Lying and Accidental Truth
One more thing. I've been meaning to write about this since I started this blog, but it's such an obvious point that I keep giving it low priority. But I'm going to say it now anyway because of the London Telegraph report I posted about earlier.
If I tell you that X is true even though I know that the evidence is unclear, indeterminate, or equivocal, then I am lying. I am lying whether X turns out to be true or false. Even very young children understand this much about the concept of lying. But despite the obviousness of the point, it seems to have been forgotten.
Because it lied about the evidence, the Administration lied to us about WMD whether or not they still happen to turn up, and they lied to us about Atta whether or not the Telegraph story is true. It is terrible that the administration lied to us about the reasons for war. But at least if their claims turn out to be wrong, people will hold them accountable for their lies. If, on the other hand, what they said turns out to be true, I reckon that they will not be held accountable, primarily because most people, underinformed as they are, will conclude that they didn't lie after all. But if I tell you that I'm rich I'm lying to you, even if there is $100,000 I don't know about in a shoebox in my closet. And just because I find the shoebox tomorrow doesn't mean that I didn't lie to you today.
Given that the original bad event--the administration's lying--has already come to pass, the best thing that could happen now would be for the people to hold them accountable, recognizing that it doesn't matter whether there really are WMDs etc. or not. This won't happen. The second best thing would be for the lies to turn out false, raising the probability that the administration will be held responsible. The worst thing that could happen would be for the lies to turn out to be true, in which case they are likely to get away with it.
But anyone who hopes to restore integrity to American government needs to work to hold liars accountable whether or not their lies accidentally turn out to be true.
A sort of post-script:
And we absolutely cannot let them get away with excuses like "well, it was only sixteen words!" Even ignoring everything else and focusing just on the State of the Union speech, this is appalling trickery. Does this mean that Bill Clinton could have said "Look, when I said 'I did not have sex with that woman' only ONE word was wrong. If I'd have just left out the 'not' I would have spoken the truth."
Since when does the number of words involved in a lie matter? I could falsely say "I saw Smith kill Jones," thus condemning Smith to the gallows. Does the fact that the lie contained only five words make it excusable that I bore false witness?
Despicable.
One more thing. I've been meaning to write about this since I started this blog, but it's such an obvious point that I keep giving it low priority. But I'm going to say it now anyway because of the London Telegraph report I posted about earlier.
If I tell you that X is true even though I know that the evidence is unclear, indeterminate, or equivocal, then I am lying. I am lying whether X turns out to be true or false. Even very young children understand this much about the concept of lying. But despite the obviousness of the point, it seems to have been forgotten.
Because it lied about the evidence, the Administration lied to us about WMD whether or not they still happen to turn up, and they lied to us about Atta whether or not the Telegraph story is true. It is terrible that the administration lied to us about the reasons for war. But at least if their claims turn out to be wrong, people will hold them accountable for their lies. If, on the other hand, what they said turns out to be true, I reckon that they will not be held accountable, primarily because most people, underinformed as they are, will conclude that they didn't lie after all. But if I tell you that I'm rich I'm lying to you, even if there is $100,000 I don't know about in a shoebox in my closet. And just because I find the shoebox tomorrow doesn't mean that I didn't lie to you today.
Given that the original bad event--the administration's lying--has already come to pass, the best thing that could happen now would be for the people to hold them accountable, recognizing that it doesn't matter whether there really are WMDs etc. or not. This won't happen. The second best thing would be for the lies to turn out false, raising the probability that the administration will be held responsible. The worst thing that could happen would be for the lies to turn out to be true, in which case they are likely to get away with it.
But anyone who hopes to restore integrity to American government needs to work to hold liars accountable whether or not their lies accidentally turn out to be true.
A sort of post-script:
And we absolutely cannot let them get away with excuses like "well, it was only sixteen words!" Even ignoring everything else and focusing just on the State of the Union speech, this is appalling trickery. Does this mean that Bill Clinton could have said "Look, when I said 'I did not have sex with that woman' only ONE word was wrong. If I'd have just left out the 'not' I would have spoken the truth."
Since when does the number of words involved in a lie matter? I could falsely say "I saw Smith kill Jones," thus condemning Smith to the gallows. Does the fact that the lie contained only five words make it excusable that I bore false witness?
Despicable.
posted by Winston Smith at
12:51 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home