The question “why lie if the truth would suffice” can be interpreted in at least three ways. One way is to see it as asking about the motivation to lie—this is an inquiry asking for an explanation. A second way is to see it as an inquiry into the weighing of the advantages and disadvantages of lying. The third way is to see it as a rhetorical question that states, under the guise of inquiry, that one should not lie if the truth would suffice.
Since a general discussion of this question would be rather abstract, I will focus on a specific example and use it as the basis for the discussion. Readers should, of course, construct their own examples using their favorite lie from those they disagree with. I will use Trump’s response to the Democrats’ Green New Deal as my example.
In 2019 the Democrats proposed a Green New Deal aimed at addressing climate change and economic issues. As with any proposal, it has problems and rational criticisms can be raised against it. Trump asserted that the Democrats intend “to permanently eliminate all Planes, Cars, Cows, Oil, Gas & the Military – even if no other country would do the same.” While there are some Democrats who would endorse doing all of that, the Democrats as a party do not intend to do any of that. Looked at rationally, it would seem to make no sense to lie about the Green New Deal. If it is bad enough to reject on its own defects, lies would not be needed. If one must lie to attack it, this suggests that the person has no actual arguments against it—otherwise they would just point out the real defects. To use an analogy, if a prosecutor engages in lies to try to convict a person, this suggests that that they have no case against them—otherwise they would rely on real evidence. So, why would Trump lie if the truth would suffice to show the Green New Deal is a terrible plan?
The question of why Trump (or anyone else) lies when the truth would suffice is a matter for psychology, not philosophy. So, I will leave that question to others. This leaves me with the question about the advantages and disadvantages of lying as well as the rhetorical question.
The lie about the Green New Deal is a good example of hyperbole and a straw man. Trump himself claims to use the tactic of “truthful hyperbole”. Hyperbole is a rhetorical device in which one makes use of extravagant overstatement—such as claiming that the Democrats plan to permanently eliminate all cows. The reason hyperbole is not simply called lying is that it is a specific sort of untruth (an exaggeration) and it does have some foundation in truth. That is, hyperbole involves inflating or exaggerating something real rather than making something up entirely. The Green New Deal is aimed at making America carbon neutral and this would impact cars, cows, planes, oil, gas and the military. The extravagant exaggeration is that the proposal would eliminate all of them permanently. This would be as if someone proposes cutting back on dessert and Trump said the person plans to eliminate all meals permanently. Since hyperbole is simply rhetoric, it has no logical force—it does not prove (or disprove) anything. It can, however, have psychological force—it can make people feel a certain way so they believe a claim.
Hyperbole is often used in conjunction with the Straw Man fallacy. The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person’s actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position. This sort of “reasoning” has the following pattern:
1. Person A has position X.
2. Person B presents position Y (which is a distorted version of X).
3. Person B attacks position Y.
4. Therefore X is false/incorrect/flawed.
This sort of “reasoning” is fallacious because attacking a distorted version of a position simply does not constitute an attack on the position itself. One might as well expect an attack on a poor drawing of a person to hurt the person.
Like hyperbole, the Straw Man fallacy is not based on a simple lie: it involves an exaggeration or distortion of something real. In the case of Trump and the Green New Deal, his “reasoning” is that the Green New Deal should be rejected because his hyperbolic straw man version is terrible. Since this is a fallacy, his “reasons” do not support his claim. It is, as always, important to note that Trump could be right that the Green New Deal is a bad idea—to infer that a fallacy must have a false conclusion is itself a fallacy (the fallacy fallacy).
While hyperbole has no logical force and a straw man is a fallacy, there are advantages to using them in the place of the truth. One advantage is that using them is easier than coming up with actual reasons. Criticizing the Green New Deal for what it is requires knowing what it is and considering the possible defects—this takes time and effort. Tweeting out a straw man takes mere seconds.
The second advantage is that hyperbole and straw men often work—and generally work better than the truth. In the case of complex matters, people rarely bother to do their homework and hence often do not know that a straw man is a straw man. For example, I have interacted with people who seem to honestly think that the Democrats plan to eliminate planes and cars entirely. Since this is a bad idea, they reject it—not realizing that is not the actual Green New Deal. The obvious defense against this is to do the work to know the facts. While this can take time and effort, if a person has the time to rant on Facebook or Twitter about the matter, they have the time to do some basic research. If not, their ignorance should command them to remain silent. Yes, they still have the right of free expression—I am not advocating that they be silenced.
As far as working better than the truth, a well-crafted hyperbole or straw man appeals to the target’s fears, anger or hope—they are thus motivated to believe to a degree that the truth would not match. People generally find rational argumentation dull and unmoving, especially when it is about complex matters. So, if Trump did lay out in detail the real problems with the Green New Deal, complete with supporting data and graphs, he would simply bore most people and they would tune out before he got to his conclusion. By using a straw man, he better achieves his goal of getting people to reject the Green New Deal. This does allow for a pragmatic argument for lying because the truth will not suffice.
If telling the truth would not suffice to convince people of a claim, then there is the obvious pragmatic argument that if lying would do the job, then it should be used. For example, if going into an honest assessment of the Green New Deal would merely bore people and lying would get the job done, then Trump should lie if he wants to achieve his goal. This does, however, raise some obvious moral concerns.
If the reason the truth would not suffice is because it does not logically support the person’s claim, then it would be immoral to lie. To use a non-political example, if you would not invest in my new fake company iScam if you knew it was a scam, getting you to invest in it by lying would be wrong. So, if the New Green Deal could not be refuted by the truth, Trump’s lies about it would clearly be immoral. To use an analogy, it would be like someone lying to get people to reject the measles vaccine. So, one should not lie if the truth would suffice.
But, what about cases in which the truth would logically support a claim, but the truth would not persuade people to accept the claim? Going back to the Green New Deal example, suppose that it is terrible but that explaining its defects would simply bore people and they would tune out and remain unpersuaded. But, a straw man version of the Green New Deal would persuade many people to reject this (for the sake of the discussion) terrible plan? From a utilitarian standpoint, the lie could be morally justified—if the good of lying outweighed the harms, then it would be the right thing to do. To use an analogy, suppose you were trying to convince a friend to not start a foolish and ineffective diet. You have all sorts of scientific data and good arguments, but you know your friend is bored by data and is largely immune to logic. So, telling them the truth would mean that they would go on the diet and end up suffering some health issues. But, if you exaggerate the harms dramatically, your friend will be scared and not try the diet. In such a case, the straw man argument would seem to be morally justified—you are exaggerating to protect your friend from a bad choice.
While this might seem to justify the general use of hyperbole and the straw man, ironically it only justifies their use when the truth does suffice logically but does not suffice in terms of persuasive power. That is, the fallacy is only justified as a persuasive device when there are non-fallacious arguments that would establish the same conclusion.
TJB says
March 1, 2019 at 3:00 pmThe Green New Deal has emerged as a key litmus test for prospective 2020 presidential candidates, with high-profile candidates jumping on board to back the progressive environmental pitch.
On Sunday, Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) entered the 2020 race after supporting the proposal. Four other senators who have declared presidential bids have co-sponsored the resolution, and Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), who is mulling a 2020 campaign and has previously supported the concept, will back the plan.
Their support highlights one of the progressive ideas at the center of the Democratic race, while the Republican National Committee dismissed the proposal as a “massive taxpayer boondoggle and a socialist dream come true.”
Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) and Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) introduced a resolution last week that would lay the groundwork for implementing the Green New Deal legislatively.
https://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/429342-what-key-2020-candidates-are-saying-about-the-green-new-deal
Mike–you are objecting to Trump characterizing the GND as a *Democratic* initiative? Really?
WTP says
March 1, 2019 at 4:13 pmYou’re surprised? Really?
TJB says
March 1, 2019 at 4:19 pmI am. Surely he could have found an actual lie to use as an example.
WTP says
March 1, 2019 at 5:08 pmDo you really think this article was intended to be about lies or some philosophical pondering on such?
CoffeeTime says
March 2, 2019 at 7:31 amThis essay ignores the clear truth that the GND itself is a “lie”. You may characterise it as “hyperbole”. I heard some leading Democrat characterise it as “aspirational”. All different flavours of presentation of untruth. It is exaggerated, a slogan, designed to capture attention.
The immediate response to this deals in the same currency – “hyperbole”, a “lie” – as a way of countering the rhetorical impact of the first lie. This is the case you arrive at at the end of the essay: “the lie could be morally justified—if the good of lying outweighed the harms, then it would be the right thing to do.”
The lie you personally have told is is one of omsssion: the GND is the original lie in this sequence, and you have not acknowledged that.
WTP says
March 2, 2019 at 10:58 pmAnd it’s a lie that scares innocent chikdren into thinking that they will never have a future, never grow up. It takes a sick and twisted mindset to use children as a political tool in any manner, but especially in something like this. To this degree. But hey, Trump something something something.
CoffeeTime says
March 3, 2019 at 10:54 amI believe there are at least people who honestly believe that the worst science fiction diaster movie predictions of the global warming alarmists are likely, and many more who believe they are plausible.
When people genuinely believe this, is it any worse than scaring their kids that God will burn them eternally for some rule infringement, or a lack of faith, or just because they drew a short straw in the prediestination lottery?
WTP says
March 3, 2019 at 11:40 amWhen people genuinely believe this, is it any worse than scaring their kids that God will burn them eternally for some rule infringement, or a lack of faith, or just because they drew a short straw in the prediestination lottery?
Umm….why does it have to be worse? Speaking as someone who, as an 11 year old was told by my “teachers” in a parochial school that the events of October 1973 were aligning very closely with biblical prophecy. As the bible tells us, no one will know when the end times actually will occur. And what better time for such a thing to happen but at the upcoming Christmas season when everyone is distracted. So I spent that fall into winter obsessed with thinking, as close to 24/7 as possible, about the end of the world. Because of course if just one person would think about it, it wouldn’t happen. And you know, guess what guess what guess what? It didn’t happen. Did I so much as get a thank you for saving the world? No.
You bastards don’t even have the g-d common courtesy to send me a Christmas card. Also tangentially that the world was going to run out of oil anyway by 1978…but I digress…
Though to your point, putting aside my context and addressing in the context that you present, at least the lack of faith or rule infringement aspects do have some positive value in a Freudian (not that I’m a fan, but fits here) super-ego sense whilst also providing a means of salvation.
Putting aside your predestination lottery as a giant can of worms for a much different argument which would necessarily precede this one. Tell me, can you name one mainstream branch of Christianity (putting aside the argument as to Jews and afterlife…again, can of worms) where they spend as much time scaring kids about the eternal lake of hell fire as our modern education system, along with the general news and entertainment culture, does? What I relate about my own experience above comes about as close as I can imagine, yet much of that was tempered/limited by questioning even within that school. And again, that was nearly half a century ago. It was limited to one minor subset of Christianity, it was not something broadcast on the evening news, nor perpetuated at damn near every university, nor were dozens of “documentaries” or movies made about it, it didn’t come up during football games or in the middle of mindless sitcoms (and boy did we have some mindless sitcoms). Yet you can see the danger it did to just one schmuck. Why be blase about a similar situation, with an impossible redemption factor, pushed through the world’s greatest megaphones to the entire population of children in damn near all of Western civilization. It’s the scope that is a big part of the problem here. Thoughts?
DH says
March 3, 2019 at 2:23 pmIt may be too little, too late, but thank you.
WTP says
March 3, 2019 at 4:28 pmHey, better late than never I say. You are welcome.
But to the issue, this scaring of the children across a broad spectrum of society, especially when used for political gains IS child abuse. How many AGW believers do you think really, truly believe that the world is going to end in a dozen years? I’d be interested to hear different guesses as I am stumped as to the nature of the general insanity in this country/civilization. After all, one could make the argument that half the country believed Blasey-Ford’s story. Half the country went crazy over the MAGA hat thing and the Smollett story. What percentage of the adult population do you think actually believes that we have a dozen years until the AGW apocalypse and/or the point of no return (which supposedly we already passed but, you know…do overs)?
TJB says
March 3, 2019 at 6:42 pmVery valuable insight, WTP. I have noticed kids today seem to be excessively stressed out, but I hadn’t connected the dots.
CoffeeTime says
March 7, 2019 at 12:05 amNow I’m sorry I used that particular example, but thank you for saving the world.
I do not, of course, condone the actions of the media – including and especially those of the junkies of social media – in overhyping anything they can alarm or outrage people with. The motivations of the professionals and the amateurs may differ, but the effect is the same.
I see the impulse to motivate, warn, and scare the same in both cases, and given the belief, justifiable. The complete gibberish that spews from so many clickbait and alarmist headlines is entirely reprehensible – at least they could make their scares consistent.
However, the point remains, whether applied to parents or journalists: if you believe your kid is going to burn for eternity for doing something, or not doing something, do you not try and motivate him into doing what will save him? And if you genuinely believe your kid is going to burn up in a drought in 50 years if the whole world doesn’t reduce a trace gas, what do you do about it? That much, at least, I find easy to understand.
Michael LaBossiere says
March 4, 2019 at 4:27 pmDo you mean that the GND makes factually untrue claims with malicious intent or that it is a political deceit or something else?
Now, if you think the GND is a lie, then the same discussion that I applied to Trump’s lies about the GND would apply. Also, if the GND is really just a lie, then it makes even less sense to lie about it banning cows and such–just truthfully point out the lies.
CoffeeTime says
March 5, 2019 at 8:16 pmLeaving out the preamble and the unquantified parts of the resolution, the statement, as part of its ’10-year national mobilization (referred to in this resolution as the ‘‘Green New Deal mobilization’’)’ requires two specific goals;
1. “meeting 100 percent of the power demand in the United States through clean, renewable, and zero-emission energy sources, ”
2. “upgrading all existing buildings in the United States and building new buildings to achieve maximal energy efficiency, water efficiency, safety, affordability, comfort, and durability, including through electrification;”
I think that a complete upgrade of all buildings in the US is impossible in a decade, but I’m not certain of that,
I am certain that “meeting 100 percent of the power demand in the United States through clean, renewable, and zero-emission energy sources” is impossible. Even if the plan backed nuclear, which is by any measure the cleanest of energy sources, that is not “renewable”, and not even nuclear could fill that much gap in 10 years. There is no known mechanism by which any country could meet all its energy needs “through clean, renewable, and zero-emission energy sources”, in 10 years or 50.
When a businessman sells something known to be impossible, we call it a lie and a fraud. When politicians do, what should we call it? This applies to both sides. It reminds me of the great phrase I heard when Trump was campaigning, that he should be taken “seriously, but not literally”. This is another such case.
You say that pointing out lies is enough? How well did that work to derail Trump? How well has it ever worked against a politician with an enthusiastic base?
Dan says
March 6, 2019 at 8:52 pmThoughtful post, which led me to look once again at Aristotle’s Rhetoric (a book I haven’t touched in mumblety-mumble years).
In Book I (I.3 1358a3f) Aristotle says: “Of the modes of persuasion furnished by the spoken word there are three kinds. The first kind depends on the personal character of the speaker; the second on putting the audience into a certain frame of mind; the third on the proof, or apparent proof, provided by the words of the speech itself.”
In other words: (1) Does the audience find the speaker believable? (2) Is the audience basically accepting, or hostile to the speaker? and (3) Is the proof logically consistent?
It appears to me that while the post focuses on: (3) the logic of the arguments — by contrast many of the comments focus on (1) and (2): whether the commenters find the speaker(s) to be believable, and/or whether the commenters are in a receptive frame of mind for the speaker’s arguments.
This raises for me an interesting point regarding public discourse in the U.S. today: In many cases, both liberals and conservatives, both Republicans and Democrats, are focused on the character of the speakers, and on their willingness to be receptive to the speakers, rather than on the logical arguments that speakers are making.
If I am correct about this, then that helps me understand why our public discourse seems less interested in “the proof, or apparent proof, provided by the words of the speech itself” and more on the speaker and the audience. That being the case, that might also help explain why hyperbole and the straw man are more powerful rhetorical devices in current public discourse, than logic is.
CoffeeTime says
March 6, 2019 at 10:08 pmNot just current discourse, There’s nothing new about it. It’s a part/whole fallacy, and it’s baked into our language:
“X is [(a teacher)|(a racist)|(a Communist)|(a Fascist)|(a crook)|(a liar)].
Right there.Equating a whole person to some aspect or behaviour, which may or may not be a justified aspect or a frequent behaviour, of the person. Curate’s egg? maybe. Person? not commonly.
There’s an old Aussie joke (at least I heard it from and about an Aussie; there may be variants everywhere). Bruce was pointing out his accomplishments “And I managed that ranch as far as the eye can see for 20 years, but do they call me Bruce the Rancher? No. And I built all the houses in that settlement over there, but do they call me Bruce the Builder? No.” Bruce brooded for a moment. “But you shag just ONE sheep… ”
That impulse to the part/whole fallacy is everywhere, and it is persuasive because it’s easy for our minds to grasp. One of the design flaws of the human brain.
Michael LaBossiere says
March 7, 2019 at 3:53 pmCoincidentally, I just covered Aristotle’s theory of ethos, pathos and logos in class today. You are quite right that the focus today is mostly on ethos and pathos; the same was true in Aristotle’s time. And, as you note, the reason is because doing so works.
Dan says
March 7, 2019 at 11:48 pmWhat fun! Thanks for posting this video, and now I’m going to have to carve out time to listen to the entire lecture.
Michael LaBossiere says
March 8, 2019 at 10:05 amBe sure to read the Surgeon General’s warning before doing so. 🙂
TJB says
March 8, 2019 at 12:44 pmMike, is there a particular teaching philosophy you follow? What is your view of PowerPoint in the classroom?
Michael LaBossiere says
March 11, 2019 at 12:41 pmI have tried a few approaches over the years.
One thing that is constant is that I try to give the students tools of reasoning that they can apply across life and I also push the line that truth matters.
In the past, I used to follow Aristotle’s view that people must be controlled by pain-so I made sure to have a system of penalties and strict rules.
More recently, I did a study of why students were not attending and why the failing students failed. The results indicated that students at FAMU often faced economic challenges that made it harder to attend classes and complete work. So, I adjusted my approach in two ways. The first was to improve the quality of the course and add considerable support. The hope was that quality and compassion would draw and keep students. That failed.The second was to redesign all my classes so that they could be completed without regular attendance–I record every lecture, all work can be completed online and so on. That was a mixed success. On the plus side, the failure rate declined (it was never particularly high) while the bell curve remained stable (that is, there was no grade inflation). On the minus side, attendance (as expected) plummeted and class participation dropped almost to zero. What somewhat surprised me is that there was a decline in F and D grades, but also decline in A grades. So, lots of Cs, a respectable number of Bs and very few Fs and As. Most failing grades are still due to students not doing the work, as opposed to students doing all the work but failing it all.
I used to loath PowerPoint because my first exposures to it involved “star” professors and administrators doing presentations in which they simply read the PowerPoints at us. But, I was always a note intensive teacher (philosophy often requires presenting arguments in detail) and I now use PowerPoint as a digital blackboard. I still do drawings and such on the white boards. I also find it handy for putting up charts, truth tables, Venn diagrams and such. Students have found, and I always warn them, that the PowerPoint is no substitute for class or readings. The slides are probably 10% of the material.