Here's another philosophical post. I've been mildly interested in the health-care debate in the United States. Mostly because the United States is the only industrialized country that does not have universal health care.
American conservatives seem to resist a single-payer health care system. And President Obama promised that they would get one, but as it turns out the new health-care bill right now is a bailout for insurance companies. How did this happen?
Lies. American conservatives have been lying about the proposed health-care bill. For example, Sarah Palin made up the lie about how "death squads" would be in charge of deciding whether Americans live or die. The lie is outrageous, outlandish.
Yet people believe it. I have no doubt that Sarah Palin knows it's a lie - but I'm interested in a deeper topic. Does she justify the lie to herself because she knows that she is lying for a greater good, and that "lies" can be excused in this case?
Certainly she thinks a single-payer health care system would be a terrible thing for America. In her book she said that Canada should dismantle its own system and adopt American for-profit health-care.
So should we be allowed to lie in a debate if we know that we are right, and the lie helps convince someone that we are right?
I say no.
No matter how sure we are, there's always a chance we are wrong. When you lie to persuade people, you're not offering them a fair way to make up their minds. If you do manage to convince them, their knowledge is incomplete - so, in fact, you have not convinced them of anything.
So I conclude that lying is not justified even if you're sure you are correct.
No comments:
Post a Comment