A recent rumour on the Internet said that Jesus used to smoke weed. Those who strongly believe that we should legalize marijuana should try to spread this rumour to gain a few percent of Jesus loving voters that voted against Prop. 19 in California. What is wrong with that morally? If you sincerely believe that legalizing marijuana is good for the country but just 5% of people are blocking the reform then there is nothing wrong in spreading this rumour. Or is it? As it is, no one really believes that Marijuana is good for Glaucoma, or for pain, and for so many other ailments that people claim, but we all ignore these lies because it achieves what is right.
If freedom is about getting what you want but the power to do what is right is with people who are clearly wrong then it becomes necessary to use lies to convince them to vote for your cause. What is wrong with fooling "bad" people who are against a noble cause?
Many Ayurvedic doctors in India mix herbs with well known miraculous drugs like Aspirin and the antibiotics for those who only want to be treated with natural herbs. After all curing people is a good cause and profitable one too!
Thomas Jefferson once said that when the poor figure out they can loot the Treasury if they elect the right politicians, America is done. Fortunately, America has sold the American dream to the masses by giving anecdotal evidence of ordinary people who have made it big. Americans really believe that "anyone can do anything if only they work hard". So the taxes on the rich can be kept low because that would be punishing success.
Without the lies the 1% rich cannot convince the other 99% to give them what they want.
In politics lies are a necessary evil.
Very interesting thought!
ReplyDeleteI've thought a lot about this sort of thing in reference to climate change. Often, media hype around climate change involves dubious links between CO2 and specific extreme weather events: links that a climate scientist would tell you are scientifically unfounded. Many proponents of this approach reason that while this type of reporting is not completely ingenuous, at least this gets the correct message out.
The problem is, climate skeptics can then ignore the true facts, refute the questionable and overstated "evidence", and head home feeling their views are vindicated. What do you think about that?
You made a very good point.
ReplyDeleteThere is nothing new about the politicians distorting scientific facts or using pseudo-science to sell their agendas but the scientists should not be the silent accomplices.
No agenda is worth ruining the impeccable reputation of science - the only way of arriving at the truth known to mankind.
I like that -- science: the only way of arriving at the truth known to mankind.
ReplyDeleteThis is very complex topic to start with :) I dont beleive 'lies' are tolerated in politics only. I think in general lies are essential part of human life. In fact that is why we are humans and not machines nor are we animals, the later 2 cant lie.
ReplyDeleteSecond part is your 'lie' could be my 'truth'. Generally lies are not very clear 'you cant say that a sun is not sun'. But in life every thing is in grey area, sorry to say but your so called 'science' is only black and white to a certain degree and then it gets into a grey area.