Certain careers have garnered reputations for dishonesty. These include lawyers, used car salesmen, and politicians. Although their claims and promises can be proven untrue later, it is generally advantageous in the moment for them to lie or stretch facts. This temptation historically has reached some people in all of these professions, creating the reputation. A trend in politics now is not to mitigate this reputation but instead follow it. Presidential candidates have continued stretching and ignoring the truth in their rhetoric, and have now started to double down on it in an attempt to increase their credibility. Most observers would call this absurd. Some, but not all philosophers, agree with the common observer 's assessment. Politicians are expected to speak on a wide variety of issues. Furthermore, they are expected to have a deep understanding of each and …show more content…
This is a desirable situation, but not always a possible one. Politicians have to campaign, plan strategy, and collect donations, amongst other responsibilities. This means that there is not always time to understand the latest developments on topics as varied as oil markets, civil rights protests, wars, and scientific developments. Even the President has to have daily meetings with advisors for issues from security to education. As a result of not always being able to have the best information, candidates sometimes are forced to engage in a practice that Harry Frankfurt, a philosophy professor at Princeton, calls “bullshit.” Frankfurt defines “bullshit” as being a statement made without regard for the facts relating to it. This is distinguished from lying in that a liar has a regard for the truth which they are misrepresenting. It is rational for a politician to use “bullshit” when talking about issues that they are not
Tavris and Aronson (2007) used President George W. Bush as an example of this blind justification, citing all the ways that he was wrong about going to war in Iraq. But still, after years and years of bloodshed, lost American lives, huge financial debt, etc., Bush stated to a conservative columnist, “I’ve never been more convinced that the decisions I made are the right decisions.” And to be bi-partisan, they also included one of politics’ biggest lies told by Bill Clinton. “I never had sex with that woman . . . Monika Lewinski.”
Kouzes, James M., and Barry Z. Posner. Credibility: How Leaders Gain and Lose It, Why People
Buying media slots for candidates, which used to be a small business just over half a century ago, has grown so that these companies manage “more than $170 billion of their clients’ campaign funds” (Turow 230). This fact about the growth of such an industry should at a minimum raise an eyebrow, as it characterizes the shift and importance this data analysis has become. It also serves as an important point because it fuels the common fear of corruption in politics, as this data essentially offers a window to the responses and how people think to what politicians say. This could lead to the next phase of the “polished politician” where candidates will say statements that statistically receive favorable responses from the population. This strong pathos is a central pillar of the argument Turow is trying to make, effectively playing the emotion of pity from the hypothetical family situation, and building it into a fear of the system and establishment. Such emotions are strong motivators, and this combination encourages the reader to take action, or at the very least inform someone they know about such issues they weren’t even aware were
In their essays both Buckley and Ericsson analyze the different ways we use lies to help and hurt our self in our every day lives, and how this effects American culture. Ericsson shows the way lies can , as she puts it, “ lubricate the daily machinery of living”(128). Buckley, on the other hand uses examples of lies as a way to deny himself; and do exactly the opposite of Ericsson. But they both show how we as Americans use lies these ways and others so much that most of us may not realize it.
In theory, political campaigns are the most important culmination of the democratic debate in American politics. In practice, however, the media shrouds society’s ability to engage in a democratic debate with unenlightening campaign coverage. Because of this, it is difficult—if not impossible—to have educated political discourse in which the whole, factual truth is on display. After years of only seeing the drama of presidential campaigns, the American public has become a misinformed people.
As easy as actors put on clothes and become a different person to film a movie, successful politicians appear much more heartfelt and honest as they are in real life. This is backed by the idea posed by Chris Hedges that “political leaders…..no longer need to be competent, sincere, or honest. They need only to appear to have these qualities.” If a politician were able to appear honest and heartfelt in a campaign event, they would much more likely to appeal to the audience and be able to win their trust and vote in some cases and succeed in winning an election to the benefit of the politician and not the audience. . Similar, posed propaganda and social medias of today are often used to exploit the audience and give them poorly supported feelings of support and trust for these political leaders.
The Curious Incident of the dog in the night-time will take you on a ride of emotions as Christopher John Francis Boone fights through his autism to prove his innocence to everyone and himself as well. A story of a young boy on a mission to find out who killed his neighbor's dog, but while on the journey he reveals secrets about his family that was kept from him all these years. Mark Haddon did an amazing job on showing how the truth can affect someone in the text, not only the main character Christopher, but the others as well utilizing Characterization.
Politics, although a very abhorred profession, is a necessity for society, and requires good leaders who make good political decisions for their constituents. Unfortunately, there is always a negative connotation associated with politicians, as they are usually seen as corrupt, lying, and scheming people. There are many dif...
Deception exists in media, among prestigious universities, and perhaps most commonly in the workplace. According to Dunleavy (2010), reasons for deception in the workplace include: competitiveness, conflict, or a response to a supervisor or fellow employee (p. 241). Dunleavy develops hypotheses’, conducts experiments, and collects data to determine what is considered acceptable and unacceptable behavior as it applies to deception in the workplace. Ultimately, the reason for deceiving and the method in which one deceives, through either withholding (omission) or distortion (commission), directly effects the perception of coworkers’ credibility, power, and trustworthiness (Dunleavy, p.241).
Traditionally, it is agreed that any and every form of telling the truth is always the best thing to do. In the essays of Stephen L Carter and Stephanie Ericsson, this ideal is not exactly true. It is expressed in "The Insufficiency of Honesty" as well as "The Ways We Lie" that honesty is hard to come by and that there is more to it than believed. The authors convey their views by first defining what the concept is, picking it apart, and then use common occurrences for examples of the points they had made.
Falsehood could be a useful evil in politic, because, apparently, by means of falsehood, the risk of social turmoil could be efficiently minimized or even eliminated. Thus, the ultimate good of the whole,
Through out history people have been influenced by what they want to hear and the way a current trend is happening. The evolution of mankind has drifted towards a different society than what we where born to sustain. We are emotionally driven human beings that want to feel accepted by the rules of society. Sometimes an individual can confuse actions or emotions towards trying to fulfill the standards society has imposed. I have analyzed two articles that incorporate how a society reacts towards integrity as well as honesty and the belief that an individual in order to be a part of society one must comply with the standards that are set. As I began to interpret what Stephen L. Carter explained in “The Insufficiency of Honesty” I examined they
Works Cited "Argumentum Ad Ignorantiam" Argumentum Ad Ignorantiam - "Ad. Lander, a.k.a. The X-Men. Web. The Web.
Politicians, most of us have an unfavorable view of the people in Washington DC because of one word, deceitful. We’ve all heard the saying “how do you know a politician is lying? His lips are moving.” Society and the media are so quick to condemn our politicians as soon as a statement they have said has been proven to be inaccurate or false, so the question is: are politicians more likely to lie or are these examples of the “illusion of memory?”
The purpose of this paper will be to refute claims made by doubtful scholars as to the importance of presidential debates. Throughout this paper, studies will be presented which directly refute the idea that debates do not have a substantial effect on voter perception. It will also explore the evolution of the selection process and how that has directly affected the importance of debates. In addition, it will provide evidence of the importance of presidential debates by evaluating multiple theories (Neustadt, Light, and Presidential Roles Theory) of presidential success and show how debates can be central in the foundation of their future achievements as president. This analysis will also explore the sinister aspects of debates in which the media uses sound bites to direct voter perceptions and use miscomprehension among voters to distort their views about potential candidates.