Posted on 07/11/2002 7:25:08 PM PDT by lewislynn
Scripps Howard News Service (sh) - In a press conference the day before President Bush's Wall Street speech, a reporter noted that the "excesses of the 1990s" occurred when Bill Clinton was president and asked whether Bush thought that Clinton "contributed to that, set a moral tone in any way." The president's reply was a brief one. "No," he said. The reply was also a correct one, because while Clinton's brazen lying hardly set a sterling example for the nation, it was almost as if any other example would have left the nation amazed. A striking fact was the way so many excused his deceptions, saying, for instance, that all men lie about sex or that all politicians lie. A widespread public attitude - not just among his partisan defenders - seemed to be that lying even in a courtroom is no big deal, least of all in self-threatening circumstances. There is a problem here, namely that if large numbers of people are prone to shrug their shoulders about lying, to treat it as less a harmful transgression than as excusable and normal, it is going to be more common, and soon enough some CEO will be telling a lie that demonstrates why it should not be common. Because of the lie, investors will lose many millions of dollars. Employees will be out of work. When enough CEOs tell lies, the very economy can be put in turmoil. Lying is a big deal, as is superbly argued by Sissela Bok in her book, "Lying: Moral Choice in Public and Private Life," first published in 1978. A lie, she notes early on, is like violence: It is a "deliberate assault on human beings." Owing to a lie, people may act against their own interests. They are in effect coerced or controlled. People who are intentionally misled "are unable to make choices for themselves according to the most adequate information available. ..." Society, Bok says, could not possibly function without "some degree of truthfulness in speech and action." "Imagine a society, no matter how ideal in other respects, where word and gesture can never be counted on," she writes. "Questions asked, answers given, information exchanged - all would be worthless. Were all statements randomly truthful or deceptive, action and choice would be undermined from the outset." Bok grants there are "white lies" that are trivial and not injurious, but asserts the "veracity principle" that "truthful statements are preferable to lies except in the absence of special considerations." She shows that many of these "considerations" are not so persuasive when looked at closely, and she shows how one person is often hurt even when no one else is - the liar, who loses his "dignity" and "integrity." Another philosopher, Lesek Kolakowski, makes similar arguments in his book, "Freedom, Fame, Lying, and Betrayal." He thinks it impossible to come up with an "infallible" principle of when lying is permissible, even though it sometimes is. A guide, he says, is first off that we should not deceive ourselves. Any cause that seems to justify a lie, he says, is particularly "suspect" if it "happens to coincide with our own interests." And even a justified lie is "not itself morally good," he tells us. I don't think we are now a nation of liars, that Clinton was the first president to lie or that this recent spate of corporate deception is the first dishonesty among business leaders America has ever seen. But I do think the extreme relativists have the upper hand in some intellectual circles and in the worst of the popular culture. I think their influence is widespread and corrosive. And I think we need to reacquaint ourselves with the principles enunciated by people like Bok and Kolakowski, not simply by hoping a handful of executives get what is coming to them, but by expecting more of each other in all walks of life. A good place to start is our national politics. Anyone who thinks Congress is remotely honest is not paying attention. Whether the issue is demagoguery on Social Security or budget shenanigans, the American people are constantly being misled, which is to say, the people are being deliberately assaulted. If the public continues to accept this as so many accepted Clinton's lies, the consequences will be far worse than the duplicity at Enron or WorldCom. Jay Ambrose is director of editorial policy for Scripps Howard Newspapers. Email him at AmbroseJ(at)shns.com |
Posted on 07/10/02 20:47:00
http://www.modbee.com/24hour/opinions/story/462526p-3699465c.html
At some point society needs to favor honesty and shun, or preferably punish, those who lie. Politicians need to called on it and held accountable. In many ways, people are sheep, but they will follow the crowd and good leaders. And the best leaders lead through their own example by attempting to follow the highest standard. And, unless we are sociopaths, I believe that we recognize that highest standard in our hearts and respond when others live it.
Clinton lowered us all by showing us the worst side of human behaviour and then lowered us further by not only getting away with it, but by flaunting it. His pattern of behaviour was that of an evil, corrupt man who tainted everything and everyone who came close. Another missed opportunity by Mr. Bush.
Bush has been an exceptional disappointment.
That being the case, they shouldn't complain if someone's lies has robbed them of their wealth.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.