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)

Y’all, Norwegians Use the Word “Texas” as Slang to Mean “Crazy”

The things you learn on the Internet.



https://www.texasmonthly.com/the-daily-post/yall-norwegians-use-the-word-texas-as-slang-to-mean-crazy/

If you’re Norwegian or happen to spend a lot of time around Norwegians, then this fact that absolutely blew our minds might not be news to you, but apparently the word “Texas” is slang for “crazy” or “wild,” as in, “the end of the [whatever sport they play in Norway] game was totally Texas!”

We saw the screen capture from Tumblr float around social media this weekend and were initially skeptical. But, lo and behold, the evidence has convinced us that this is really an accepted part of Norwegian slang.

• Here is an article from Aviso Nordland from March 2014 about reckless international truck drivers traveling through the northern part of the country. Norwegian police chief Knut Danielsen, when describing the situation, tells the paper that “it is absolutely texas.”
• Here’s one from a 2012 edition of Verdens Gang, a Norwegian tabloid, in which Blackburn Rovers soccer manager Henning Berg—a Norwegian former star who played for the British team—describes the atmosphere at a match between the Rovers and the rival Burnley Clarets as “totally texas.”
• And here’s a fisherman telling the local news about the rare swordfish he caught in Northern Norway: “I heard a loud noise from the bay, but I did not know where it came from right away. Thirty seconds to a minute later it jumped out in the fjord. I got to see some of it before I took up the camera,” he says and continues: “It was totally texas!”

Usually, when the word “texas”—as an adjective, most often without capitalization—appears in Norwegian, the context involves the phrase, “det var helt texas,” which translates to, roughly, “it was totally/absolutely/completely bonkers.” You wouldn’t call a person “totally texas”; it usually describes a chaotic atmosphere.

A Norwegian Tumblr user explained some of the etymology of the phrase in a post from last May:

The expression itself has to do with associations. It’s something that brings to mind chaotic, crazy conditions, like the “wild west,” and at least back when the expression was coined, the “wild west” held very strong Texas associations. Hell, even when I was a kid in the 80s, I thought that all American cowboys came from Texas, and that’s just how it was. Texas = land of the cowboys. And rodeos. And the wild west. A Western movie? Probably from Texas.

This quote from an paper on child language development (talking about a child’s metalinguistic development) should tell you a little bit about how Norwegians can condense a state into stereotypes:

Uttrykket ”det var helt Texas på bussen i dag” gir lite mening for en som nettopp har lært at Texas er et sted med cowboyer, rodeoer og kveg. [X]

Translation: The expression “it was totally Texas on the bus today” will not mean much to someone who’s just learned that Texas is a place with cowboys, rodeos and cattle.

The expression dates back several decades, and speaks to how the mythos of Texas has been interpreted in one Scandinavian country: “Texas” = “cowboys” = “Wild West” = “an unpredictable, exciting, sometimes scary atmosphere,” and thus can be used to describe a party that had people jumping off the roof into a swimming pool, a soccer game where fans were getting tense, or even a troubling traffic situation, which—while the etymology may be different—is fair enough for anyone who’s been in any Texas city during rush hour.

All of which is to say that when considering what “Texas” means to the world, it’s fascinating to realize just how far and wide our fabled culture spreads—or as they might say in Norway, det er helt texas as heck.

The President's Core Base of Support

Most of the time the president has been in office his approval rating has been in a range of about 41% to 43% based on aggregated poll data by the poll analysis site 538. Today, the president’s approval is 41.6% and disapproval is 53.7%. From that it seemed reasonable to think that his core base of unshakeable supporters is about 41-43%. The logic is that if people still support the president, they are likely solid supporters who would not vote for any democrat in 2020.

Despite that, other indications at least since the 2018 mid-terms kept suggesting his solid support base is somewhat lower.

The Cook Political Report, a low bias, high fact accuracy analysis site, analyzed this question in December of 2018. The CPR wrote:

In this year’s network exit polls, 45 percent approved the job Trump is doing, while 54 percent disapproved. The "strongly approve" number was 31 percent. In the last Fox News poll before the midterm election, 31 percent of registered voters and 33 percent of likely voters strongly approved. The last pre-election NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll pegged his "strongly approve" numbers at 32 percent of registered and 35 percent of likely voters, while the ABC News/Washington Post poll had it a bit lower with 28 percent. So between 28 and 35 percent can be said to be his solid base.

What about Trump’s hard-core opposition? The exit poll showed 46 percent strongly disapproving, while in the Fox News poll it was 43 and 45 percent respectively among registered and likely voters. The NBC/WSJ poll had the numbers a bit larger, with 45 percent of registered voters and 47 percent of likely voters strongly disapproving.

Polling in July and September of this year indicates that about 27-32% of registered voters strongly approve and 45-48% strongly disapprove. That suggests that Trump's solid base hasn't changed much since last December. A different September 2019 poll put the president’s strong approval rating with voters at 28%, with strong disapproval at 45%.

Obviously, support for the president can change over time.  But, if these polls are basically accurate, it is reasonable to think that the president’s core base of unshakeable support right now is about 30% instead of about 42%. If that is correct and holds up for the next 3-4 months, the president will probably need to appeal to a broader swath of the American public than he does now. It isn't clear how or if he can do that, but there will very likely be a major effort to do so. Maybe such an effort already is under way. As of September 2019, about 11% of eligible voters claim to be undecided, so that group could be the key target.

The Supreme Court term begins with a crazy case about insanity

By Ephrat Livni in Washington DC

https://qz.com/1721661/scotus-kicks-off-term-with-a-kansas-insanity-defense-case/

The US Supreme Court will kick off a new term on Oct. 7 with arguments about a classic topic, the knowledge of good and evil.

Specifically, the justices will be considering the constitutionality of a Kansas statute that abolished the insanity defense. It’s being challenged by Kraig Kahler, a man convicted by a Kansas jury for the 2009 murders of his two daughters, ex-wife, and former mother-in-law, plus burglary, and sentenced to death.

Kahler’s attorneys argue that the state’s approach to mental illness in criminal culpability violates the US Constitution’s eighth amendment prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment, as well as the 14th amendment guarantee of due process of law. They say their client’s sentence is a mistake because Kahler lacked the moral capacity to tell right from wrong when he killed his family. The attorneys say that this was because Kahler suffered from severe depression and personality disorders, and he should have been allowed to present an insanity defense.

Kansas argues in its brief that Kahler is not insane. Before he killed his family on Thanksgiving weekend 2009, he was a successful public official. He was reportedly obsessed with seeming to have the perfect life and family, and for a while he did. However, when his wife left him for a woman, Kahler was shattered. He lost his job and moved in with his parents.

Not long after, Kahler drove to his former mother-in-law’s house and shot everyone but his son. The state says Kahler’s actions—driving, sparing his son, aiming at his targets and hitting them, pursuing the victims from room to room—are evidence that he had the requisite intent to commit the murders. The state also contends that the expert testimony presented by the defendant didn’t show he was insane anyway, even had Kansas allowed the desired defense.

Most notably, the state argues that its statute is constitutional. It has not abolished the insanity defense but redefined it, Kansas claims. “While Kansas no longer has an affirmative defense called insanity, evidence of mental disease or defect is still admissible to show a lack of mens rea, thus exempting certain mentally ill individuals from criminal liability,“ the state writes.

The elements of a crime

Kansas law considers mental defects in the context of intent. Mens rea is one of two elements prosecutors must prove along with criminal conduct, or an actus reus.  State law allows defendants to argue that they lacked the mental state—or mens rea—for criminal culpability, and to present evidence of a mental illness that prevented them from forming the requisite intent. But they can’t argue that they weren’t guilty by virtue of insanity.

An amicus brief filed by law professors and philosophers “for neither party” argues that the Kansas law is unjust because a mentally ill defendant could form the intent to commit a crime but still lack the capacity to judge between right and wrong. And a fair society doesn’t punish someone who can’t understand the consequences of their actions or any subsequent punishment. “Sanity is a precondition of responsibility,” they write. “The lack of an insanity defense, as in Kansas, will ensure that the state punishes some defendants in the absence of responsibility for their crimes.”  

In other words, Kahler may have had the intent to kill. Yet, he might still not have been able to judge the morality of his act. That failure—not knowing in the moment of action that killing was wrong—would make Kahler not responsible for the crime by virtue of his mental illness.

The brief distinguishes between excuses, such as self-defense, and justifications that negate wrongdoing, such as infancy, duress, and insanity. The justification defenses exist because society recognizes that to be responsible for one’s acts a person has to be able to judge what they are doing.

In the beginning

Kahler argues that the insanity defense has a long and venerable history in humanity’s many legal traditions. His brief cites the first book of the Old Testament, Genesis, for support. “Ancient civilizations recognized the distinction between the insane and those capable of understanding the moral implications of their actions,” Kahler’s attorneys write. “In the early Jewish tradition, ‘madness’ was an excuse for otherwise punishable crimes. The first pages of the Torah introduce ‘knowledge of good and evil’ as a central reality of the human condition.”

In Islam, Christianity, and Greek philosophy, too, they argue, the ability to distinguish between right and wrong is a prerequisite to culpability. It’s been similarly established in the Anglo-Saxon tradition since the 18th century, according to Kahler’s counsel. That’s why 48 American jurisdictions—45 states, the federal criminal justice system, the military justice system, and the District of Columbia—currently provide an affirmative insanity defense that considers a defendant’s lack of moral culpability.

Kansas begs to differ. The state writes, “Many ancient references to insanity are at best ambiguous and consistent with the mens rea approach.” It dismisses claims that ancient courts considered insanity exculpatory. On the contrary, the state argues, insanity was a sign of intent. Neither the framers of the constitution nor ancient Greek philosophers would be bothered about exculpating the insane based on a “good and evil” test, the state says. “Kansas has reasonably determined that individuals who voluntarily and intentionally kill another human being are culpable, even if they do not recognize their actions are morally wrong,” the state concludes.

This is what most offends the philosophers. They argue that there is no basis for punishment if a person can’t make moral judgments, and a statute that fails to recognize as much is fundamentally unjust. “It is crucial for our society to tolerate a diversity of ethical views…but toleration and deference cannot go so far as to allow a government to perpetrate injustice of this sort. The Court should correct Kansas’s error,” they urge.

Kansas flips the script on opponents of the statute, saying its approach is actually more “evolved” than the old insanity defense. The state argues that by “redefining” insanity’s role in culpability, it severs the link between mental illness and criminality, minimizing societal stigma for the afflicted.

It’ll be months before we learn where the justices ultimately stand on the knowledge of good and evil and its role in crime and punishment. But by Monday, their most pressing concerns should at least become apparent.

Biased Political Attitudes Toward Science

Last August, the Pew Research Center wrote “Democrats and Republicans differ over role and value of scientists in policy debates.” Pew polling shows what is by now a predictable divide in attitudes toward science. Overall, about 60% of Americans believe that when science is relevant, scientists with relevant expertise should have a role in policy debates. That said, party-based differences are major.

For example, 54% of Democrats say policy choices from scientific experts are usually better than other people’s, while 66% of Republicans believe the experts are the same or worse than choices of average people.

Other Pew data suggest that for issues grounded in matters of science, there is significant distrust of scientists and/or science itself.

This polling seems to imply that people who see bias among scientists leads them to question or distrust the logic that scientists use. Flawed logic definitely can lead people to draw false conclusions from data. However, all people are open to bias. That includes people who distrust scientists due to their own anti-science biases. People are biased but nonetheless they still can be guided by facts and logic more than what their bias alone would lead them to believe.

Arguably, anti-science bias is the basis that some people rely on to reject consensus data-based science beliefs such as climate change or the urgency of the climate problem.

Mindsets

Mindset: noun

an attitude, disposition, or mood.

an intention or inclination.

Being the homemade philosopher that I am, I was waking up in bed this morning thinking about mindsets.  Btw, how lucky am I to have the uncomplicated life that affords me such a thought luxury?  Very, and I know it!  :) Anyway…

Mindsets are really interesting things to think about.  The irony is that, when you think about them, you do so under a mindset.  I suspect that’s where many-a-reasoning capabilities can and have taken some wild, illogical turns.  Conundrum: How to “see clearly” when under the influence of a particular mindset?  How to weed out fact from fiction, truth from lie, and come out on the other side with a mindset somewhat still intact?  What kind of person can do that?  Or better yet, what kind of person can’t?  Great questions, right?

We all have mindsets.  Actually, we’ve all had many.  Think about how you thought when you were a teenager.  A lot different than now, ‘eh?  Somewhere along the line of life, like the proverbial shit, “influences happen.”  Sometimes they can be like epiphanies, coming out of the blue.  What happens in the brain that triggers that moment in time?  I don’t know; probably some chemical secretion surge.  Like a flash of lucidity, a situation “meets the (your) requirements” and it, a newish mindset, happens... boom.

I was thinking about, for example, people who kill other people.  Take John Lennon’s killer, Mark David Chapman.  He was in a mindset when he approached John and robbed him of his young life.  I wonder if Chapman is NOW thinking, “What was I thinking?! A probable life in prison, for a life in the grave. Was it really worth it?” he must wonder.

Yes it’s very true.  We can mess up our life, or someone else’s, with a somewhat/relatively “momentary life-situation” mindset.  Such mindsets can involve many categories, such as crimes of passion, or revenge, or the meting out of believed justice.  Lots of reasons can put us (stick us) in a mindset; ones that we may regret later.  Your life is pretty much based on your current mindset.  So… here’s my ask:

Talk to us about mindsets.  What do you make of mindsets?  Analyze that phenomenon for us from your current mindset.  Should we be more mindful of them?  How do they affect our politics?

Take your answers to wherever your mind(set) sends you.  And if this write-up has caused you to think about your own mindset more closely, then “mission accomplished.” ;)

Thanks for recommending.