“The world hates a liar!” Mom shouted at the fibbing preschooler.
At the time, the little guy was possibly the foremost liar on the east coast—maybe the nation. What he had done this day was tell neighbors that his policeman father had been shot.
The result of that creative burst—the sympathetic hugs and cries of "Dear god!” and “Good heavens”—so pleased him that he kept sharing the news. Meanwhile the phone at his home began ringing with calls of condolence.
An Embarrassed Mom
When the little liar’s embarrassed mother finally go t off the phone, she promised him that his completely healthy dad would deal with him when he got home. The boy learned that was the truth.
Today the kid might argue that the U.S. Supreme Court said lying was okay. He could cite the June 28 ruling in the case of United States v. Alvarez.
Xavier Alvarez, a Los Angeles County resident, confessed to lying when he claimed he had been a Marine and had earned the nation’s highest award for valor, the Medal of Honor. A California court convicted him for violating the Stolen Valor Act, which outlawed falsely claiming to have won military honors.
A Law Goes Down
Alvarez appealed, claiming he was merely exercising his First Amendment right of free speech. The High Court agreed. It ruled the Stolen Valor Act was unconstitutional. The Court said, in effect, that the government could not penalize untrue statements and to attempt to do so would require establishing a tyrannical “Ministry of Truth.”
The court’s ruling highlights a fact: Laws often allow actions that ethics forbids. And as Mom knew, lying, in the vast majority of cases, is ethically taboo.
It’s possible to see the practicality of the Court’s decision while sympathizing with the view that scumbags who demean military honors and insult the nation’s bravest heroes should be punished.
Beyond that, however, any ruling that excuses lying is arguably wrong.
Applying the Rule of Reason
Harvard professor Sissela Bok, has written what critics call a powerful and seminal work titled Lying: Moral Choice in Public and Private Life. The Swedish-born author’s authority on the topic is worth heeding. Her logic is impeccable.
She writes, “We have…seen the erosion of public trust as lies build up into vast institutional practices.” She adds, “When trust shatters or wears away, institutions collapse.”
In this campaign year, we hear office seekers contradicting their opponents “facts,” distorting non-partisan studies, and making promises they know they can’t keep. And the public merely shrugs. We hear such remarks as, “Politicians are all alike. All liars.”
Why do we let politicians and public officials get away with false claims and statements?
Mistakes Are Understandable
Certainly, politicians and officials will make mistakes in speeches and interviews. Unintended error is not lying. A lie is a statement intended to deceive, and we must make office holders and office seekers accountable for such statements. Lying to us is just not fair. Political distortion and government lies and cover-ups are too corrosive.
Philosopher Bok explains:
“Voters and candidates alike are the losers when a political system has reached such a low level of trust. Once elected, officials find that their warnings and their calls to common sacrifice meet with disbelief and apathy, even when cooperation is most urgently needed. ... And the fact that candidates, should they win, are not expected to have meant what they said while campaigning, nor held accountable for discrepancies, only reinforces the incentives for them to bend the truth next time, thus adding further to the distrust of the voters.”
So pay attention Mr. Obama and Mr. Romney and you other pols:
If you’re saying something untrue or now saying the opposite of what you said before, you had better make it clear that you aren’t lying but had an honest change of heart. You owe us the truth. Nothing but. And we’ll examine your words.
Besides think what your Mom would say if she caught you lying to us.
--Gus Gribbin
No comments:
Post a Comment