Political Philosophy? Really?
Posted: October 28th, 2009 | Filed under: Essays | 102 Comments »
Here’s a weird one … me trying to talk about political philosophy and sports. It’s something I’ve been toying with for a little while. It’s exactly the sort of oddball thing that makes it fun for me to have a blog. And it’s also exactly the sort of oddball thing that might make no sense to you whatsoever. Don’t worry though … there are no politics in it.
I’m way, way out of my depth discussing political philosophy, of course, but I’ve been reading Michael J. Sandel’s fascinating new book — Justice: What’s the Right Thing to Do.* The book has all sorts of fascinating discussions and can make inscrutable geniuses like Aristotle, John Stuart Mill and Immanuel Kant somewhat accessible even to dopes like me. Fascinating, mind-bending stuff.
*While, you’re there, yeah, there’s this to buy too.
Anyway, one of the topics of discussion revolves around Kant. I would say the question goes like this: Is there a difference, on any level, between telling a LIE and telling a MISLEADING TRUTH?
Sandel used a couple of examples. He invoked the Bill Clinton “It depends on what the meaning of the word is is,” defense. He also brought up what I guess is a famous political example: If you are hiding your friend from a murderer, and the murderer comes to the door, does it make any difference morally if you LIE to him (“My friend’s not here,”) or if you tell a misleading truth (“I haven’t seen him for hours.”). The discussion came up in the book because Kant apparently felt like it was ALWAYS immoral to lie, even when the lie is designed to serve a greater good, such as saving your friend. But Kant was not as opposed to telling misleading truths. Kant, let’s face it, would be a drag at parties.
But the question is interesting to me. Is there a difference between lies and misleading truths? I remember listening to an insufferable argument between Michael Moore and Bill O’Reilly about whether George Bush LIED about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq (Moore’s take, of course) or DID NOT TELL THE TRUTH BECAUSE OF A MISTAKE (O’Reilly’s take). This distinction apparently was worth about 10 minutes of oppressive prime time television.
*And could there any other kind but insufferable?
Well, is there a difference? What do you think? I am not interested in the politics … I think about this from a sports perspective. Let’s say that a coach knows with 100 percent certainty that his quarterback will not play on Sunday. He knows it, but he obviously does not want to say anything to the media about it because coaches firmly believe that keeping such secrets can make the difference between victory and defeat.
OK, so the coach is asked if his quarterback will play on Sunday.
Answer 1: “We don’t know if he will play … it could go either way.”
Answer 2: “We’ll make that decision Sunday morning.”
Now, answer 1 is a lie. He does know that the quarterback will not play. But answer 2 might technically be true depending how the coach means it … you don’t actually “make a decision” on a quarterback playing until you turn in your list on Sunday morning. I KNOW who is going to be the No. 1 pitcher on my “Top 10 pitchers ever” list that I will try to post tomorrow. So if you ask me who is No. 1 and I say, “I don’t know yet,” — that’s a lie. But if I say, “I haven’t finished the list yet” … that is absolutely true. I have not finished it.
On one level, who cares? All of these seem more or less the same. These are statements designed to confuse, to bewilder, statements designed to make the person listening believe that there’s a CHANCE the quarterback will play or that I have not really decided who is the No. 1 pitcher.
But in my meager understanding of all this: Kant believed — and Sandel believes — that there is a moral difference. Their feeling is that the act of lying — the act of saying something you fundamentally know is untrue — is basically cheating the game. Taken to its extreme, if people lied all the time, then we would live in an unstable world without a ground floor. Nothing would be real. We would not be able to believe anything we hear. Some people feel like we’re at that point already.
But misleading truth doesn’t do that. Misleading truth is still based in some sort of reality. It still gives the listener a chance, perhaps, to work through the rubble and figure it out. Misleading truth leaves everyone on unsteady ground, but at least it’s solid ground. Anyway, that’s the political and moral philosophy.
And I have to say: I sort of buy into it, at least from a sports perspective. I have always found — and this has been subconscious — that lies bother me in the sport realm while misleading truths really don’t. Earlier this year, Royals manager Trey Hillman made a series of baffling decisions revolving around closer Joakim Soria. The moves made no sense whatsoever unless Soria was injured. But when Hillman was asked, point blank, if Soria was injured, he pronounced that Soria was, in fact, “100 percent healthy.”
It was a lie. Soria was hurt. And something about that bothered me. Why did he have to say “100 percent healthy?” Is anyone ever 100 percent healthy anyway? I had never really thought about WHY it bothered me, but I think it was this: Telling a bald-faced lie like that is showing exactly zero percent respect for the person … it is basically telling that person standing in front of you (and the readers who will read the stories): “I think so little of you that I will not even give you the courtesy of a no-comment. I will not even think up a creative way to avoid the question. You are unworthy even of me going to that much trouble, to make me come up with a quasi-truthful way to avoid the question. No, I’m going to tell you something I know to be absolutely and entirely untrue because that’s all you deserve to hear.”
I’m sure that’s not how Trey Hillman saw it — he’s a good person and he was apparently trying to maintain some sort of competitive advantage by lying — but that’s how I received it. I apparently don’t think that sort of lie — even in the world of gamesmanship and sports — is acceptable. It offends me. Maybe that’s wrong on my part. But, like I say, it’s not something I’ve thought much about. It’s just how I feel.
Meanwhile, I listen to the way the Chiefs players and coaches respond to questions about Larry Johnson … and it’s different. I suspect that many of them are sick of Larry Johnson and the drama and they wish the Chiefs would release him and be done with it. I suspect that many of them believe that a football team with Larry Johnson playing a key role is doomed. I don’t know this, of course, but I if I was a member of the Chiefs — coach, player, management type, whatever — that’s how I would feel. Who needs this guy? He’s disruptive. He has had a series of incidents involving violence against women. He gets frustrated and unleashes some Twitter rage. And he’s also utterly ineffective as a player. Who needs a teammate like that? Who needs a contributing player like that?
But then reporters are sticking tape recorders in front of you and asking what you think of Larry Johnson?
“I don’t have anything more to say about that,” coach Todd Haley said.
“I really don’t have a comment about it,” Glenn Dorsey said. “We’re just trying to get better.”
“We just come in here to play football,” Brodie Croyle said. “That’s our job. That’s what we’re supposed to do. We have to do a better job of it.”
And so on. I suspect these are not entirely TRUTHFUL statements. I suspect that these guys have plenty of thoughts about Larry Johnson, thoughts I would bet they share with family and friends and teammates. But what THOSE statements say is totally different to me than what Hillman said. Those statements are as follows: “I might have very strong feelings about the situation, but it would do me and this struggling football team no good to tell you about any of those feelings.”
I think it is different. I guess the point is that it takes some effort to mislead without technically lying. And while it’s not a lot of effort, hey, at least it’s something. To me, that’s why there is a difference between Rafael Palmeiro and Mark McGwire. Best I can tell: Palmeiro lied when he said that he had never used steroids. McGwire, meanwhile, didn’t tell the truth — he refused to answer the question. Maybe they are both worthy of scorn — everyone makes their own decisions on that. But I guess I end up siding with Kant. One is worse than the other.
Loading ...
“Kant, let’s face it, would be a drag at parties”
Actually, from what I’ve read about Kant’s life, he was in fact the life of the party. And he played snooker for money at the local watering-hole, which may have made him some sort of hustler.
Circle me, J.S. Mill.
“McGwire, meanwhile, didn’t tell the truth — he refused to answer the question. ”
Isn’t that different from not telling the truth? He said he wasn’t going to answer questions about the past – that was a true statement, not intending to mislead anyone.
I don’t think someone’s lying if they acknowledge the existence of a question and openly refuse to answer it. I do think someone’s lying if they answer a question in a deliberately misleading question – saying something that’s technically true but with the intent that the listener will misunderstand it.
Q. Did you use steroids? (Assume that the player in question did, in fact.)
A1. “No”. This is a lie.
A2. “I used no illegal substances”. While this may be technically true, depending on exactly what substances and when and where they were used, it is intended to mislead the user.
A3. “I’m not here to answer questions about the past.” This is true, and doesn’t mislead the questioner – he doesn’t try to make the questioner think that he’s answered the question, he simply refuses to answer the question.
Well, the Chiefs’ partial answers are not the same kind of thing. They didn’t even give a partially related answer or an answer that was a partial truth. They just either didn’t answer the question, or answered a different one. I think you are missing a distinction there.
Personally, I find the whole concept of competitive advantage in lying about or not really answering the question about injuries to be insulting to my intelligence. It’s like when Mangini wouldn’t say who his QB was at the beginnning of the year – dd that really effect how MN prepped for the game? Get real. Sports “authorities” take themselves entirely too seriously….
I don’t see any meaningful difference. To sidestep the question with a statement that is technically true, but nevertheless intended to deceive, is showing a lack of respect for the listener. If you tell the murderer “I haven’t seen my friend for hours,” you are assuming that he will then turn around and leave, unable to see through your clever wordplay. It achieves the same result as if you simply lied, but it protects you from accusations of lying later down the road. (This is what Clinton was trying to do.)
But the real problem with this entire question is that it is based on the belief that there is a moral difference. What twisted definition of morality deems it right to surrender your friend to a murderer, and wrong to protect him?
““McGwire, meanwhile, didn’t tell the truth — he refused to answer the question. ”
Isn’t that different from not telling the truth?”
Only if “not telling the truth” and “lying” are synonymous. I don’t think they are.
As a law student, I think that I am obliged to believe that there is a clear difference between a lie (perjury) and a “clever” misleading truth. Lawyers make a living off of misleading truths, and better lawyers make a living off of getting through the fog.
On a more relevant note, all this column really did was make me want to see that Top 10 list. My guess is Maddux at #1. Unless Kuiper somehow makes it on there.
So, I know that this isn’t the entire point of the post, but I think it would be wise for the NFL to make teams put out their active list 3 or 4 days before the game. No injury reports needed, etc. If your player is questionable you have to decide if he is worth a roster spot or not. If he is out, he’s not on the list, or if you don’t want the other team to know he is out, then he takes up a roster spot. I know this would probably create some other headaches, but at least we would get a way from the “Questionable/Doubtful/Out” side game that is being played now. It’s dumb IMO. Also, I think this would be more in line with current health privacy laws.
The baldfaced lie is much worse to a reporter. You suspect something, and you ask a point-blank question. If you get a non-answer or a weasel-waffle answer, you know you have to do more reporting…ask others, ask better questions. But if you get a flat “no that is not true,” especially from a source who knows how this dance works, then you stop pursuing the story–the source has signaled it’s a dead end. When you learn subsequently that the source lied, you not only feel betrayed, you feel that the source has maliciously undermined your credibility as a reporter in the eyes of editors and readers.
By the way, Immanuel Kant was a real pissant who was very rarely stable.
In my book, they’re the same thing. In fact, I’d much rather have someone lie to me than tell me a misleading truth.
In a way, at least the liar is being honest. He meant to deceive me, so he lied. The person telling the misleading truth can always claim they didn’t mean to mislead you, even when they know they did. I suppose that means they are now liars…or would they tell another misleading truth? Circle me confused.
I guess lies and misleading truths both suck. And don’t get involved with a woman who likes telling misleading truths…
This subject is covered in Plato’s Republic.
Socrates asks the interlocutors for different definitions of justice.
One is that justice consists in telling the truth and repaying one’s debts.
Socrates posits the case of a man who has lent his neighbor weapons. The lender then presents himself to the borrower while drunk and in the midst of a heated argument with his wife, demanding his weapons back.
Obviously in this situation, the borrower is “just”ified in not repaying his debt for the time being—even in deceiving his neighbor temporarily until conditions change.
This argues for an outcome or judgment based defition of justice as opposed to a procedural one.
Socrates later offers, “Justice is that which renders to each man his due.” Arguably, that means methods which produce just outcomes are retroactively legitimized. At an extreme, this can be used as a defense of vigilatism.
Contrast it with the American judicial system which cherishes first “due process” as the best protection against abuses or tyranny.
Fascinating post worthy of much more discussion. Can’t resist the combination of political philosophy and sports: my two favorite subjects.
Keep up the good work.
Listen to Red at #10. I got involved with such a women. Now I’m paying the price…
Mr. Posnanski,
You seem to have posited a continuum of morality. Always moral (never lying or misleading), always immoral (bald-face lying) and an entire range in between where the goal (greater good) of the misleading statement is measured against the “wrongness” of the misleading statement.
I think the question then is morality relative (a continuum) or absolute (only right or wrong)?
What do you tell your daughters about right and wrong? That there are things that are “more wrong” than others? I’ve always told my sons that they will get in more trouble for lying about having done something wrong than for the wrong action. It works great too when they are 5 or 6 and aren’t very good at lying and parents are seen as omniscient. As they get older, they get better at evasive answers which aren’t lies but are “misleading truths.”
The misleading truth is just as bad, because the intent is to deceive. It’s only used by people so they can, if called out a month later, smile a crap-eatin’ grin and say they didn’t lie.
I don’t award extra points for effort when it comes to being deceived. “No comment” is the only acceptable way to avoid telling the truth.
Careful lumping “no comment” avoidance with misleading truths–I would say there’s a very big difference. Perhaps as big as between a misleading truth and a lie.
Consider your Chiefs’ “no comments” on Larry Johnson, where they just answer a different question, in effect no commenting. Now, iff one of them said “Larry Johnson didn’t say those things” (because, technically, he twittered them). One meant to avoid, one meant to deceive and I think these are vastly different.
There was a great two-part article by documentary filmmaker Errol Morris in the NYT this summer. He discusses the difference between lies and deception with a magic historian. A historian of magic, not a magical historian.
You should read Corrie Ten Boom’s account of the time some Nazis were looking for Jews and she and her sister were hiding them below a trap door under the kitchen table.
It is surprising that the misleading truth is not more insulting than the lie. This is in no way a comment on the morality of either.
A misleading truth implies that the teller believes his audience is too stupid to ’see through the fog’. As stated in an earlier comment, lawyers employ this tactic as part of ‘good lawyering’.
If you figure it out right away, it forces you to follow up repeatedly until some form of truth comes out, I suspect often to the point of badgering (interviewer) and irritation or even hostility (interviewee).
If you figure it out later, you feel stupid and will likely resent the person for misleading you.
In either case, I would feel more insulted personally for the insult of my intelligence than the boldface lie. The former took much more thought and effort than the latter, almost to the point of malicious premeditation.
By the way, the Harvard course on which the “Justice” book is based is viewable in its entirety online. Pretty awesome.
The ethics of Hillman’s lie are contorted a bit by the role of the people he was addressing, aren’t they? This wasn’t a private one-on-one conversation. Hillman was speaking to people whose job it is to then relay his comments to an audience of millions, some of whom will actively seek to use the info against him in his job.
If Hillman lied to you in a one-on-one, off-the-record conversation, yeah, that’s disrespect. But those don’t appear to have been the circumstances.
Kensinger/#11 – I really hope Kansans render your boss his proper due next November. Shouldn’t you be working with Amanda and Cici to earmark money through the party instead of posting on blogs?
This is a fascinating discussion.
Have you ever heard of the concept of the falsiloquium? I believe Kant talks about this, and forgive me if it’s already been mentioned.
A falsiloquium is kind of like the opposite of a “deceptive truth”; it is a statement that is factually untrue but which commits no moral wrongdoing if spoken in a context where the audience does not have a legitimate claim to the truth. Such an example would be if a gunman demands to know where your grandma is so he can kill her, and you tell him she’s on the moon, which is not true. Since he’s clearly going to misuse the truth, he has no right to it.
I wonder what kind of sports situations might call for a legitimate use of a falsiloquium? Maybe if there are very sensitive personal issues at stake and a manager tells a white lie about why his player won’t be taking the field? Maybe to avoid the opposition using information to their advantage?
Hillman’s job is effected by the past, present, and future of Soria’s injury while Larry Johnson’s imbecilic grammatically incorrect ramblings or his past behavior do not directly concern Glenn Dorsey’s job as a DT. Getting Dorsey’s honest opinion on Johnson’s behavior is a great deal more probing and ultimately meaningless compared to Hillman’s answer to a question regarding his closer’s health.
So disregarding some standard of strict morality, a concise nondescript lie or misleading truth from a Chiefs player regarding the Johnson situation is best for the team and maybe the best for everyone, especially considering intent, as the players could make such comments without receiving any benefit for themselves. I don’t believe the same is true for Hillman regarding Soria’s injury as he definitely receives benefit for lying or misleading.
It’s an issue of context.
It depends on whether the person asking has a right to the information, and also whether the truth would harm you unjustly.
The people wanting to know about Clinton’s private sexual encounters had no right to that information, therefore he is not obligated to tell the full truth.
On the other hand telling your boss that you’re late because your child was ill (a lie) instead of telling him you overslept (the truth) is wrong even though you might be harmed (i.e., fired) if you told the truth, because the boss has a right to know the truth in that scenario.
I don’t think a coach has the obligation to give others information that might harm his team, because those wanting to know the information don’t have a clear right to it. One of the problems with our society today is that everybody thinks they should know everybody else’s business all the time.
Hillary Clinton had a right to ask her husband if he’s sleeping around and deserves a straight answer, but the press didn’t.
This debate could go on for….centuries. As it obviously already has.
And what about the role of conscious free will?
“I believe in free will because I have no choice.”
– Isaac Bashevis Singer
@ 23 – Not to get into a political debate, but surely the press, with evidence of infidelity, has the right to question the President’s fidelity given that many people/citizens/voters value fidelity and the role it plays in defining someone’s character.
I guess it depends on what the person telling the lie or making the misleading statement is trying to achieve.
A coach who tries to hide the condition of his QB probably wants to keep his opposition in the dark. If they know that the QB will not play, then they may adjust their game plan to deal with the backup. If they don’t know, they go about their normal game plan and aren’t as prepared as they could have been.
So is there a difference between the head coach telling an outright lie and a misleading “truth”? Well… his intent is the same, isn’t it?
Interestingly, I was just covering this in an ethics class. The professor was talking about different approaches to this conundrum (mentioning Corrie Ten Boom as someone else has). He was advocating contextual absolutism that recognized a hierarchy of moral absolutes that interplay with the circumstances you experience them in. Example: Corrie Ten Boom did no wrong because telling complete truth would have resulted in death. Now, refusing to tell the truth because it might get you in trouble when you did something wrong, well that wouldn’t really be excusable, would it.
He then brought up sports to further explicate the importance of context. There has to be an element of reasonable “expectation of truth” to get into the territory of lying. In other words, there’s no expectation at all for the quarterback to come to the line and yell across to the defense, “Listen, I’m going to appear to hand the ball to the running back, but really I’m going to throw it to that guy over there.” The defense wouldn’t expect full disclosure in that circumstance. It’s not lying. It’s expected in the context.
I’m not sure how this spills over into the arena of a team’s public relations. I don’t think there’s any reason to expect them to harm their team. It’s a glorified play-fake. To me, there’s no difference between misleading truth and outright lying. One’s simply more palatable, not necessarily more RIGHT. But, again, for sports, I don’t think it matters (within limits… you can’t lie to a player about their health so they keep playing… again with the hierarchy).
While Clinton’s relationship is personal business, it was conducted on federal property with an intern. The President is employed by the people, therefor the people have a right to ask questions.
Look at what just happened with Steve Phillips, same set of circumstances. ESPN, or any company, can have internal discussions while public officials cannot. The President is elected by and serves the people and is not above reproach.
Hey Joe,
I was curious how you felt about lying/cheating in actual gameplay. Whether it be an outfielder trapping a baseball and claiming to make the catch or a wide receiver push off to gain an advantage over a DB. Is this moral? Part of the game? I’ve pondered this for a while and would love to get your thoughts.
Emmanuel Kant was a real pissant, who was very rarely stable,
Heidegger, Heidegger was a boozy beggar, who could drink you under the table etc, etc. . .
Joe, I read The Soul of Baseball over the weekend. Amazing book. Thanks
A Kant column from Poz. My dork antennae are flailing wildly!
I just wish he could have talked about the categorical imperative and sports. Imagine trying to explain it to T.O.
Smart people mislead, stupid people lie. If lying seems worse than misleading it’s usually because smart people wrote the books that argued it that way.
I can’t believe that no one has piled on JP Ricciardi in the comments. This one is just begging for his, now infamous, quote, “It’s not a lie if we know the truth.” That was about BJ Ryan’s back injury (read: torn elbow ligament), but he made a habit of blatantly lying to the press and the public. For some reason he thought he was the smartest man in the room, so lying to the unwashed masses was acceptable. Only he was a terrible liar so every comment turned into a PR gaffe. Eventually we questioned the veracity of everything he said.
Just one of a dozen reasons he lost the confidence of Jays fans. I couldn’t be happier he’s gone.
Twittered: Pooh on you, Immanuel Kant!
[...] This post was Twitted by EmmaLeeSays [...]
a funny dialog took place today at work that involves numerous lies.
last night they updated one of the applications we use. it caused all kinds of problems this morning, so the designer, a guy i’ll call Tom, was running around fixing things. He is a contankerous, crotchety old man (the funny kind), and he is friends with my coworker, Mary.
One problem was that the font was extremely small. He told Mary to use ctrl+ to make it bigger. Then moved across the room to work on someone else
A few seconds later (the room is silent, and only a few people are here. Tom is heard in the background speaking quietly with a coworker)
Mary: standing up and shouting: Tom! You liar! CTRL+ doesn’t work!
Tom: shouting back: Sit down Maura! It works fine! You need glasses!
Maura: (wearing glasses) I HAVE glasses! Look!!
Tom: (quietly and calmly, without looking up) No you don’t!
Maura: ARRGH!
Hopefully this dialog is funny enough that you didn’t have to be there.
in any case, see how many lies/misleading truths you can count
Compare and contrast Clinton’s deceptions about sex with an intern and Bush’s absolute refusal to answer questions about his arrests (two that we know of so far), alcoholism, and rumored drug use. I’ve met very few people who condemns or excuses them both; almost everybody condemns the president of the party they voted for and rationalizes the others’ flaws away.
A truly ethical person would condemn them both, and then state whether their degree of condemnation still disqualifies them from holding office. Given that the ability to lie well seems a prerequisite to playing power politics, and we certainly don’t want an incompetent president, I think both charges are meaningless in determining whether or not they could be good presidents. The closest thing we had to an honest president in recent decades, Jimmy Carter, is considered to be one of the least effective presidents around. If you don’t think the ability to bluff (lie) isn’t valuable, then you don’t know how politics works.
There’s a series of fantasy books by Robert Jordan called “The Wheel of Time.” In the book there are women called Aes Sedai who can basically perform magic. For them to become a member of the group, they have to take three oaths, one of which is not to tell a lie. But it’s a major point in the book that they use their supposed inability to lie in their favor, and often tell misleading truths to get people to believe something different.
Yes, I realize the above paragraph was very geeky. But I couldn’t help but think about it while reading this post.
I wish this essay had included a Jeff Kent anecdote so the headline could have been Kent, Kant
#25 writes, “surely the press, with evidence of infidelity, has the right to question the President’s fidelity ”
Undoubtedly the press always has a right to ask any question whatsoever.
However, the President also has a right to simply decline to answer, which he should have chosen to employ in that case.
Having a right to ask for information isn’t the same as having a right to the information, and I agree with #23 that it’s a problem when people conflate the two.
Sabby said: “As a law student, I think that I am obliged to believe that there is a clear difference between a lie (perjury) and a “clever” misleading truth. Lawyers make a living off of misleading truths, and better lawyers make a living off of getting through the fog.”
Mabye that’s why no one trusts lawyers.
If the intent it to decieve, it’s a lie. Period.
A hearty tip o’ the Kangol to JohnA, #31. I laughed aloud. I think that inherently, since these games we love are played, unlike life is lived, with written rules, the powers that be should be held to an even higher standard, if anything, when it comes to lying or to misleading truths. Too much coachese is finding its way into our public school classrooms as plenty of coaches have teaching responsibilities; and the result cannot be a good one.
Circle me, The Process
Joe,
I agree with you that there is a moral difference between a misleading truth and a lie, but I think some of the misleading truths you cite actually are lies. My very rudimentary understanding of pragmatic linguistics goes roughly like this: words don’t have permanent, fixed meanings. Especially in conversation, context matters–perhaps even more than the words themselves. Meaning breaks down if what we say isn’t relevant to what’s come before in the conversation.
So, this is how I think this works with your first example: when you tell the murderer that you haven’t seen your friend for hours, what that means is, “Not only do I not know where he is, but I haven’t seen him for hours.” You have used non-literal language to express that you don’t know where your friend is, but the meaning is clear. You are lying.
Of course, this is not the way legal language works, which is why laws are very long. But perhaps there’s a linguist reading who can correct me on this.
Fascinating stuff. Keep up the oddball posts!
Living one’s life by Kant’s categorical imperative is not only impossible it’s ridiculous. As an experiment go to a bar and justify your every action by the words: “Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law”. I know it’s geeky, but illustrates my point.
I don’t think absolutes exist. Even if they did you have to qualify them so much that they become relative.
Several people have opined that the misleading truth is worse because it implies that the speaker thinks the listener is too dumb to parse the speaker’s creative use of words.
Certainly that is sometimes true. But there are plenty of times, particularly in public life, where it is just the opposite.
When you’re dealing with reporters or courts of law, and statements “on the record” there are many instances in which the misleading truth implies not that “you are too dumb to see my misleading truth for what it is” but rather that “you know I can’t give a straight answer to that question because the straight truth is damaging to me and this is on the record, and I also can’t say ‘no comment’ because that will be construed as an admission, so I am giving you this misleading truth which we both know isn’t fooling you for a second but at least I will be able to claim with a straight face that I answered your question truthfully.”
Kant is wrong on 2 counts: deliberately misleading via the truth is still a lie and it is certainly not immoral to protect a friend when by doing so you are not damaging or endangering anyone else. Period. I cannot imagine how anyone can reach any other conclusion frankly.
My favorite example (and I must stress that this is MY VIEW OF THINGS) was when Clinton was accused of chasing women and was denying it. His wife made a very public speech in which she said 2 things:
1) My husband is the subject of a vast right wing conspiracy (certainly hyperbole but still largely true) and
2)” I know this man.” That statement of course was taken by the gullible to mean that she believed Bill was not guilty of what he was accused of doing.
IMO what it actually meant was that she did indeed know him and that he would chase any female in his presence who seemed at all accessible.
Assuming she did know he would chase any female, saying I know this man in a manner designed to purely deceive is exactly the same thing as saying he didn’t do it when you know that he did.
BTW imo the moore/o’reilly exchange shows them both wrong on the topic. I dont think the President decided to lie about WMDs but I am fairly sure it wasn’t just a matter of being wrong either. Someone in the WH knew it was not demonstrably provable and yet told the President that it was ” a slam dunk.”
Oh and literally everyone I ever heard speak on the subject was convinced that WMD did exist and that they would be used. Many still did not want a war over it of course, but there was no dispute on it until it became clear there were none and it became the easiest way to attack Bush.
This likely goes beyond your interest here, Joe, but some philosophers have confounded the issue further by asking about a situation where someone tries to lie but accidentally tells someone the truth (picture Hillman saying that Soria is 100% healthy, and it turning out to be true even though Hillman thought he was done for the season). This is meant to highlight people’s moral intuitions concerning intent vs. action. It might also push us to redefine what mean by lying: is lying “uttering something that isn’t true” (true abstractly, or from the person’s point of view), or is lying “intentionally deceiving someone who deserves to know the truth”? If it’s the second, then it messes with your (Joe’s via other philosophers) understanding of lying vs. misleading truth.
Jeez, I have been thinking about that last section a lot recently with the renewed McGuire hubbub. I watched those Senate hearings and, cynic that I am, disbelieved just about everything I heard from the ballplayers. The only one I thought acted with a shred of integrity was Mark McGuire. He did not lie to the Senate while no one else had any qualms about doing so. I remember being floored when I saw how the national media killed him that day. I had/have no personal feelings about McGuire then or now, but he was honest. He didn’t spell out what he had done, but he didn;t leave much doubt either. Even in the face of what must have been enormous pressure, he chose not to lie. He spelled out quite specifically those issue he was unwilling to address, granted, but I think that might have been the most courageous part of his hearing.
As more and more of the other players have been “found out”, I kept expecting a day when the opinion of McGuire’s testimony might be revisited, and have been increasingly surprised that it has not. I don’t have a stake in this, I just found myself all alone with this opinion, and feel kinda glad that you have brought it up.
I think context/situation is everything. A coach outright lying does annoy me but a coach giving a misleading truth is no big deal, even expected.
But take a politician on the campaign trail. He speaks on Monday to one group and gives a misleading statement that makes it sound like he is in favor of their position, but then on Tuesday gives a speech to a different group that has a misleading statement that makes it sound like he is on the opposite side of the same issue. To me that is every bit as bad as lying, if not worse. Just represent what your position is and let the public decide. That’s what is wrong with politics today, no one wants to take a stand because it might be unpopular with someone.
In the context of a relationship, giving a misleading truth to cover up something in my opinion is as bad as a lie.
So to sum up, sometimes misleading statements are not as bad as a lie and sometimes they are. How’s that for me taking a stand…
Just an aside, Kant’s moral imperative would not say lying is always wrong, merely that one must act in accordance with a universal law, the situation you present would be the time that in all time every person must hide the potential victim of the murderer and in fact the moral law would be to lie.
Kant’s philosophy in this regard is very limited, because, let’s face it, how many situations arise where in a universal moral law would apply (think, do you want the red or blue toothbrush, honey?).
I really dislike when people try to defend misleading statements. I think in many cases they’re simply lies, in that they are intended to cause your listener to believe something that is not true. The only difference is that the speaker can deflect the responsibility for having lied with a lawyer-like review of the words, despite the fact that the intent to deceive was clearly present.
Here’s the exception. I think when someone makes a statement that is designed to communicate something about the truth (i.e. “I have no comment about that particular player”) without having to lay out the gory details. In this case, he or she is not revealing the truth, but is clearly and visibly not expecting that the listener will walk away believing something untrue.
And I feel it necessary to add that particularly in the case of a powerful politician speaking on a substantive topic (like the reasons for involving the country in a war), there is absolutely no excuse for unclear or misdirecting statements of any kind. People are making decisions based on those comments, and any statement designed to encourage a manifestly untrue belief should be treated as a lie.
I’m with Mateo (#48.) I have a lot more respect for McGwire and Segui than I do for the liars: Palmiero, Rodriguez, Clemens, etc.
@Cardinal Mike
“Literally everyone” must not be including the inspectors who were actually in Iraq before Shock and Awe, who said they could find no evidence of WMD’s. Everyone who was saying there were WMD’s in Iraq had decided long before 2003 that Iraq needed to be re invaded.
A world where nobody lied would be intolerable. We’d be at each other’s throats from dawn to dusk. Marriage, for one thing, would be impossible. Workplaces employing more than two people would become killing grounds.
White lies are the lubricant that allows people to rub along in organised society.
Edwin @12: where is this woman you speak of and how may I contact her?
Great sportswriters teach sports and at the same time teach more. Sports becomes a metaphor for life. Bill James on Joe Jackson and the Hall of Fame:
“My own opinion as to whether or not Joe Jackson should be put in the Hall of Fame is that of course he should; it is only a question of priorities. I think there are some other equally great players who should go in first, like Billy Williams, Herman Long, Minnie Minoso and Elroy Face. Then, too, the players of the nineteenth century have never really gotten their due — Ed McKean, Pete Browning, Harry Stovey and several others have been waiting a long time.
“The players of the Negro leagues committed no crime except their color; I think we would need to look closely at the credentials of several of those before we decide where Jackson fits in. You wouldn’t want the great stars of the thirties and forties, who are still living and can enjoy the honor, to pass away while waiting for the Hall of Fame to get done with the Black Sox, would you?
“And then I think there are some other players who should be considered strongly — Ron Santo, Ken Boyer, Larry Doby, Al Rosen, Roy Sievers, Vic Wertz, Lefty O’Doul, Sadaharu Oh; there should probably be better provisions made for people whose contributions to the game were not made on the field, like Grantland Rice, Barney Dreyfuss, Harry Pulliam, maybe Mrs. Babe Ruth and Mrs. Lou Gehrig, the guy who wrote ‘Take Me Out to the Ballgame,’ Harry Caray.
“And, too, we do not want to forget the many wonderful stars of the minor leagues, who brought baseball to most of the country before television and expansion — men like Ray Perry, Larry Gilbert, Jack Dunn and Nick Cullop. When they are in we can turn our attention to such worthwhile players of our own memories as Roger Maris, Buddy Bell, Fred Hutchinson, Larry Bowa, Bill North, Omar Moreno and Duane Kuiper.
“And then, at last, when every honest ballplayer who has ever played the game, at any level from Babe Ruth ball through the majors, when every coach, writer, umpire and organist who has helped to make baseball the wonderful game that it is rather than trying to destroy it with the poison of deceit, when each has been given his due, then I think we should hold our noses and make room for Joe Jackson to join the Hall of Fame.”
What James understands, and Kant doesn’t, is that life is about prioritizing. Lying may be bad, but there is far worse, Its about priorities.
Joe5348
I can’t remember the last time I made an untrue statement.
But some truths are best left unspoken.
I have to take umbrage with the quote, “Kant is wrong on two counts…”. Kant is only wrong on one count, that being, “Absolute truth exists….” that being one of Immy’s (that’s what I call Immanuel) premises. Of course, even that doesn’t exist…at least verifiably…so go on having a mid-life crisis. God forbid I interrupt…
Kensinger (#11) gave a better contribution…
I really hope Mariano somehow ends up on your top ten pitchers of all time. Even ignoring the postseason and the reliever advantage, there is still no way to NOT put him in there.
i really hope mariano doesnt end up on your top 10…you know how innings matter…that was a great piece by verducci, but c’mon…
There’s lots of ‘lying’ in sports. A head fake is a lie. Is that immoral? I fail to see how the coach’s misleading statement about who’s starting is significantly different.
@23 — Re Clinton: the press and investigators asking Clinton about his sexual conduct absolutely had a right to know, because he was being investigated for (among other things) charges of sexual harassment in the workplace, laws which (ironically) his closest political allies had been working very hard to strengthen for over a decade.
Matt
Didn’t it come out in the Nixon – Frost interviews — If the President has sex then it’s not nooky.
A top 10 list coming out the day Pedro makes a blast-from-the-past start? That can’t be a coincidence.
Recent pitchers who deserve serious consideration:
Pedro, Maddux, The Big Unit, Clemens (regardless of being a complete and utter arsehole), Rivera (regardless of the innings). Fast forward 5 years and Johan would be there too…probably.
That’s it.
I could see a few of them cracking your top 10. But only Pedro would be a felony crime if he were missing….Maddux would still be a crime, but maybe more of a misdemeanor. Pedro would be a tough call for #1…few have burned as brightly, but many others have sustained near that level of brilliance for a heck of a lot longer.
I suppose that if Clemens was not a complete stain on humanity, I’d think about making an argument that he was actually superior to Pedro (and in an unrelated tangent, I am still pissed that Bob Welch won the 1990 Cy with an ERA a run higher (but 27 wins) over the Rocket who went 21-6 with a 1.93 ERA!!!)….
But since my boyhood idol has indeed turned out to be a raging pile of douchery, I’ll “Vote for Pedro!”
Joe, I have a coupld of quibles with your story:
1) McGwire’s no comment/pleading the 5th is not at all deceptive. It basically says, “I am under no obligation to answer your question and I will not” It is not deceptive at all. It leaves you to guess at the answer, it only offers uncertain help in knowing the answer.
2) I believe Bush would claim that he was not lying or being deceptive about WMDs. He thought, and the best information he had told him there likely were WMDs. Since then we have come to the conclusion that the intelligence provided to him was wrong. He may well have told us something that was untrue but a lie involves intent to deceive and I just don’t see any intent to deceive. Call Bush stupid or misguided perhaps, but for all his faults I don’t believe him to be dishonest or deceptive.
I have no problem with coaches lying or telling misleading truths. Who cares? And, for the record, let me add that I’m not going to be the Alabama coach.
PhillyFrank, in a world in which no one lies, your friend would know that you would not lie to protect him from the murderer. Thus, when the murderer knocks on the door to your house, your friend would know that you would tell the murderer that he is there. Thus, you would know that you must escape and plan accordingly.
That is the theory.
Hey Joe–
Check out this article by pop culture writer Chuck Klosterman as he tries to frame Steve Nash in a political way. Funny and very well written, just like your stuff:
http://www.esquire.com/features/ESQ0207KARLMARX
The question Kant never answers is why should Trey Hillman( or anybody) be moral, or in other words reasonable (in Kant’s system) . To me, the notion that our every action can be reduced to the most reasonable outcome is horrific. Let’s face it, at that point we become machines.
The other question is – what makes Kant’s morality superior. What is the ultimate obligation for Hillman ? To his team, to himself or some higher universal code of truth telling? What makes either of these ends more noble? Why is protecting his and his team interests less noble or worthy cause than telling “the truth”?
It may be cliche, but IMHO there is no ONE truth ( or ultimate end) . There’s inherent subjectivity in Hillman’s actions. Hillman has to be true to himself, not to the ramblings of some egomaniac (all philosophers basically say – “be like me, I know what I am talking about”) that lived 200 years ago
That absolute truth is unverifiable by humans does not mean that it does not exist.
Secondly, I disagree with the people who are saying that lawyers are supposed to make clever misleading statements. I do not believe that lawyers are supposed to make misleading statements, to clients or to a court, whether it is a lie or not. However, lawyers do argue often based upon the facts of the situation as provided to them by witnesses, documents and other forms of evidence, which may or may not be true. Most of the time the actual truth is truly unverifiable.
Scenario #1:
Man on first. The batter hits a little blooper over the infield. The CF races in yelling, “I got it!” knowing full well he doesn’t have a chance. He grabs the ball on a hop and fires to second forcing out the runner on first.
Lie? Or just smart baseball?
Before you answer consider this…
Scenario #2:
Man on first. The batter hits a little blooper over the infield. The CF races in yelling, “I got it!” knowing full well he doesn’t have a chance. As he grabs the ball on a hop and fires to second forcing out the runner on first, your wife steps in front of the TV and asks, “do these jeans make my butt look big?”
Do you lie? Or do you excitedly praise the CF for his amazing baseball smarts, continually rewinding the game on your DVR over and over again until your wife walks out of the room shaking her head.
Demanding the absolute truth from people at all times implies that the person making that demand somehow has a right to that information. Not a right in the legal sense, but in other senses as well.
Walk into a car dealership (or the plasma TV store) and they ask you how much your budget is. What’s your answer? If you tell them exactly how much you want to spend, you don’t have any room for negotiation and you’ll pay that much for a car or TV. If you tell them something demonstrably false like”$200″ that is clearly intended to dissuade them from pursuing said question – is that somehow unethical/immoral behavior?
So Trey Hillman lied about an injured player? Setting aside the interesting discussion Joe raises, who cares? How does that lie hurt anyone? Why does Joe or another reporter need to know whether Soria is actually injured or not?
I for one don’t understand how people can get on moral and ethical soapboxes about such situations, or other situations as well. If lying to someone means they’re too unimportant to answer in a different manner, maybe just maybe they are that unimportant? Why should Trey Hillman care about answering anyone’s question? In a truly philosophical sense, he shouldn’t unless he has some need to get something from that person which depends on his being truthful.
I guess another way of making my point is having the attitude of “Who are you to me and why do I owe you the truth?”
On a larger scale, certainly there is some validity to saying everyone is owed the truth at all times, no matter who they are or what they’re asking. That couldn’t be less desirable in my opinion.
Can I make a suggestion? When you write a column for SI, could you do a separate blog entry that just links to the column?
It would give us a specific place to comment on those columns.
For example, I’m sure a lot of readers want to talk about Game 1 and comment on your (terrific) column on the game, but this is kind of an awkward thread to do it in.
I’m sure SI doesn’t want you re-running whole columns on your blog, but just a headline and a link and a place to comment doesn’t seem like it would be much of a problem for them.
In the meantime, I’ll post a short Game 1 story here. Last night was my wife’s first visit to the new Yankee Stadium, so we spent the first couple innings doing a lap and watching the game from a variety of angles. Kind of a fun way to see the ballpark for the first time.
Eventually we got to that concession stand in straightaway center. When you stand out there you’re probably a good 430 from the catcher’s mitt and yet you could just hear POP and BOOM as Lee’s pitches hit the glove.
I’ve watched a couple games from out there. Not a ton, but a few. I’m sure that from that distance I’ve never heard pitches hit the glove the way Lee’s did last night. Pretty awesome.
If the intent is to deceive, it’s not a lie…
it’s “Marketing”.
I’ve thought about McGwire in congress over the years, and I’m not convinced that he was hiding anything. Maybe he just didn’t want to be a part of the witchhunt, leave the past as the past. He knew he would be grilled about if he took steroids, what teammates took steroids, about Andro, etc etc. He didn’t ask to go there and speak, he was called by congress and you can’t really say no to them.
Refusing to answer questions definitely makes you look guilty but that isn’t always the case.
they say that the truth will set you free
but then so will a lie
it depends if you’re trying to get to the promised land
or you’re just trying to get by
**Ani De Franco
[...] Read it here. [...]
Well Vrabel didn’t shy away very much:
http://www.kcchiefs.com/news/2009/10/29/chiefs_insider_blog_working_men/
Vrabel’s comments – regarding the Johnson situation – are below.
On handling off-field issues: “I think you just have to worry about yourself and really concentrated on how you want to be portrayed as a professional. Come to work, show up for the games and really contribute the the success and health of the football team.“
On if the suspension is difficult to the team: “I think that you have to look at it on an individual basis. It’s not tough for me, but I don’t necessarily know how it is going to effect some other guys. I hope that it wouldn’t, but it’s not going to have any bearing on the way that I prepare or the way that I approach my job.“
On what the team can learn from this: “I think that you are responsible for your actions. I had a 5th grade teacher who I can remember any time you used to mess up, whether it be 200 or 250 times, you had to write ‘I am responsible for my own actions, I am responsible for my own actions…’ Believe it or not, I still remember it. I probably wrote it 4,000 times over the course of a year and ‘I will take responsibility for my own actions,’ – here it is. That’s all you have to do. If you are willing to take responsibility, then you can use any judgment that you want.“
On keeping this in mind as an important lesson: “I just think that we are judged in a different light being professional athletes. You look at the way that the Commissioner has taken control of the personal conduct policy that has always been in place. I think that people said, ‘you never had a personal conduct policy,’ – there was one in place, it just wasn’t as strict as it is now. You just have to be careful and you effect a lot of people by what you do.“
On if the strictness is fair to the players: “I think that if you make mistakes, you should be punished. It looked bad for all of us, and it looked bad for our game. It doesn’t send a message that we want to send to the people watching.“
On veteran’s policing the locker room: “First and foremost, you have to take care of yourself. Then I would say that I’ve tried to talk to the linebackers. We’ve got a really good group in there. Right now my focus is myself and those guys. I haven’t branched out too far.“
On if the team needed to make the suspension: “I don’t think that they had to do anything. I think that they made the decision that they felt was in the best interest of the Chiefs. I think that they will continue to do that, whether that be with guys coming in, guys coming out. I think that Scott, Todd and Mr. Hunt are going to do what’s in the best interest of the Chiefs and their team.“
On if they look at Haley’s football background that was questioned: “I know that Todd is probably a pretty terrible golfer right now. He puts a lot of work in to this football team and that’s his focus. He’s been a football coach, and that’s what got him this job. So I don’t think that I’ve ever looked at him as anything other than a football coach.“
On if the two week suspension is too harsh: “Whether I think that it is fair or not, it doesn’t matter. The suspension was handed down by the team and if I’m ever fortunate enough to own or run a professional football team, than I will be able to tell you whether or not I think the penalty was fair or not.“
On Johnson’s plan to make an appeal in regards to Vrabel’s role as the team union representative: “There is no role for us. What it will do is it will go through an independent arbitrator, and then he will make a decision. Just like any other grievance, whether my tape isn’t high enough, or my socks are too low – anything that the team would levy down as a fine would go to an independent arbitrator. I won’t sit on any panel or hear anybody’s case.”
I think lies and misleading trusth are different but can be used the same way. It boils down to the intent of the speaker. If the speaker intends to mislead, then I think lies and misleading truths are the same.
Examples of more concrete misleading truths are (1) augmentation mammoplasty, and (2) follicular unit transplantation. But we seem to accept these misleading truths. But I would consider them lies too.
But, I digress.
There are times where a truth can have 2 interpretations; the 2nd meaning is misleading and the listener hears the second meaning while the speaker meant the first, which was true and not meant to mislead. This is a misleading truth but I would not say that the speaker intended to mislead. At worst, he mislead by omission or did a poor job of speaking clearly.
Fundamentally, intent to mislead or deceive has to be at the root of the statement for there to be a problem.
I think we’d all agree that much of football strategy is based on misleading and deceiving opponents (play action pass, draw plays, delayed blitzes, putting special teams on the field and rushing, etc.) So I’m not surprised by a football coach’s decision to deceive a reporter. It’s an accepted part of his profession. It’s just that it’s not cool when he does it to people who work outside of his profession: reporters and the peoplewho rely on their reports.
I will also say this; I think it would serve coaches better if they just declined to give certain information and explain to the asker that they don’t want to compromise the competitive advantage by answering their question. I would respect a person’s decision to sincerely refuse to answer a question more than that person’s attempt to mislead me with truth or lie.
This old foolosopher think that there are some questions not everyone — or perhaps no one — is entitled to have an answer to.
So if I say I’m not going to answer one of those questions, I won’t be telling the truth. Well, this truth may be none of your beeswax.
On other questions, I may have an answer at the moment, but I may know that it’s a tentative answer, likely to change before game time. To tell you this moment’s truth might get me (falsely) accused of misleading. Better to say I don’t know yet.
E.g., who’s the third catcher on the all-time Yankee team? Howard? Posada? Munson on days when I’m feeling sentimental?
I’ve always debated the “is it a lie if the person believes it to be true when they say it even though it later proves to be false” argument in my head. It’s a legitimate question.
And is it somehow of a higher morality if I answer lawyer’s misleading truth-filled questions with a misleading truth-filled answer?
I don’t know why we expect anyone to answer truthfully to smarmy individuals who have no concern in our best interests. Hence the “misleading truths” to salespersons, lawyers, etc. I think it simply gets easier when the person you’re telling the misleading truth somehow thinks he or she fully deserves your honesty without putting up any truth ante of their own.
These kind of conversations always suffer from a lack of agreement on definitions. Before you can discuss the difference, if any, between a “misleading truth” and a “lie,” you have to have an agreement on what a “lie” is.
Some people start with the idea that (1) a “lie” is any statement which is factually incorrect. Other people think that (2) the person telling the “lie” has to know that the statement is factually incorrect. Yet other people think that a lie is any statement which (3) can reasonably be supposed to mislead someone else, whether or not the statement is factually correct. And others (thanks, Matty, for the term “falsiloquium”) think that a factually incorrect statement made to a person who has no right to be told a factually correct statement cannot be a lie.
And then there’s the little matter of whether an omission can be a “lie.”
Without an agreement about which of these definitions of “lie” are right, there’s no way to come to any conclusion about whether a “lie” differs from a “misleading truth.”
If you accept definitions (1) or (2) then a “misleading truth” cannot be a lie. If you accept definition (3) then a “misleading truth” would be a lie, while if you accept definition (4), then a “misleading truth” will be a lie in some circumstances and not in others.
Back during the Clinton scandal, I came to the conclusion that a lie is a statement or action, or a failure to say or act, by a person who has an obligation to say or act, and which is intended to mislead someone else who has the right to know the truth, and wants to know the truth. So I’m pretty much in definition (4).
Underlying all this, though, is the common understanding that we can’t go around parsing the moral context of every situation, which is what all the definitions but (1) require.
So we seem to have established certain certain pragmatic understandings, to the effect that so long as the matter involved is relatively trivial, and the person who is misleading us is respecting the forms of telling the truth – that is, not just flat out deliberately telling an untruth – we’ll not inquire too deeply into the matter, even when we know that we’re probably not being given all the facts necessary to know the complete truth.
Sports are trivial, so most of us don’t worry about whether the coach is “lying” when he tells his misleading truth. We know he is, but he’s respecting the form. So for practical purposes, I’d say that in the context of sports, a “misleading truth” is not a “lie.”
A bunch of baseball fans trying to critique Kant, political philosophy and ethics is pretty pretentious. down right annoying actually. Stick with talking about coaches telling lies and partial truths. thats fine. Offering critiques of “The Critique of Pure Reason” is not. I have a degree in philosophy and spent a full year studying Kant. Just Kant. I do not feel qualified to offer simplistic critiques of his ideas, certainly not on a baseball blog comment sheet. However, I know enough about him to tell when people don’t know what they are talking about. That goes for all of you comments from 1-50 or so. After that I gave up. You guys pick on Joe Morgan for making inane comments about baseball, but your comments on Kant are about as ridiculous as if JM tried to write a book on nuclear physics. Stick to baseball
This is wonderful. I teach a college course on Kant’s political theory and have a clarification. The wrongness of lying rests in its contradiction. Kant argues that you should only act on maxims that you can universalize. This means a principle for action can be used to justify not only your action to others but also the actions of others to you.
The point of lying is go gain advantage by deception. It’s of use because others think wrongly that you are telling the truth. But, if lying as a principle becomes universal then its advantage would be lost. Nobody would believe the your lie and the point of lying would be disappear.
Interestingly this seems to be exactly what has happened in the NFL with injury reports. You assume that everybody is hiding something on their report and therefore discount anything they say.
Joe, of course this one caught my eye! Good to see more ways in which philosophy is relevant to sports!
to # 86. Do you realize how much of a cliche you are ? Do you have anything original or interesting to say or originality is just in the books you read?
All rhetorical questions, of course . There could be no dialogue here. You can’t stoop to our level on this modest forum (we appreciate your scorn, though). Socrates be damned, because he’s probably way below your intellectual level as well.
@86 –
While you spent a year studying Kant, did you ever bother to think?
I’m a philosopher, and just want to say that I’m glad to see the discussion. I’m happy to see people considering some of the big ideas of philosophy, especially at Joe’s blog!
I am no Mark McGwire fan, but he did not lie or intend to deceive. His statement said that he will not talk about it.
Really, I do not believe there is a difference between lying and intending to deceive with half-truths. If you believe that deception or intentionally deceiving people to keep a competitive advantage is okay, then telling a lie should be okay as well.
What I do not believe, is that it is inappropriate at all times to have to tell the truth. The situation with the murderer is a good example; okay to deceive in any way. Or when my wife asks, “Do I look nice in this dress?” I do not say, “Well, you are no Eva Longoria!”
Lets change the Hillman line around a little. Suppose Hillman was referring to Soria’s ability to hear, see, or smell. He is 100% healthy. Soria can do everything the average human does every day, he just can’t throw a 92 mph fastball. The intent is the same as if Hillman did purposely say something completely incorrect. Or to you he should apparently have said, “Well, he can’t throw a 99 mph fastball today.”
@86 – Why do you hate your father so much?
I’ve read Kant. Overall, his understanding of ethics and morals is unrealistic and practically stupid. He believed in Platonic ideals and thought that these ideals somehow dictated “categorical imperatives” which we have to follow. He’s just an idiot. Those supposed ideals don’t exist in the abstract. They are formed by communities, of which Kant existed in the German Enlightenment academy. Why that communities’ morals should be absolute is beyond me.
@86- I’m trying to connect your comment to your posted name. My first guess was that you were just a pompous academic who is frustrated that your philosophy studies have gotten you a job at the library.
However, I realized that there’s a possibility you were trying to make a subtle political comment through exaggeration. Maybe you hate President Obama and think he’s arrogant and doesn’t want people to have discourse or something.
But now I’m sitting here thinking that option 1 is a real possibility and if option 2 is correct, the impact you’ve had isn’t really all that different. Either way, you’re being abrasive for fun.
Well done.
@olentangy
First “literally everyone” is more than a little bit different from “Literally everyone I heard speak.”
Second, it probably doesn’t matter which quote you use in this case because Iraq had biological weapons which had been proven to be used against Iran, the Kurds and the Shiites. Even people virulently opposed to war could not be found to say that there were no wmd’s in Iraq before the war.
As for the UN team looking, they did indeed say they had found none but they also said they had been actively denied the ability to look everywhere they wanted to look, again before the war.
Using only a piece of someone’s quote is not a good thing, whether mine or the UN’s and it is just another form of deception IMO.
Lying is never the right answer. Ever.
Joe,
I agree with you about feeling insulted by a stupid, bald-faced lie. Whenever someone does that to me, I always flash back to Richard Belzer/John Munsch’s riff from the pilot of Homicide:
Munch: “OK, now I get it, you’re saving your really good lies for some smarter cop, is that it? I’m just a donut in the on-deck circle. Wait until the real guy gets here. Wait till that big guy comes back. I’m probably just his secretary. I’m just Montel Williams. You want to talk to Larry King.”
Suspect: “I’m telling the truth!”
Munch: “I have been a murder police for ten years. If you’re gonna lie to me, you lie to me with respect. Now what is it, is it my shoes? Is it my haircut? Got a problem with my haircut? Don’t you ever again lie to me like I’m Montel Williams. I am not Montel Williams. I am not Montel Williams!”
Dear #86:
Generally, when an “expert” on a subject being discussed in a forum offers (or is called on) to make a statement, he actually provides insight into that subject via rational discourse and appropriate references, thereby lending credence to the “expert” label. This becomes all the more necessary if you’re a SELF-PROCLAIMED expert.
Ya see, you can refute an argument all you want, and, in so doing, discredit the argument MAKERS, if that’s your ultimate intent. But you can’t do the latter ahead of the former. You can’t say “I read Kant and you guys don’t know Kant” and then leave it at that and walk off in a huff. As an “expert,” you have a job (a “responsibility,” one could say) to enlighten those “less enlightened” by actually talking about the SUBJECT that’s under discussion. Dismissing PEOPLE who YOU say “don’t know what they are talking about” — while failing or, worse, openly refusing, to identify specifics in their arguments that are illogical or otherwise incorrect — is intellectually lazy and actually more “annoying” than those making supposedly “uninformed” arguments (“uninformed,” in your mind, because they haven’t read Kant’s “Critique of Pure Reason.”) (Who in this forum, by the way, ever offered a “critique of ‘The Critique of Pure Reason’?)
OK, so it’s rather obvious that by mentioning Kant’s seminal work, you are clearly an expert, despite your refusal to discuss the IDEAS in Kant or in his “Critique.” Just know the name of his most important work, and you’re fine. What you’re actually doing is engaging in a form of “name dropping” — “book dropping,” as the case may be, meaning: “mention the book, but don’t talk about it with any authority.”
As an academic and an “expert” on Kant, you need to work harder at your writing and reasoning skills when discussing Kant. Throwing out invective at those actually making a better effort in logical discourse than you, ironically, makes YOU look “ridiculous,” not them. You say you read Kant for an entire year — “just Kant.” So can’t you present even one paragraph of logical analysis and/or refutation?
No offense, but for a guy who doesn’t know how to spell “likelihood” (http://joeposnanski.com/JoeBlog/2009/10/17/best-pure-hitters/) — or, WORSE, can’t make the effort, while admitting such laziness, to look it up in a dictionary — it’s pretty hard to take your “expert” label very seriously.
btw, I suggest you drop Kant for a spell, if you haven’t already, and read Rene Guenon. Then see how Western philosophy compares with Eastern. You might be pleasantly surprised. Just a friendly suggestion.
[...] NPI, we like Joe Posnanski and political philosophy. Here’s Joe Posnanski ON political philosophy. Well, kind [...]
hint: strategic deception is not cheating (Gordon Reddiford, “Cheating and Self-Deception”, in M. McNamee – J. Parry (Eds.), Ethics & Sport, Spon Press, London, 1998. Pp. 225-39)
[...] un commento Passa ai commenti Joe Posnanski, commentatore sportivo piuttosto noto negli States, parla dell’ultimo libro di Michael Sandel, filosofo politico piuttosto noto negli States (il quale, [...]