Lying in a Good Cause

Well it's salesmanship innit? Are you the new FTSE?

Yes, he's the new improved Footsie, 99% more effective than all other brands. Indeed, Chuck, the truth isn't convincing, that's why we have advertising... Oh, and diplomacy.

... and political manifestos.

I'm the re-branded FTSE with the new mission statement and million-dollar logo. I'm hoping to triple my readership this year.

"It seems to be a generally accepted principle that anybody is entitled to exaggerate, mislead and tell outright lies, so long as it's in a good cause." Not sure what you mean by entitled to. I accept that people should be able to exaggerate, mislead and tell lies and not be prosecuted for doing so as long as they don't break any other laws in the process. I don't accept that lying in a good cause is a good way to advance your cause but I also doubt that Michael Moore or Al Gore would accept that they have lied. They express opinions that other people disagree with. Moore's films include quite a few statements and suggestions that I think are ridiculous - Canadians happily leave their doors unlocked when they go out, the big state means everything's great in France - but that doesn't make them lies.

Very true buk but 'a large percentage of Canadians in rural communities leave their doors unlocked' or 'socialism in France is far from being a perfect system' just don't have the same impact. Moore's aim is not to put his audience to sleep.

Leaving out Wittgenstein and the ambiguity of language, the chance of misleading readers by accident because you have been misinformed and the possibilty that you are simply mistaken, there still remains the problem of whether there is actually any Absolute Truth or if truth is relative. In my experience statements using any language - even mathematics – the more you say the less sure you can be of it. It’s simple probability. It is fairly easy to say something trivial with almost absolute confidence but the more complex and specific your statement becomes the less certain you can be... so often you are forced to speak in generalities. For instance you can be fairly certain you are correct if you say “Smoking can damage your health.” or even ”Excessive smoking will damage your health.” But you’re on much less certain ground if you say “Smoking will damage your health.”... Especially to those who don’t smoke :O) As the Taoist expression puts it “First there is the Tao, all else is speculation.” Or, for our purposes perhaps “First there is the Tao, all else is opinion.” I know you have a fondness for Science Footsie – so, would you say that scientists are lying when they tell us the Universe began with a Big Bang? It’s a theory, a generally accepted theory, but only a theory. Again, most of us take it for granted that Darwin’s Theory of Evolution is correct but of course we all know that once something is proved beyond doubt it is elevated from a theory to a law... probably :O) Writers could spend all their time listing the possible exceptions to their arguments but surely that is the job of their opponents and critics :O)

"Moore's aim is not to put his audience to sleep." Yeah, that's true. Another element that Moore has to contend with is that - for someone with centre-left views - he's spent most of his career operating in a very hostile environment and you can partly understand his approach by looking at some of the ideas he's directly up against. For example, Bowling for Columbine, was made against the backdrop of a senior Republican politician claiming that kids go into schools and shoot other kids because they've been taught the theory of evolution - and being taken seriously.

Moore has a lot of enemies. He's a brave guy. Course he's in the movie business too so he has to think about the money side.

I think he's a miracle, how did he get a distributor? I thought most of the Democrats in Tinsel Town were the creatives, not the money men. There are exceptions, I know: bet you the late Chuck Heston didn't like 'Columbine' much!

Disney chickened out of Fahrenheit 911...there was some legal shenanigans and Weinstein Co. ended up distributing Sicko. They did OK on the deal. The gun debate has heated up BTW with all the recent shootings.

To change the subject for a moment back to Al Gore who was also mentioned in the original post. I thought that I should point out that Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth was a milestone in how we viewed Global Warming. I suspect you haven’t seen it Footsie or you would know that Gore has been interested in the climate and the environment since his student days. So far as I know he was the first one to put forward a coherent explanation of how global warming was causing climate change. In 2007 he won the Nobel Peace Prize (he actually shared it with a Panel on Climate Change) for spreading greater knowledge about man-made climate change, and outlining the foundations for measures to counteract such change. “...one wonders how much Gore really understands about the topics he is so passionate about.” Well, one should have a lot better idea now, Footsie :O)

Ah yes, them prizes. Two oscars, I believe, for An Inconvenient Truth (which I watched again on TV last night, hence the post) which sounds great so long as you don't mention that one was for best original song! The Nobel prize Gore won wasn't for science, which would have involved scrupulous honesty and in-depth knowledge, but for peace, which basically says his heart is in the right place. I'm sure it is, both literally and figuratively. Nobody on the Nobel committee checked the veracity of his statements, just the size of his hat and the volume of his voice.

Good to see you back on form Footsie :O) Not sure how you can check the science of Global Warming since it itself is still warming but surely Al got the Nobel Prize for being right and sticking with it until people actually saw that he was right:O) Not sure how loud his voice is but it seemed to take a very long time before most of us listened. You'll have to work very hard if you want to convince me that doing good science means that people know what they are talking about though. In my experience it simply means they have more information to argue about. Give me people who are right every time :O)

At school we've recently been discussing the case of a paramedic who, upon arrive at a house was greated by a mother screaming and holding a dead baby (cot death and the baby had been dead some time). The paramedic went through the motions of a recusitation even though she knew it was hopeless. Hopeless but not pointless as she felt the mother would be better able to reach some kind of resolution if she felt everything had been done to try and save the child. Is a well-intentioned lie like this morally right? The answer depends on what school of ethics you subscribe to. Under Kant's ethical system, a deceitful promise is wrong as it treats people as a means to an end and not as ends in themselves. Under Bentham or Mills' consequentialism, since it reduces the pain of the mother of the dead child it is perfectly acceptable. Virtue ethics fails to give a conclusive answer since truth is a virtue as much as compassion. In the practical example you've cited, I feel a huge problem with eco-fanaticism is, as you eloquently out it 'unwitting dimwittery', and once you hear a piece of this from say Al Gore or Bono or whoever; subsequently it is very hard to take seriously anything they say. People who don't really understand the science may actually be doing more harm than good by making well-intentioned but misleading statements. jude "Cacoethes scribendi" http://www.judesworld.net

Mykle, Interesting comments about Gore's book.We recently had a lecture on climate change and health by a philosopher who was a fan of and kept quoting Gore's book. The lecturer and Gore are both non-scientists but I kept an open mind. As parasitology was my specialisation as an undergraduate I was particularly interested in climate change and the habitats of parasite vectors. The scaremongering I was presented with was truly shocking - as if in a few years time we'll be taking our children in the UK to the doctors with sleeping sickness or malaria. Secondly, the establishment of green parakeets in the South-East was also cited (not in Gore's book but by a Gore-ite) as a consequence of climate change. This is utter rubbish... birds escaped into the wild a few decades ago and the population has naturally built up - the record numbers are following the normal trend of any newly established species. Many foreign species (such as carp) can thrive in non-ideal climates. It's very wearisome to try and sift between fact and fiction! jude

I'm still interested in the initial premise of the discussion that it's "a generally accepted principle that anybody is entitled to exaggerate, mislead and tell outright lies, so long as it's in a good cause." I'd agree that exaggeration is generally accepted (I personally think it's often counter-productive) but I'm not sure about the others. Footsie, do you have any examples of these outright lies - as opposed to contentious opinions - which are generally accepted as being ok because they're offered in a good cause?

Hey Jude, While I can see where you are coming from, and I’m far too lazy to check, it could be that the argument about the Parakeets was NOT about how they got there - but that without Global Warming that it would have been too cold for them to stay there (remembering that the Thames used to freeze so deep they could have bonfire heated parties on it). Not sure what Carp have to do with it? As for the prediction that the UK climate will soon be able to sustain mosquitoes of the type that can carry Malaria and Dengue Fever etc. There has been a lot of worry that they might spread to the warmer parts of Europe and the EC long since implemented mandatory mosquito sprays on air flights in an effort to stop the spread of any type of the bloody things. Strangely I don't think that long haul flights are effected by the same requirement which would seem... well, typical:O) As I said earlier, it’s hard to define things as true or untrue - in the main you can only attempt to calculate the degree of certainty within your area of interest. Luckily we live in a wonderfully colourful world which will always defeat the efforts of those who would wish it to be black and white.

If you are negotiating between two sides and the gap between them is light years wide, one well known technique is to 'lie' to both of them about what the other side is prepared to concede. If one party thinks the other is willing to yield a bit of ground, then they may be inclined to give some ground themselves, and before you know it the lies have been turned into reality. It can all go horribly wrong of course.

Well, I thought I’d throw together a little joke piece that, hopefully, illustrates the arguments of Footsie and Jude and I’m looking forward to their amusing responses :O) It seems to me that we have a misplaced faith in science. After all, science, with its physicists, economists and God bashers, doesn’t seem to prevent things like Global Warming and the resulting Climate Change or even predict an Economic Crisis. In general we trust these people who we are told are incredibly bright and beavering away in the background to bring us a brighter tomorrow and yet a lot of the time they are really either: grabbing all they can and stuffing it in their pockets; trying to flog us their latest theory; or too busy building or playing with their latest toy to give much thought to anything else. When people like Al Gore start shouting “Lookout we’re heading toward disaster” then they spend years arguing about whether he is or isn’t right. We get told that actually the world is getting colder, we get told that it is getting warmer but it’s nothing to do with us and finally when the evidence is totally inescapable they finally agree that the consensus is that Gore is probably right. Hurrah! So, now that we’ve agreed that there is a problem they have all gone off again to argue how to deal with it. No doubt by the time we’re all living in boats they will pronounce that they have all agreed that the sea levels will rise :O)

M, The parakeets have had their numbers kept in check by harsh winters and following a series of unusually mild winters there's been a population build up. But this has occured following series of mild winters in previous decades. Every time it happens the surviving population is larger as a cumulative build up. Harsh winters are why it has taken 60 years to build up a population of 20k parakeets in SE rather than several hundred thousand. I mention the carp because they are an introduced species that are not ideally suited to this climate since it is just a few degrees too cold for their optimum breeding temperature (that's why they've never really threatened indiginous fish populations). Since these fish were introduced in medieval times and the population has stabilised, they're a better barometer of climate change. When we see a carp population explosion I might take it seriously! jude "Cacoethes scribendi" http://www.judesworld.net

My argument about the birds was that without climate change there would probably have been a winter so harsh it wiped the lot out, Jude! As for carp - they live in water Jude. As a scientist you should realise that you can't compare birds with fish. However, there has actually been big changes recently in the marine life off our coast as I'm sure you know. Species never seen here before and others spreading ever farther North.

"My argument about the birds was that without climate change there would probably have been a winter so harsh it wiped the lot out" These birds have been in the wild for decades when we have experienced extremely harsh winters. These birds are quite hardy and these winters might reduce the population but would never kill every last one... not in a temperate climate. I'm not comparing birds directly with the fish in any sense that invalidates my point. I'm pointing out that the effects of climate change (on those species on the margins of viability in the UK climate as the parrots and carp both are) are best measured on an established population and not one that's still in the process of establishing itself! jude "Cacoethes scribendi" http://www.judesworld.net

Hey J, As you say in your earlier post “The birds escaped into the wild a few decades ago” My point is that Global warming had already had its effects by then and that without it the birds would probably not have survived:O) Many of the older people reading this will remember just how harsh winters could be many years ago and I suspect that were you a little older you would realize that was the main reason so many birds decided to fly South for the winter :O) You can’t compare creatures that live on the ground to those that live in water if you’re arguing about climate. The weather on the ground changes from day to day with temperatures changing on an hourly basis but the sea takes months as you’d know if you tried swimming in the North Sea before the end of Summer :O) So creatures on the land and particularly of the air are subject to a much greater variation in evironmental changes. I’m not trying to say you’re wrong Jude , simply that, as I keep saying, truth is a relative variable – at least on a local level. Personally I do believe there are Absolute Truths but that’s not what we’re arguing about and personally I don’t think science has any.

"My point is that Global warming had already had its effects by then and that without it the birds would probably not have survived". This has been discredited as a theory and I'll email you some references so as not to bore the thread stiff with it! 'truth is a relative variable', true, sometimes. And there might not be a lot of Truths that are absolute but I think we will always have to disagree with the role of science as we oft have! jude "Cacoethes scribendi" http://www.judesworld.net

Actually I was half-way down the road when it occured to me that I'm not sure that Carp actually do live in the sea. So I came back to edit it to read "live in the sea and to a lesser extent in lakes, rivers and ponds" Shows what I know about fish :O) Aren't fish cold blooded - what makes them temperature dependend (above freezing obviously)? In Thailand there are many people who breed Coy Carp (a relative of the common Goldfish I think) absolutely beautiful to look at!

It isn't so much about the survival of adult fish but the temperature needed to trigger their spawning and the survival of the offspring that is the crucial factor. I studied telost fish about 12 years ago so memory is a little shaky but I know that if the UKs average temperature was just 2 degrees higher, the carp would sriously take off. They can succesfully reproduce at present but not at optimal levels. jude "Cacoethes scribendi" http://www.judesworld.net

I agree with Jude that overstatements on both sides of the climate change argument are detrimental. You end up going ‘hmmm, really’ to everything. One of the few things that wasn’t challenged after the ‘great global warming swindle’ programme, though, was the mosquito stuff. The mosquito expert tried to get his name removed from the IPCC(?) report because they’d misrepresented him completely. According to mosquito guy – global warming won’t affect malaria because temperature is not an issue. Siberia is a nightmare for mozzies apparently – huge malaria outbreaks in the past. The trouble with exaggeration, in my view, is that it can be accumulative. ~ www.fabulousmother.co.uk

"I'm still interested in the initial premise of the discussion that it's "a generally accepted principle that anybody is entitled to exaggerate, mislead and tell outright lies, so long as it's in a good cause". In normative ethical theories there are conflicting answers. To a Kantian or a Platonist or Aristotelian thinker it is definitely wrong. To a Benthamite or Millsian it is definitely okay! Most people fall into one camp or other even if they are not aware of the philosophical school they are aligned with. It depends on whether you rate virtue and principal over consequence. So I would disagree with the premise that it's "a generally accepted principle that anybody is entitled to exaggerate, mislead and tell outright lies, so long as it's in a good cause". It might be acceptable to some people but I'd guess it is unacceptable to just as many. I reckon the split would be fairly even (as was the paramedic and dead baby example I gave was when we put it to class vote). jude "Cacoethes scribendi" http://www.judesworld.net

what seems to be & what actually is are not always the same animal. not all sell their soul via misleading people, telling lies or exaggerating the truth no matter what the cause; how transparent they are. there are some of us that still tred the path of integrity with integrity. `t. imaan tretchicovmanicova "there is naught so disobedient as an untrained mind."

I find that teleost is large group of fish with bony skeletons, in fact most common fish are teleosts and that Carp are fresh water fish and the one I meant is spelled Koi :O) Exactly which type of carp are you talking about Jude – do you mean Goldfish or the giant predators hiding in the lake testing the luck and skill of the local anglers? Wiki says http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carp : “Carp, along with many of their cyprinid relatives, are popular ornamental aquarium and pond fish. The two most notable ornamental carps are goldfish and koi. Goldfish and koi have advantages over most ornamental fishes, as they are tolerant of cold (they can survive in water temperatures as low as 4 degrees Celsius), and can survive at low oxygen levels.” Not much use so I pottered about and ended up thinking that the availability of food was probably a much more important factor than temperature. Still, that illustrates my point about what we’re calling science, it isn’t a yardstick for truth, it just provides corroborative evidence for or against a particular opinion - and if you look hard enough and long enough you'll often find it also supports the opposite view :O) Eventually I remembered that this isn't really about Global Warming, or science it's about how far do we think it to is fair and legitimate to bend the pure, unalloyed, truth (as we see it) in order to get across a point we consider to be important. I would argue that this again is a variable value and depends on the importance of the point we are making and why it's important! If it's simply to save face then it's not that important; if it's an attempt to change people's opinion for their own good (in your eyes) then it's more important; and if it's an attempt to change people's attitude to saving the planet then it's most important!

Wild common carp (cyprinus carpio) can survive very low temperatures but they only spawn when the water temperature hits 17-18c. The optimal survival temp for the hatched young is 18-19. Of course these conditions are often met in the UK but often quite later in the year when the young of other species are already hatched and are less vulnerable to predation; and other times, spawning is triggered and there may follow a cold snap which kills off the entire population of young. So the population has been kept in check. But as you say, this is an aside! "How far do we think it to is fair and legitimate to bend the pure, unalloyed, truth (as we see it) in order to get across a point we consider to be important." I am as guilty as anyone of cherry-picking evidence which supports my beliefs! But using evidence I felt dubious to support a view I held dear can never in my opinion be morally justifiable. I would never cite evidence that is scientifically unsound and if a hypothesis was not supported by empirical evidence then I would make this clear. The only time I would ever be deliberately misleading would be to protect a child from unnecessary distress. jude

Perhaps the most important question just now is - how far should people be allowed to go to PREVENT others from expressing their opinions? http://www.bangkokpost.com/news/local/139785/coup-makers-offer-thaksin-b... Military officers and businessmen who backed the 2006 coup that unseated Thaksin Shinawatra have offered a bounty of one million baht for his arrest and return to Thailand. If you're interested in a quick what and why - read this: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/thailand/5110697/Thailand...

It worries me the amount of people who believe that schools have stopped teaching intelligence ;O) FTSE said “I heard some dimwit make the statement that domestic equipment 'can use up to 60% as much electricity' when in standby mode.” Yeah, you’re right FTSE it’s surely more than that… I have an Energy Star leaflet here that claims “In the home, 75% of all electricity used to power home electronics is consumed while the products are turned off." Claims to be a government program (American I think) http://www.energystar.gov/powermanagement must be that Al Gore lying in a good cause again :O) I had a fairly alarming encounter with a old grey goose hissing at me fit to bust today. This inspired me to look into the roots of the nursery rhyme Goosey Goosey Gander. The upshot of all this was that I discovered the history of the Covenanters… http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Covenanter Which contains the wonderful quote: "...the 'Congregation of Christ' would unite to defend itself against the 'Congregation of Satan'" both sides being Christian of course! Which made me wonder if Richard Dawkins might have been right all along… But only for a moment :O) It actually inspired me to write a piece on the hypocrisy of Easter but I have realised that there is no point in posting it. FTSE once hinted that I was like a dentist and I can see his point. Who wants the painful truth when it’s so much easier to suck delicious pain-killers :O) But here are some fairly painless facts I gleaned while researching my piece. Oh, except for; Easter Sunday is the first Sunday in Aries on or after the full moon - which is a speculation of mine. Easter is tied to the full moon though which is why it's a moveable feast! Easter is a time of new beginnings symbolised by the egg (fertilisation) and linked to the Roman goddess Eostre and is probably linked to the month of April by following the first full moon in Aries. It is also linked to the Jewish Passover and of course to the crucifixion of Christ. So was Christ crucified on Good Friday and was the moon near full? What difference does it make to the truth of what Christ said? Why was He crucified? Was it for threatening the income of the Jewish religious elite - the Pharisees (the separated ones). He probably shouldn't have lost His temper and thrown the money changers out of the temple. Certainly not said "You have turned my Father’s House into a den of thieves!" The Truth??? As the man said "I know nothing but at least I know one thing more than you."

I normally am utterly honest because I can't be arsed to remember what I've lied about, but I do lie when my electricity supplier asks me for a meter reading. If they can't be bothered to send someone to read the meter they deserve everything they get. Does that make me a bad person?

It seems to me that Bill Black - a former finacial regulator and author of "The Best Way to Rob a Bank Is to Own One." - makes the damning assertion that the financial crisis was caused by a failure of morality. A failure in which greed conquered integrity and not just bank managers but CEOs of the most elite institutions in America engaged in, or facilitated, fraud for immense personal gain simply because they knew they could get away with it… and the damage is far worse than any government cares to admit. Could it be we're being lied to in a good cause? http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/04032009/transcript1.html