I
I am totally confused by the volume of lying in the public sphere from the mouths of our leaders, political and professional. I am shocked by the importance of the matters that they lie about. They know they are lying; or is there a psychosis-induced epidemic of lying without intent? How can they possibly justify their lying?
Not everyone who hears them knows that they are lying. Others do know that they are lying. What is the responsibility of those who know that they are lying?
II
I have always thought that lying was a simple proposition.
- Lying is generally (!) wrong.
- All of us lie, maybe not every day, maybe not on important matters, maybe not with consequences. But we lie.
- If I know that I am lying, then I’d better have a very good reason. I must be conscious and intentional; and, I must have made the decision to lie only following honest collaboration with my mirror (my better self?) to ensure that I have weighed all aspects and consequences of the lie. And, I must be willing to admit and defend the lie when (!) it is discovered.
III
But, then the lying thing becomes more complicated when perpetrated (I use that word intentionally) in the hands of the professional. At least one more consideration, in addition to the above:
- Am I violating my pledge of ethical professionalism, i.e., is it in furtherance of ethical professionalism (a very high bar, maybe an unreachable bar!) as opposed to being in service to my personal, even selfish, motivations?
I am horrified to wonder whether there might be an explanation for the lies of the professional other than psychoses or political convenience or self-satisfaction or even outright self-service. I am horrified to propose that our professions, by their very rules and structures, may accommodate, if not encourage, lying (or some cousin or second cousin to lying).
- Is the lawyer searching for truth when advocating for her client?
- Is the journalist reporting the facts when he slides into “advocacy journalism” or, very differently, feels obligated to give both sides of an argument (whether or not tenable or even honest)?
- When does marketing include aspects of lying?
- How much confirmation bias (lying?) exists in science, in research?
- Where does lying fit into Clergy advocacy for White Christian Nationalism?
- Is ignoring frightful dual uses of technology, or pretending lack of bias in biased algorithms, a form of lying?
Not to mix messages, but where does complicity begin?
IV
And, how better framed than in the famous words of that well known public intellectual/ethicist, Kellyanne Conway, “alternative facts”—when talking about lying in the public sphere, when we are talking about leaders whose job, whose profession, is to serve the public. With them and their lying, I must ask two more questions, again in addition to the above:
- Can any intentional lying be justified when we are talking about public communications?
- What responsibility do we, the recipients of the lying, have when we hear the public lies? And, what is the responsibility of other public-facing individuals who recognize the lies as lies?
V
To help me answer these questions, I went to the source: fiction! The novel!
Here are two characters in George Saunders most recent novel Vigil:
“Is it lying when one knows how one wants things to turn out and says what is needed to achieve that result?” said R.
“Lying when a person uses his considerable reputation and his mastery of public communication to thrash his opponents by redirecting the attention of the general populace, thus infecting the people with the tiniest sliver of doubt, which, widely propagated, becomes a sizeable wedge of doubt?” said G.
“Doesn’t every idea”, said R, “even those judged by some standards to be fallacious or those which have been disproven outright, deserve to be honored with the public’s attention?”
“Doesn’t the public have the right to know?” Said G.
“And decide for itself?” said R.
“Are you calling the public stupid?” said G.
“Do you not believe in democracy?” said R.
Irony and fiction at play!
------------
And, here, Salmon Rushdie in his story The Old Man in the Piazza—from the narrator:
The vanity of certainty, which gives each finger-wagging debater […] his or her reason for her or his insistence on that or this dispute, strikes the old man as the very fons et origo of comedy. The sun, madam, does not rise in the west, however vehemently you may argue that it does, and, sir, the moon is not made of Gorgonzola cheese, and to deny that is not to agree with your opponent, who describes it as an elaborate papier-mache fake, nailed to the sky to make us believe that we live in a three-dimensional universe of stars, planets, and satellites rather than upon a dish with a great lid over it, a lid like an inverted colander […]
Are mistaken notions harmful to the brain, to the community, to the health of the body politic, or are they simply errors to be tolerated as the product of simple minds? The fact that all those involved in discussing this question have heads full of tosh and piffle does not make for productive debates.
Hmm, is Rushdie calling me tosh and piffle?
VI
The fact is that we know the lies; we know that they are lies. They are so obvious. Unless we are to believe Saunders’ character G, lying is not up for partisan or political debate. To return to Rushdie, the sun, madam, does not rise in the west, however vehemently you may argue that it does; the crowd, Kellyanne, was not the largest crowd in history even if you justify the lie as alternative facts; the election, ladies and gentlemen, was not rigged, irrespective of how many times you say so and regardless of how self-serving it is; the citizens shot and killed in Minneapolis were not, Pam and Kash, terrorists who were attacking the shooters, even if that is politically convenient or satisfies your sycophantic responsibilities.
Neither lying nor ignoring the lying is partisan or political. I would have written the above after the Times and Post publication of the Pentagon Papers. Bill Clinton did have sexual relations with that woman.
I am willing to accept that we are not going to stop the politicians from lying (is that why FASPE does not treat politics as a profession, why we do not treat politicians as professionals?). But, the informed public and the true professionals must not stand by and passively observe or tolerate the lies. More, they (we!) must find effective means of calling out the lies. That is what ethical professionalism is all about.
Again, not to mix messages, but where does complicity begin?
Professionals, those with influence, we must count on you to speak truth, to find effective means of separating truth from lies. Speaking truth, calling out lies, and ethical professionalism must trump the conventions of our politics and of our professions.
"Considering Professional Ethics" is a monthly essay shared in the FASPE e-newsletter.
Click here to sign up for future newsletters.
Comments are reviewed and approved before being published to reduce spam on posts. Please note that your comment will not be immediately visible for this reason.