Excusable Immoral Acts in Role Morality - Essay Example

? Excusable Immoral Acts in Role Morality Oftentimes, we hear the media criticizing the government or some politician or some lawyers in particular about something they have done wrong. However, are we really in a position to judge them through their acts and to be able to conclude that lying would not do any good simply because it is immoral? Moreover, are we also to say that transparency, honesty, and sincerity are always good virtues and would always produce good effects? Contrary to popular opinion, politicians’ and lawyers’ have a role to fulfill and therefore their lies, deception, aggression, bias or secrecy can actually be excused because of the practical value of these acts and because the demands of virtue are quite difficult to qualify. The lies, deception, aggression, bias or secrecy exemplified by politicians and lawyers have a certain practical value as proven by history. The late US president Lyndon Johnson is the perfect example of the practice of lying for the sake of the good. Known by the American citizens as a “candidate of peace,” Johnson won the election, but secretly launched Operation Rolling Thunder against North Vietnam (Bok 181-182). Nevertheless, although Johnson did not give the citizens a chance to accept or refuse the plan, he did it in order to do what he believed was good for everyone. Besides, had Johnson been transparent and had he given a chance for the electorate to make the decision instead of him, he would have caused not only widespread panic in the whole country but also a possible anarchy or overthrow of the government just to accommodate the people’s rage towards his proposed scheme. The question is not whether it was a wrong decision for Johnson to wage war against North Vietnam but whether the people should be informed at all times every time a decision has to be made. If one chooses to do the latter, then on what basis that should be done? What right do the majority of citizens have in order for them to be qualified to make a political decision in behalf of the government? Perhaps, one has to remember that, in a democratic society like America, the people vote for the President and for the other politicians because they have placed their trust in them. Therefore, whatever Lyndon Johnson did, there was no way the people could put the blame on him for that, because in the first place, the people were the ones who had him elected as President and have somehow given him all the right to make decisions for them. it would therefore be absurd to think that the people voted for someone to make decisions for them but for them to dictate which decisions he should make. It is like hiring a painter to paint your wall, and guiding his hand every time he paints. In such cases, one had better do it himself. The point therefore is that no one can blame politicians for telling lies and for keeping things secret because they would not be doing those things had they not been elected by the people in the first place. Nevertheless, as in the example of Johnson and of many other presidents and politicians who have made drastic decisions in behalf of their country, most of the time the purpose is for the benefit and survival of all. Moreover, when President Franklin Roosevelt made the decision for the United States to join the Second World War, he did not have to consult each and every American, for two reasons – the war would be over even before he finished doing that, or it would certainly be met with tough opposition from religious and peace-oriented groups while Americans at Pearl Harbor were being slaughtered by the Japanese. Secrecy and lies have their own wisdom, and every politician who was honestly elected by his constituents have every right to do these things if it were to ultimately benefit the people. These negative moral acts also have a practical value based on theoretical philosophy. Although negatively moral, it is true that “a certain amount of illusion is needed in order for public servants to be effective [and that] every government…has to deceive people to some extent in order to lead them” (Bok 178). This is practical especially in cases where time is lacking for the government to explain everything to the people, and if the leaders believe that the proposed scheme, regardless of its great potential for good, would never possibly elicit popular support (181). No intelligent, sane and truly concerned politician would allow any good and useful scheme to be put to waste just because the majority of people were not in favor of it. After all, people may be naturally “bad” and so may not therefore be able to make sound decisions (Machiavelli 84). Not to mention people may also be emotional, fickle and ignorant. Based on the previous point, no great leader would also allow a good scheme to be put to waste just because there was not enough time for the government to know it. Sometimes, the most important decisions are made in secrecy and when time is limited, and sometimes the worst happen when everyone knows the truth or when decisions are delayed in favor of some people who are actually unimportant. Moreover, still on the subject of the practical benefits of lying and secrecy based on theoretical philosophy, lies and secrecy have economic benefits. For example, “government officials will typically seek to avoid any premature announcement and will refuse to comment if asked whether devaluation or higher taxes are imminent” (Bok 187). The reason for the secrecy is clear – to prevent hoarding, which actually leads to more serious tax and devaluation problems. This is also the reason why politicians hide from the people the truth about how much they actually earn. They do so because they do not want their constituents to think of how greedy they actually are, for when the public begins to distrust, it is definitely the end of public trust. When there is no more public trust, anarchy or chaos could always follow. Although this somehow illustrates a Aside from the economic benefits of lying and secrecy, they may also be the only way for the country to remain politically stable. A prince or leader or any politician must seek to appear to be “merciful, faithful, humane, upright, and religious” in order to maintain the respect of his constituents, of his subjects and of his subordinate officers (Machiavelli 85). This is because the ordinary human being can be extremely judgmental, and may “judge generally more by the eye than by the hand” (86). This means that once these judgmental citizens see even just a small discrepancy in the character of the leader or politician, there is a chance that a mere negative comment would blow up into a general accusation of corruption, and will therefore result into chaos and anarchy. When there is chaos and anarchy, it is true that perhaps justice has been met, but it is also equally true that justice has been served at such a great loss and at the expense of the whole country and people. Certainly, no citizen in his right mind would want this to happen, and the only way to do this is through secrecy. Aside from their value in terms of theoretical moral philosophy, these negative moral acts also have an altruistic purpose. Lies, for example, seem to have a noble purpose when they possess complete harmlessness and when they serve as the fulfillment of one’s duty to protect one’s secrets (Bok 175). It is excusable when politicians and lawyers lie as long as their purpose is for the sake of altruism. If, for example, a politician has to lie about his intentions in order to prevent war or panic among the citizens, then he tells lies for the sake of everyone’s survival because he knows that revealing his true intentions, i.e., revealing the truth, would mean endangering the lives of many. Moreover, telling lies is important in the case of secrecy, where the concealment of the truth can even save lives. If, for example, the politician told the citizens that there would be a 50-50 chance that a war would break out, then it would cause panic and certain chaos regardless whether a war would really happen. Still, another example would be a politician who tells the people lies about how much the government actually spends. The purpose of this is to keep the peace despite the corruption. It therefore seems to the politician that if he were to tell lies, there would still be peace and not many people would be hurt or affected. However, if he were to tell the truth, there would be instant opposition and even rebellion. With this latter consequence, there is a greater possibility that more people would be hurt. He does this because after all, people are emotional and “bad” (Machiavelli 84). Therefore, if men were entirely good, it would be easy to tell the truth, but since they are “bad,” then lies and secrecy would be necessary (84). Nevertheless, although people are bad, the politician or lawyer has no reason not to show them altruism even if he has to tell lies. In fact, Plato echoes the same opinion in The Republic: “The rulers of the city may, if anybody, fitly lie on account of enemies or citizens for the benefit of the state” (Bok 327). This means that, as long as the purpose is for altruism, lying is excusable. Certainly, it is not a good thing to think that lying, secrecy and other immoral acts are excusable but they are the more practical choice because telling the truth would actually be less useful. This is because the demands of virtue are difficult to qualify and turn into an absolute rule. For example, if one should advocate truth-telling among lawyers and politicians, one should define the extent to which truth must be revealed. One should also try to rack his brains as to how many exceptions to the rule must be made, and to how others would be able to take this if everything had to be 100% transparent. There would therefore be every likelihood of conflict and chaos if this were to be the case and if the government would even be just 50% transparent. People are naturally bad – including politicians and lawyers – and if they have to be honest with this, then we would not like what we would see (Machiavelli 84). Thus, transparency in the government is really impractical. Another reason is the inconsistency in the stance of those who advocate truth-telling and transparency in the government. According to Anita Allen, “Cheating in government seems worse than cheating in most other contexts because public trust in the rule of law is one of the most essential needs of modern societies” (15). However, after maligning cheating in the government, she also admits that “cheating and cheaters are deeply rooted in American culture” (8). What then is the point that she is driving at? Does she say that we have to do away with cheating? But how can we do away with something that is already “deeply rooted” in us? There would therefore be just endless questions if transparency had to be advocated. The lies, secrecy and other immoral acts of politicians and lawyers have many practical benefits such as the maintenance of peace and order, the maintenance of political stability, the protection of the economy, and the prevention of panic, chaos, anarchy and disaster, as well as the expression of altruism. The good that these immoral acts bring are definitely much better compared to the impracticality of transparency and truth-telling in the government. Besides, if transparency and sincerity were the rule, there would always be the question of how transparent and how sincere a politician or lawyer should be, as well as an endless consideration of possibly negative consequences. Top of Form Bottom of Form Works Cited Allen, Anita, L. “Cheating, the Big Mistake.” The New Ethics: A Guided Tour of the Twenty-First Century Moral Landscape. New York: Miramax Books, 2004. Print. Bok, Sissela. Lying: Moral Choice in Public and Private Life. New York: Vintage Books, n.d. Print. Machiavelli, Nicolo. “Chapter XVIII.” The Prince. Trans. W. K. Marriott. Print. Read More