor, like insisting that putting pineapple on pizza is why I'm gay.

I'm not the only one that was influenced by this experiment. The folks at that site, in large part have been more welcoming of trans people I think, because of me. Furthermore, several have acknowledged that the immigration problems in the US are far different than those of the UK, per our conversations.

My conclusions are thus, and should be obvious to anyone that's familiar with Christ's teachings: First, love your neighbor. Everything else follows from there. It's more important than politics. It's more important than opinions. It's maybe the most important thing you can do in terms of your fellow human beings. It's also difficult at first, but gets easier once you're past that initial meet, because it opens your eyes to the humanity of the person sitting across the table.

Ideology is no substitute for any of this. Ideology is barely secondary. Without loving your neighbor, you won't change your neighbor. Arguments only get you so far. First, find each other's essential humanity. Go from there.

Political insanity is making us crazy

National politics are making us crazy.

Sensible people have simply begun blocking out the incessant screaming on the airwaves or in publications, and that’s not a positive development. It’s difficult, though, to blame anyone for doing so when personal sanity is at stake.

The rancor is a cause of the alienation between voters and parties, and is intensifying a long-festering disaffection. While political party affiliation has been declining for a number of years, the most recent Gallup national survey last month indicates only 27 percent of Americans self-identify as Democrats and only 29 percent as Republicans. A clear plurality, averaging 43 percent nationwide over the past four months of polling, identify as independents not aligned with either party.

Also significant is that nearly half of the country, comprising 47 percent of all likely voters in an annual national poll, believes neither faction in Congress is “the party of the American people.” That number is six points higher than the previous year. Only a third, at 35 percent, disagree with that assessment.

Amidst this deepening disassociation, the two major political parties have become dual sides of the same coin – either dysfunctional or dystopian. Determining which is which is now essentially nothing more than an inkblot interpretive choice among a majority.

The bulk of voters, situated at a moderate policy center both parties have abandoned, are dismayed by what is increasingly expected to be an extreme binary choice on the presidential ballot more than 14 months from now. Many worry more, however, about stabbing their eyes out long before that moment eventually arrives.

What some are touting as “the most consequential decision in history” seems to many Americans the equivalent of a massive food fight in an elementary school cafeteria. It’s a brawl that’s become starkly ugly and nasty, too.

The commonplace name-calling, invective hurling, and motive questioning of ordinary voters is now wholly pervasive. Tuning-out or shutting-up has become the preferred personal strategy for preserving internal wellbeing or protecting external reputations.

Have we really entered an era when everyone is either a racist or a socialist, or similar and worse? Are we actually neutering such disparagements and rendering them meaningless by casual application to those with whom we happen to disagree?

People don’t like being maligned as motivated by evil, particularly when the defamation is unwarranted or unjustified. It’s certainly not the route toward successfully building a coalition of the dominant disaffected.

If Democrats want to emerge victorious in an election only they could fail to win, party officials might consider dumping as much cash as it might take to convince CNN to switch to televising movies all day and night. The network, by becoming just another blatantly transparent partisan co-conspirator undermining fair-minded news delivery, is hurting more than helping. They’ve devolved, in a ratings contest for viewers, to merely mirror the longstanding opinionated ploys of oppositional FOX and MSNBC.

Political pundits, news analysts, and even the nominally objective traditional journalists across the spectrum have largely abandoned any semblance of straightforward reporting or unbiased analysis. Most humorous are those mocking the media pursuit of the next contrived rabbit unleashed – while spotting another one and immediately taking chase.

The behavior of politicians, parties, pundits, and the purported purveyors of news are discouraging engagement and are diminishing faith in the political system, news media, and civic institutions. There’s a ‘resistance’ building, but it’s one of opposing the constant barrage of barbs and slurs directed towards ordinary citizens or the casting of political aspersions and personal slanders at entire swaths of people.

The vast majority of Americans, including within the LGBT community, live outside of highly insular right-or-left bubbles reflexively seeking their next outrage “fix” like convulsing junkies.

Our national politics have become too exhausting for too many, and the continuing growth in political estrangement is the real danger to democracy.

by Mark Lee : a long-time entrepreneur and community business advocate.

https://www.washingtonblade.com/2019/08/30/political-insanity-is-making-us-crazy/

GOP Belief in Christian Theocracy

In a recent closed-door speech, Attorney General William P. Barr spoke about a “campaign to destroy the traditional moral order,” citing “militant secularists” as the culprit. Barr explicitly blamed liberals as the cause:

“In other words, religion helps frame moral culture within society that instills and reinforces moral discipline. I think we all recognize that over the past 50 years religion has been under increasing attack. On the one hand, we have seen the steady erosion of our traditional Judeo-Christian moral system and a comprehensive effort to drive it from the public square. On the other hand, we see the growing ascendancy of secularism and the doctrine of moral relativism. Among these militant secularists are many so-called ‘progressives’. But where is the progress?”

The Washington Post describes the speech in an opinion piece as something that “appeared to be a tacit endorsement of theocracy.” Barr cited record levels of depression, soaring suicide rates and epidemic drug abuse arguing:

“This is not decay; it is organized destruction. Secularists, and their allies among the “progressives,” have marshaled all the force of mass communications, popular culture, the entertainment industry, and academia in an unremitting assault on religion and traditional values. ..... On the other hand, we see the growing ascendancy of secularism and the doctrine of moral relativism. ..... We cannot have a moral renaissance unless we succeed in passing to the next generation our faith and values in full vigor. The times are hostile to this. Public agencies, including public schools, are becoming secularized and increasingly are actively promoting moral relativism.”

Note the phrase ‘organized destruction’. It means that Barr believes secular liberals are intentionally destroying what he sees as proper morality as dictated by him and his God. Barr is a devout Catholic.

Two visions of America

Back in 2015, the Obergefell v. Hodges Supreme Court decision held that same-sex marriage was a constitutional right under the Fourteenth Amendment’s equal protection and due process clauses. Religious conservatives howled for weeks that the decision constituted a massive attack on religious freedom and freedom of speech. Despite the howling, any attack on religion or speech seemed overblown to this observer. At the time, there apparently was no objective analyses of exactly what the burdens on religion and speech the Obergefell decision imposed on any religion. What burdens there were was unclear. At the time, it seemed to be more accurate to describe the situation as the church attacking the state and secularism than the other way around.

It still seems that way today. Barr’s speech is an example of an explicit, broad-based Christian attack on secularism and by implication, an attack on both atheism and religious indifference.

The problem with Barr and his speech is that they ignore objective reality. Christian morals have been significantly corrupted by the decades of GOP propaganda and now our deeply immoral demagogue president. Most American Christians who support the president practice moral relativism with a vengeance. Survey data made that point. A June 2017 article in the Economist magazine, “The political beliefs of evangelical Christians -- Personal morality in politics is negotiable, commented:

Back in 2011, white evangelicals were the most likely group to say that personal morality was important in a president, according to the Public Religion Research Institute. Since Mr Trump became the Republican standard-bearer, they have become the least likely group to say that, changing what seems like a fundamental issue of morality to accommodate their support for the president. How do evangelicals explain their support for a thrice-married adulterer whose biographers have not found a man preoccupied with his salvation? “He doesn’t pretend to be anything he’s not,” says Ed Henry, a state senator for Alabama. He sees no conflict between this and support for Mr Trump. Other evangelicals mention the appointment of Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court as evidence that what they perceive as a long assault on them from the judicial branch is now over.”

Barr ignores the fact that progressives did not cause the drug epidemic or suicides. Arguably, conservatives facilitated those social ills by supporting cuts to social spending for prevention and treatment programs. Most conservatives believe government domestic spending is bad if not illegal under the constitution. Barr also conveniently ignores the fact that US taxpayers support religion by at least $82 billion/year in tax breaks. Why isn't that massive social support for religion being used to fix the problems that Barr complains of?

And, there is no way to characterize handouts of over $80 billion/year as any kind of attack on religion. It is capitulation to massive social welfare, not any form of attack.

Barr also ignores the example he himself and the anti-truth, anti-democratic demagogue he serves sets. Barr is a liar. He also shows open contempt for the rule of law. He lied about the content of the Mueller report. He continues to lie about it by continuing to refuse to provide the full Mueller report and all supporting documentation. Those are lies of omission. He refuses to investigate possible crimes by his corrupt boss and complains when the House does his job for him. He is the top law enforcement official in the US, yet he refuses to do his job. That is deeply immoral.

There is moral relativism and hypocrisy going on here. It is being practiced by Barr and Christians who actually believe Barr and his lies, and his dark vision of partisan, context-based morality. America's moral decline, if that is what we are in, is caused much more by Barr and his ilk than by secularism, which is less corrupt but more moral.