Bush Thanksgiving Trip Reprehensible!

[Monoxide]

If, in the performance of a beneficial act, it will be necessary to
intentionally deceive the beneficiary of that act, is the act ethical or
not? When is it acceptable to say, "I lied to you so that I could do
something for your benefit?" If we accept that lying is morally wrong, then
it would seem that intentional deception by a moral person would require
that both of the following conditions be met:



A. Not deceiving the beneficiary (that is, telling the beneficiary the
truth) would result in harm to them, and,



B. Not doing the act would result in harm (that is, the act must be done or
someone will be harmed).



If these assumptions are correct, then President Bush's Thanksgiving Trip to
Iraq was unethical because, while it is true that it was necessary to
intentionally deceive us about the trip to prevent harm to himself and his
staff, the act of visiting the troops, while patriotic and supportive, was
not necessary to prevent harm to anyone. Therefore, when President Bush lied
to the American public on Thanksgiving Day, he satisfied A, but not B.



If visiting our troops on Thanksgiving Day would require the President to
intentionally deceive us, and the basis for making the trip did not involve
protecting someone from harm, then the act should not have been done. If we
truly believe that deception is morally wrong, then the only way we can ever
justify lying is if we must do so to protect something we value even more
greatly than fidelity, which, we must assume, is the value of human life.
While we value the service and patriotism of our soldiers and leaders, in
honoring them we cannot subordinate our respect for fidelity unless some
higher value takes precedence. For President Bush then, patriotism and
service to an ideal, take precedent over fidelity. If a person uses
deception in the service of any ideal other than the protection of human
life, then either that person is not moral, or lying is not morally wrong.



Charlie Morriss

Undergraduate Philosophy

University of Arizona

[EagleEye]

Post by Monoxide
If, in the performance of a beneficial act, it will be necessary to
intentionally deceive the beneficiary of that act, is the act ethical or
not? When is it acceptable to say, "I lied to you so that I could do
something for your benefit?" If we accept that lying is morally wrong, then
it would seem that intentional deception by a moral person would require
A. Not deceiving the beneficiary (that is, telling the beneficiary the
truth) would result in harm to them, and,
B. Not doing the act would result in harm (that is, the act must be done or
someone will be harmed).
If these assumptions are correct, then President Bush's Thanksgiving Trip to
Iraq was unethical because, while it is true that it was necessary to
intentionally deceive us about the trip to prevent harm to himself and his
staff, the act of visiting the troops, while patriotic and supportive, was
not necessary to prevent harm to anyone. Therefore, when President Bush lied
to the American public on Thanksgiving Day, he satisfied A, but not B.
If visiting our troops on Thanksgiving Day would require the President to
intentionally deceive us, and the basis for making the trip did not involve
protecting someone from harm, then the act should not have been done. If we
truly believe that deception is morally wrong, then the only way we can ever
justify lying is if we must do so to protect something we value even more
greatly than fidelity, which, we must assume, is the value of human life.
While we value the service and patriotism of our soldiers and leaders, in
honoring them we cannot subordinate our respect for fidelity unless some
higher value takes precedence. For President Bush then, patriotism and
service to an ideal, take precedent over fidelity. If a person uses
deception in the service of any ideal other than the protection of human
life, then either that person is not moral, or lying is not morally wrong.
Charlie Morriss
Undergraduate Philosophy
University of Arizona

What would your prognosis be if Bush willfully allowed the events of 9/11 to
take place, and was aware of plans to have those three buildings brought
down in a controlled demolition?

That would make the lying about the turkey dinner a rather small offense by
comparison, would it not? *_*

[Monoxide]

Post by EagleEye
What would your prognosis be if Bush willfully allowed the events of 9/11 to
take place, and was aware of plans to have those three buildings brought
down in a controlled demolition?
That would make the lying about the turkey dinner a rather small offense by
comparison, would it not? *_*

Well, I don't know what to make of that, but I think the Turkey Dinner
Fiasco leads us to the following premises:

1.) By their own open admission, there are times that the Bush
administration feels that it is acceptable to lie to the press and public,

2.) The conditions under which the administration believes it is acceptable
to lie include actions that, although requiring secrecy to protect the lives
of those involved, are not in and of themselves necessary to protect the
lives of U.S. citizens,

3.) If the administration will lie about events not necessary to protect the
American public, then it seems as though their decision about when to lie
and when not to lie is subjective to their own opinion about when, or
whether, the public needs to know the truth or not.

I think that what is significant about the Turkey Dinner Fiasco is that the
administration openly admitted that they deceived us, and even went to great
lengths to show the world how good they were at keeping the secret. They
seemed proud of it. It seems as though not once did any of the parties
involved consider whether it was reasonable to proceed with the action in
light of the facts that, they would both have to lie about it, and that it
was not entirely necessary to make the trip. It was not as though making the
trip to Iraq was necessary to protect life or property. Therefore, it would
also seem, in light of the fact that the trip was unnecessary, that because
it would require deception, it should not have been done.

If they will lie about something purely unnecessary, surely they lie about
more important things.

Charlie Morriss
Undergraduate Philosophy
University of Arizona

[Kevin Robinson]

If, in the performance of a beneficial act,> >

<snip>

Charlie Morriss
Undergraduate Philosophy
University of Arizona

Gee, Charley, you are attending an institution supported by
the taxation of Arizonans, and, through the federal aid it receives,
taxpayers from the other 49 states. I'd say YOU are harmimg
ME, or don't they teach that a coerced economic transfer, that is,
theft, is immoral at UA?

Kevin

[Dan]

Only to a liberal thinking loser.. I really hope our tax dollars are not
being used/wasted for your education(??). BTW, With thinking like that:
Your Meaning Of Life/Philosophy Questions Should Be:

1. Do You Want Fries With That?
2. Paper OR Plastic??

Get With The Program Chuck!!!

Post by Monoxide
If, in the performance of a beneficial act, it will be necessary to
intentionally deceive the beneficiary of that act, is the act ethical or
not? When is it acceptable to say, "I lied to you so that I could do
something for your benefit?" If we accept that lying is morally wrong, then
it would seem that intentional deception by a moral person would require
A. Not deceiving the beneficiary (that is, telling the beneficiary the
truth) would result in harm to them, and,
B. Not doing the act would result in harm (that is, the act must be done or
someone will be harmed).
If these assumptions are correct, then President Bush's Thanksgiving Trip to
Iraq was unethical because, while it is true that it was necessary to
intentionally deceive us about the trip to prevent harm to himself and his
staff, the act of visiting the troops, while patriotic and supportive, was
not necessary to prevent harm to anyone. Therefore, when President Bush lied
to the American public on Thanksgiving Day, he satisfied A, but not B.
If visiting our troops on Thanksgiving Day would require the President to
intentionally deceive us, and the basis for making the trip did not involve
protecting someone from harm, then the act should not have been done. If we
truly believe that deception is morally wrong, then the only way we can ever
justify lying is if we must do so to protect something we value even more
greatly than fidelity, which, we must assume, is the value of human life.
While we value the service and patriotism of our soldiers and leaders, in
honoring them we cannot subordinate our respect for fidelity unless some
higher value takes precedence. For President Bush then, patriotism and
service to an ideal, take precedent over fidelity. If a person uses
deception in the service of any ideal other than the protection of human
life, then either that person is not moral, or lying is not morally wrong.
Charlie Morriss
Undergraduate Philosophy
University of Arizona