I appreciate Bryan Eugen Quinns commentary. Very Hobbesian.
Perhaps morality and politics are alike in that they both are some sort of
social conventions. However, this remark does not touch upon the point I was
trying to make; and that point is that morality is our final, ultimate and
*only* meter of "right" and "wrong" (regardless of what we think "right" and
"wrong" is; a convention, some sort of facts or merely our emotive response
to certain stimuli). Essentially, I was sticking in a comment that a certain
political system can only be "right" insofar as it is *morally* right. There
is no "political" or "personal" right, as some liberals and
non-universalists has thought it to be.
However, the main point I was trying to make (in that extensive 10-line
post) was that truth has no positive intrinsic value, and ignoring or
discarding truth can in fact be morally right if it furthers something that
does have positive intrinsic value. Scientists, philosophers and other
people who are into mental masturbation and truth-mongering are certainly
repelled by this idea. However, I can think of several clear-cut situations
where lies would indeed be the method favoured by our moral intuition.
For example, suppose that your name was Oscar Schindler and that you planned
on saving the lives of thousands of people from Nazi death camps. However,
you realized that this could only be done through constantly lying to your
collegues, partners, and even your government. Would lying in this situation
really be morally wrong?
Or suppose that you have been entrusted with the codes to some nuclear bomb
of unimaginable destructive powers, and that a dicatorship planning to
launch this weapon right into the heart Yellowstone Park may only do so if
you answer their questions truthfully -- would it then be wrong to lie in
order to save this area from total environmental destruction?
Or suppose that lying about the extent of global warming might end the
little global warming that we indeed have; would it then be wrong to lie
about the magnitude of the problem?
As I see it, lying is right insofar as it contributes to realizing positive
intrinsic values, and wrong insofar as it contributes to realizing negative
intrinsic values. Prima facie, I see no difference between lies in politics
and other lies, and I judge the moral status of Plato's "noble lie" by the
same standard that I judge other lies. We don't automatically have a problem
when "the public" finds out that some institution is lying. We have a
problem when the finding out of this lie contributes to the realization of
negative intrinsic values (which it, by my estimatation, usually doesn't).
/Lars
----- Original Message -----
From: Bryan Eugen Quinn <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Monday, May 22, 2000 2:17 PM
Subject: Re: Environmental education and PP, was Re: Fwd: Nowadays we
idolizenature
> I appreciate Lars Ekman's commentary. Very utilitarian. Plato's noble
lie is
> indeed a tough thing to get out into the open. From this viewpoint, the
problem
> isn't the lies in politics, it is when the lies are found out by the
public and
> the leadership overthrown. No?
> However, I think that politics and morality are not so different.
Morality
> (though not ethics) is the popular code or belief system that a society
agrees
> to and dictates what is to be discouraged and encouraged. Ethics is a
different
> matter, though many often confuse the two.
> Politics, in a sense, seems related to morality and morality seems
related
> to politics. Both involve popular agreement. While politics focuses on the
> relationships between social units, morality seeks to guide those units
based on
> past agreement (perhaps past political agreement).
> As for the continued discussion on global warming on this discussion
list, I
> find it strange that we concentrate so much on one environmental issue.
Perhaps
> it is predicable that philosophers (be they arm chair or proffesional)
focus on
> the largest, most vague environmental issue. It is as universal an issue
as
> possible on a planet such as ours and we should be leary of the great
> generalizations made by our most touted white, male, western philosophers.
> So much time is spent on this list dedicated towards justifying
arguments
> with different scientific reports about global warming. I do not propose
to
> ignore global warming, but why do we not focus more on things we know to
be
> certain, such as beef consumption in Amercia, logging U.S. national
forests, or
> First Nations land and sea rights? Just a suggestion. peace, Bryan
>
> Lars Ekman wrote:
>
> > > Would this qualify as fear mongering or just plain lying?
> >
> > Why care? Truth and scientific honesty obviously has no positive
intrinsic
> > value. Politics and morality are two different things. If we can further
a
> > moral cause through lying in the political arena, I fail to see why this
> > would be so obviously wrong. If we somehow could end all environmental
> > destruction through lying about the magnitude of these problems just
enough
> > for people to get off their asses and do something about it, I see no
reason
> > not to lie.
> >
> > /Lars
>
>
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|