White lies. When are they ethical?

Lying to convince others of a point of view.

Is it ethical?  Is it moral?  

What if you are really and truly convinced you are right?

This came up recently when I objected to an item on our local news.  It said that 90% of rural people surveyed agreed that human caused climate change is not only real, but a big problem. Now I know for a fact that that is bunkum. I am not arguing in this discussion whether climate change is real or not, what I am saying is that we should not be told lies about how many people believe it.  

This is a copy of the facebook discussion - 

Me - According to something on our local news, 90% of rural people believe that humans have caused Global Warming. The 'survey' was done by the Climate Council. According to what I hear when talking to the rural folk all around me, maybe 1% believe that humans affect the environment, though as many as 25% think there could be some changes in the climate - fewer even than that among older people, who have seen more seasons, good ones and bad ones.

In my view, our local news repeated the lie given to them by the Climate Council.

3^rd person:  Humans have been affecting the climate ever since the industrial revolution it's just that they didn't realise it.

Me:  I am not arguing whether or not. I am saying that this '90% believe' is frankly untrue. Unless, of course, they polled ten-year-olds who'd just had the lesson at school - they teach it as fact at schools.

 Colin:  Well, good, because a fact is what it is.

And if we convince 90% of rural people that 90% of rural people accept climate change as a fact, that can only speed the day when they actually do.

Me:    So tell lies in order to get your 'truth' across? Is that ethical in your view? It seems to be in the view of the Climate Council. A large part of the reason that so many are sceptical is that various of their lies have been exposed.

Colin: It's not a "truth", it's a straight fact. "Truth" implies that human damage to the environment is subject to opinion; a fact simply is.

The worse lie here is perpetuating the notion that it's anything but a fact. If reiterating the self-evident truth of the fact is not efficacious, but a white lie will (in this situation) better overcome the persistent and literally pernicious lie in question, then the white lie it'll have to be.

If the dichtomy here is the facts vs what a majority of people choose to believe, then convincing the majority that they believe the facts is a sound approach.

 It might be a white lie now, but the facts underpinning it are true and will be seen to be so. Therefore, the white lie will become retroactively true. It's only temporarily unethical, it'll sort itself out when everyone's over their confusion vis fact vs opinon.

Me:  (You said that)  "More people will accept the facts if they believe that the majority accept the facts. "
That is not ethical in my view. In fact, I think it a shameful thing to do, even if far too common.
I believe in telling truth, not lies.

A bit more discussion including posts for others, and then this from Colin -

The vast majority of scientists do agree on this. The notion that it's in any doubt is a literally pernicious lie.

Besides, we see this particular method of popularising ideas used all the time.  How do they sell clothes?  Well, they tell Demographic X that Fashion Y is popular with people like them. How do they sell politicians? By saying that Demographic X generally agree with Policy Y. 

How do they detract from a rival politician's or policy's support base? By saying that Demographic X generally do not accept Policy Y.

All they've done here is use that to say that, actually, Demographic X are coming to agree that climate damage is real, and we're responsible.

As you see, Colin (not his real name) considers that it is reasonable and ethical to try and convince people that everyone else already thinks that. He agrees that lying is fine as it is only trying to get more people to agree with what he terms fact.

So is it ethical?  I believe not. Lying is lying.

Australian beaches

There have been other instances I can think of.  In the 70s, politicians and the media, those recently termed 'the elite'  (goodness knows why) were constantly telling us (Australians) that we were a part of Asia, and must deal with it.  They said that the 'Asianisation of Australia'  was inevitable, thus trying to avoid arguments from those of us who preferred our own Australian culture, thank you very much. There are now some suburbs of Australia very much ‘Asianised,’ but that push has become quiet, and Australia is not part of Asia.

Australia is changing

Immigration:  We ordinary folk think that immigrants should learn to get on in Australia, respecting Australian laws, Australian customs, Australian people - assimilation.  

Around the 1980s, a new term was coined - 'Multiculturalism' - that all different cultures can live together, that there is no need for immigrants to adapt, and that the old expectation of 'assimilation' was something close to wicked.

The argument used so often at the time was that Australia was already a  multicultural nation, had been from the beginning, so there was no point in discussing the business further. 

Well, we certainly had immigrants from many countries, especially after WW2.  But care was taken that these ‘New Australians’ did not have a radically different culture. It was not the sort of multiculturalism that has mosques springing up and bastard imams calling women not in a burqa ‘Uncovered meat.’  Telling us that we were already a multicultural nation was a lie.

The politicians no longer bother telling us that Australia has always been a multicultural nation, now there is the lie that we are the most successful multicultural nation in the world, totally ignoring the very big problems that are getting worse and worse.

Is it ever good to mislead people like this?

I saw a blog post once, something about the 'myths' concerning a certain human function. I was in a dilemma there, as what she termed 'myths' were not so at all. But I very much agreed with  her aims.  So I did not challenge that author. 

Should I have done in the interests of honesty?  I do not know.

I am interested in comments about this issue – not comments arguing the facts of climate change, nor the merits of Asianisation or Multiculturalism, but whether people believe that it is all right to tell lies in the cause of the truth – or in what they believe the truth to be.

My books are available in most online booksellers such as Amazon, 

 Smashwords, the Book Depository and Barnes and Noble. 

For politicians, footballers, Catholic priests and Muslim imams

 

Do you need to be told what is good and what is bad?

There are some people who seem to have no sense at all about what is right and what is wrong. Politicians are notable - they have to have a 'Code of Conduct' written down for them, it appears. Most of us have no need to be told what is right and what is wrong. We know.

A politician handed a blatant bribe recently excused himself by saying, 'I was quite naive in a political sense at that stage.'  If he was that 'naive' then he had to be stupid. And stupid people have no business seeking to run for parliament.  (Andrew Cornwell, NSW Liberal, according to the Australian, 12/8/14.) 

Footballers. They have educational courses in how to treat women. It seems they don't know that women should be treated with respect - someone has to explain it to them!

Mr. George Pell, former arch-bishop of Sydney, who now has a position at the Vatican. He appeared at the Royal Commision into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse.  His policy was to go after those who sought damages from the church, with all the muscle the church could muster. And since the Catholic Church is very rich, that was a great deal of muscle. If a victim pursued his claim, he risked being banktupted. George Pell ordered this even when he knew perfectly well that the accusations were justified.  His response when this was brought up?  That the policy was 'misguided.'   Misguided, Mr. Pell?  Try wicked. Try evil. Try frankly BAD!   (This response by Pell was shown on 'Four Corners,' ABC, 11/8/14.) 

Mr. Pell, of course, is a Catholic priest.  There has been so much about the abuses of Catholic priests these last ten years or so, that I wonder if any of them have the slightest conception of the difference between right and wrong. So many of them were abusing children that they all had to know about it. And none of them chose to try and do anything. Worse. They acted to pretend it was not happening. One instance - a headmaster of a Catholic school objected to the priest routinely abusing the children -  and was fired. ('Four Corners,' ABC, 11/8/14.) 

More about religious leaders, this time, Muslim religious leaders. ISIS, formerly ISIL, currently calling themselves 'Islamic State' and probably something else entirely next week. They are murderous terrorists. They behead enemies - no such thing as relatively civilised 'rules of war.'  Not that war is ever civilised, but I doubt if humanity has seen anything as utterly barbaric as this mob for many, many centuries. All of this is well known. It is not propaganda, it is their own boasting on social media. Pictures on social media. A child holding the head of a victim, posted by his proud father!

So what do our local Muslim leaders have to say about this?  Thankfully, at  least some have condemned it, notably 'Lakemba Community Leader, Jamal Rifi, (planning to run for NSW parliament next year according to the Australian, 12/8/14.)     

But others do not choose to comment. Board of Imams Victoria president, Sheik Gul Saeed Shah declined to comment because 'he did not know enough specifically about Islamic State.'   (The Australian, 12/8/14.)  He could not fail to know something of what they are doing. So is he lacking a sense of right and wrong?  Or is he merely afraid of the swine? 

 

So for politicians, footballers, Catholic priests and Muslim imams, I'll try and explain in terms you might understand.

To hurt others is bad, to help others is good.  Got it?  Not so difficult now, is it?

 So how about acting on it?

 -----------------------------

'Misleading' advertising and snake oil.

When I use facebook, there are often 'suggested posts' or other advertisements that I have requested be hidden because they are 'misleading.'   They ask for your reasons with a few options given.
Here's what it says:

Advert Hidden

We'll try not to show you this advert again.

Why did you hide it?

Uninteresting

Misleading

Sexually explicit

Against my views

Offensive

Repetitive

Other'  

 

In 'other' you can say what you want, even that the advertisement is lies, but that could be a risky thing to do. I always call them 'misleading.'

 

A lot of them are lies though - big, fat, whopping lies.    

The biggest offenders are the advertisements for  'natural' medicines.  There is almost never the slightest evidence that they work.

In olden times, 'snake oil salesmen' used to travel town to town selling their remedies for all manner of ills.  We see them in Westerns now and then.

And there were general merchants as well. The picture opposite is an actual wagon of a travelling merchant in Australia. (Stockmen's Hall of Fame, Longreach.)   Dava Singh would have had medicines for Dropsy and for Rheumatism and for 'Women's Troubles.' With little education, the people of the times would have put some faith in the 'snake oil.'


Today?  I do not understand that so many of us are just as willing to believe in outrageous claims today.


Pretend remedies are not the only products that use lies in their ads. Cosmetics and beautifiers can be worse, but outrageous claims are expected with these, no matter what lies they are. Cleaning products are also bad - things that you only have to spray on and forget?  Well, spray as much as you want, but that it will all be sparkling clean afterwards?  I don't believe it.

Look at these - are they misleading?  Or are they out and out lies?

from Facebook ‘suggested posts.’

‘One clever trick reduces fat four times faster than diet or exercise’
‘Dr. O reveals $5 wrinkle trick that’s making Botox  doctors furious’  
‘lose four KGs instantly with a cleanse.’
‘miracle fruit burns fat’

from facebook ads on the side:

‘Four foods to eat before bed for weight loss’
‘learn four tricks to never store carbs as fat’
‘follow this simple diet trick to burn off  your unwanted belly fat without any intense diet’
‘learn how to treat aches and pains with chili.’
‘Desperate mum discovers $4 secret that has Botox doctors furious.’
‘one tip to remove wrinkles’
‘Dieticians are marvelling at this 3 week fat-blasting technique.’
‘End Rheumatoid Arthritis. 100% guaranteed.’

 All nonsense.  Snake Oil promises.

End Rheumatoid Arthritis. 100% guaranteed?   This would be fantastic if true.  If true, there would be millions grateful.  If true, the inventor would be in line for a Nobel prize -  he would have done a wonderful thing for humanity. But as far as I know, the only 100% guaranteed cure for rheumatoid arthritis is death. Sorry about that.

Truth in Advertising Legislation:

Most countries have laws stating that companies are prohibited from deliberately misleading advertising.  And most countries don't seem to care about enforcing them.  When they do, it is usually only to tell the advertiser to stop doing it.

America
When consumers see or hear an advertisement, whether it’s on the Internet, radio or television, or anywhere else, federal law says that ad must be truthful, not misleading, and, when appropriate, backed by scientific evidence.  The Federal Trade Commission enforces these truth-in-advertising laws, and it applies the same standards no matter where an ad appears – in newspapers and magazines, online, in the mail, or on billboards or buses.  The FTC looks especially closely at advertising claims that can affect consumers’ health or their pocketbooks – claims about food, over-the-counter drugs, dietary supplements, alcohol, and tobacco and on conduct related to high-tech products and the Internet, such as the dissemination of spyware.  The FTC also monitors and writes reports about ad industry practices regarding marketing of food, violent movies, music, and electronic games to children.

 It was not so easy finding the applicable provisions for Australia, just some vague summaries, and if you want to, you can try wading through the Trade Practices Act 1974, and hoping to make sense of it.  Whatever, it appears quite ineffective.  

Self-regulation maybe?  Everyone knows that self regulation only works when there is a body closely watching, and with a big stick.  Something about a fox in charge of the chicken coop?



See top left?  Pills.  One wonders what for and just how effective.
As effective as wild krill oil maybe?

One of the interesting 'misleading' products is a nasal spray that supposedly helps someone lose weight.  This time, a scientist pointed out that there was not the slightest evidence that it had any effect at all.  That was years ago.  The court case is ongoing as far as I know, and the product is still being marketed. 

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/health-science/weight-loss-nasal-spray-saga-shows-up-watchdog/story-e6frg8y6-1226090175156

 

You can be a sheep if you choose.
But look after your lambs.
 

A particular gripe of mine is that parents are dosing their children with these 'natural' products that are not necessarily harmless. If they choose to do it to themselves, that's their right, but, for instance, a concoction of fish oil that is supposed to raise the child's intelligence?  Don't take risks. It does not raise the child's intelligence.  All it does is expose the parent's lack of intelligence.






 

Pharmacies have a lot to answer for.  Their reputation for ethics has been very much eroded these past several years as they stock more and more snake oil remedies.  These days their pretend remedies take up as much space as things that can be expected to work - at least a little.

 

 Truth in advertising?   Baaahhh!    Humbug!

 

POSTSCRIPT ADDED January, 2014:

Maybe facebook read this blog-post. The option of 'misleading' is no longer available for anyone wishing to 'hide' particular ads.