In Art of the Deal Donald Trump calls one of his rhetorical tools “truthful hyperbole.” He defends and praises it as “an innocent form of exaggeration — and a very effective form of promotion.” As a promoter, Trump used this technique. He now uses it as president.

Hyperbole is an extravagant overstatement that can be positive or negative in character. When describing himself and his plans, Trump makes extensive use of positive hyperbole: he is the best and every plan of his is the best. He also makes extensive use of negative hyperbole—often to a degree that crosses the line from exaggeration to fabrication. In any case, his concept of “truthful hyperbole” is worth considering.

From a logical standpoint, “truthful hyperbole” is an impossibility. This is because hyperbole is, by definition, not true.  Hyperbole is not merely a matter of using extreme language. After all, extreme language might accurately describe something. For example, describing pedophiles as horrible would be spot on. Hyperbole is a matter of exaggeration that goes beyond the facts. For example, describing Donald Trump the evilest being in all of space and time would be hyperbole. As such, hyperbole is always untrue. Because of this, the phrase “truthful hyperbole” means the same as “accurate exaggeration”, which reveals the problem.

Trump, a master of rhetoric, is right about the rhetorical value of hyperbole—it can have great psychological force. It, however, lacks logical force, as it provides no logical reason to accept a claim. Trump is right that there can be innocent exaggeration. I will now turn to the ethics of hyperbole.

Since hyperbole is (by definition) untrue, there are two main concerns. One is how far the hyperbole deviates from the truth. The other is whether exaggeration is harmless. While a hyperbolic claim is necessarily untrue, it can deviate from the truth in varying degrees. As with fish stories, there is some moral wiggle room in terms of the proximity to the truth. While there is no exact line (to require that would be to fall into the line drawing fallacy) that defines the exact boundary of morally acceptable exaggeration, some untruths surely go beyond that line. This line varies with the circumstances—the ethics of fish stories, for example, differs from the ethics of job interviews.

While hyperbole is untrue, it must have some anchor in the truth. If it does not, then it is not exaggeration but pure fabrication. This is the difference between containing some truth and being devoid of truth. Naturally, hyperbole can be mixed in with fabrication. For example, consider Trump’s claim about the 9/11 attack that “in Jersey City, N.J., where thousands and thousands of people were cheering as that building was coming down. Thousands of people were cheering.”

If Trump had claimed that some people in America celebrated the terrorist attacks on 9/11, then that is almost certainly true—there was surely at least one person who did this. If  he had claimed that dozens of people in America celebrated the 9/11 attacks and this was broadcast on TV, then this might be an exaggeration as we do not know how many people in America celebrated but it also includes a fabrication (the TV part). If he had claimed that hundreds did so, the exaggeration would be considerable. But Trump, in his usually style, claimed that thousands and thousands celebrated.  This exaggeration might be extreme. Or it might not—thousands might have celebrated in secret, although this is a wildly implausible claim. However, the claim that people were filmed celebrating in public and video existed for Trump to see is a fabrication rather an exaggeration.  

One way to help determine the ethical boundaries of hyperbole is to consider the second concern, namely whether the hyperbole (untruth) is harmless or not. Trump is right to claim there can be innocent forms of exaggeration. This can be taken as exaggeration that is morally acceptable and can be used as a basis to distinguish such hyperbole from unethical lying.

One realm in which exaggeration is innocent is storytelling. Aristotle, in the Poetics, notes that “everyone tells a story with his own addition, knowing his hearers like it.” While a lover of truth Aristotle recognized the role of untruth in good storytelling, saying that “Homer has chiefly taught other poets the art of telling lies skillfully.” The telling of tall tales that feature even extravagant extravagation is morally acceptable because the tales are intended to entertain—that is, the intention is good. In the case of exaggerating in stories to entertain the audience or a small bit of rhetorical “shine” to polish a point, the exaggeration is harmless—which makes sense if  one thinks Trump sees himself as an entertainer.

In contrast, exaggerations that have a malign intent would be morally wrong. Exaggerations that are not intended to be harmful yet prove to be so would also be problematic—but discussing the complexities of intent and consequences would take this essay to far afield.

The extent of the exaggeration would also be relevant here, the greater the exaggeration that is aimed at malign purposes or that has harmful consequences, the worse it would be morally. After all, if deviating from the truth is (generally) wrong, then deviating from it more would be worse. In the case of Trump’s claim about thousands of people celebrating on 9/11, this untruth fed into fear, racism and religious intolerance. As such, it was not an innocent exaggeration, but a malign untruth.