There is, of course, good reason to be truthful. I’m strongly inclined toward Kantian deontology in moral theory, so I’m inclined to think that the most important reasons are of a non-consequentialist variety. But I’m not going to discuss those reasons. Instead I’m going to discuss some less philosophical, less fundamental reasons for being truthful in politics in particular.
What makes democracy valuable? Why, that is, is democracy a good (perhaps even the best) type of government? Here’s a suggestion: because it is the type of government that is maximally respectful of the autonomy of its citizens. Recognizing the inherent right of self-determination of every (adult) person, democracies attempt to maximize the degree to which such self-determination can be realized. Of course given that there are many individuals in any democracy, it is not possible for each one to completely determine policy. The best we can do, it seems, is to give each individual an equal say in determining policy, or at least an equal say in electing those who determine policy.
So what exactly—or, at least, approximately—is involved in respecting someone’s autonomy in matters of this kind? Let’s think about an analogy. Doctors are supposed to respect the autonomy of their patients. This does not mean that they leave all of the technical details of treatment up to the patient. Rather, it means that they must leave certain types of decisions up to the patient. In a case, for example, in which a decision must be made between undertaking a more effective but more painful treatment and a less painful but less effective one.
It is a mistake to think that what is important in a case like this is the mere act of making a choice, and hence a mistake to think that one is merely obligated to allow individuals to make choices. The doctor does not fulfill her obligations merely by allowing the patient to make a decision. Consider, for example, a doctor who lies to her patient. Suppose, in fact, that she lies to him about the evidence, exaggerating the likelihood that he has disorder A rather than disorder B, and using various rhetorical tricks to influence him to choose treatment 1 rather than treatment 2, even though an objective assessment of the evidence indicates that her diagnosis is wrong and her preferred treatment is sub-optimal. The doctor’s obligation to respect her patient’s autonomy requires that she allow her patient to make an informed decision. And that, of course, means that she fails to discharge her duty if she distorts the evidence she presents to her patient.
Article comments
1 - Eric Olsen
hi Winston, there are different levels and kinds of lies and truth - collectively people are often amazingly capable of finding the higher truth, though certainly not always so
2 - andy marsh
Wouldn't a better analogy be a car dealer? He or she will tell you that one particular car is better than any other make of car that might be in the same class. Trying to compare and contrast his or her model with the equivalent model of another manufacturer. Like politicians, they pick and choose the points they want to highlight and conveniently ignore the things that might make their policy (or model)look substandard?
3 - Eric Olsen
excellent analogy Andy
4 - Hal Pawluk
Perhaps "collectively people are often amazingly capable of finding the higher truth" (whatever that is supposed to mean), but the evidence is that they aren't even trying to find any kind of truth.
They simply take the words of the politicians at face value. Things are going well in Iraq. We are fighting and winning the war on terror. The economy is great.
Pfui.
The car dealer analogy is a poor one.
At least when you buy a car, you get a car.
When you buy a politician's lies, you go merrily on your way thinking you "have" what the politican said you have, but the truth is something entirely different.
An easy example of this is the "American Jobs Creation Act of 2004."
You would believe it creates jobs in America, wouldn't you? That's what Bill Thomas, Chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, and the the business puppets in Congress want you to think. Instead, it's corporate welfare that provides tax bonuses to companies creating jobs overseas (along with a whole list of other pork that has nothing to do with creating jobs).
Double pfui.
5 - andy marsh
Of course it's a poor analogy, Hal didn't think of it! It's good to know that there will ALWAYS be someone around to slam the people he or she doesn't agree with! Hal - do you like ANYTHING about this country?
6 - Hal Pawluk
Children! Children! Please behave!
If you must say something, address the issue and cut out the ad hominem crap.
7 - Hal Pawluk
PS: It IS a poor analogy.
8 - JR
Politicians are in direct charge of the army, the federal police, the spy agencies and our nuclear arsenal. And yet we're only supposed to hold them to the ethical standards we would expect from used-car salesmen, rather than that which we would normally expect from doctors?
I guess freedom and security don't mean any more to us than a $500 car.
9 - Winston Smith
(a) I'm with Hal...How is "higher" truth higher? What's wrong with regular old truth? Again, defense of the administration seems to require some kind of quasi-relativism or something...
(b) I'm also with JR: although all administrations (with the possible exception of Carter) have a bit of the used car salesman in them, the more of it they have the worse they are. You wouldn't trust your health to a doctor whose moral standards were so low...so how can we trust such politicians with something so much more valuable--the health, as it were, of our country and the very world.