Philosophers have used to being criticized for asking unnecessary questions.
So, is it of lying in politics seen as a universal practice, and therefore a necessity that the politician must use otherwise fail to exist: what's the question the right of lie?
Where there is need, there is no right to seek. Or rather, there is no difference between law and fact. Everyone knows he must lie to voters to be politically credible. That may be unfortunate, but true. Point-bar.
-> Doctor Philo does not allow for such a short throw.
Leaving aside the controversy over the potential benefits lie, he will ask the question purity in politics .
We know the argument developed by Sartre in hands dirty : one makes the revolution and why we kill in the name of purity. Yes, but the hero, Hugo, who refuses to lie and who is about to kill a revolutionary leader who wants to cynically lied to the people, will finally the killing because he was a cuckold (c 'is the right word). If purity is not in life, then it is not in action.
If it is not mostly because my action will mingle with that of others. There is not - mainly political - action that is strictly individual (except perhaps that of the hermit, but what is she to share prayer?). Since the others can take my act and transform it by their own actions, then the purity of acts disappears. Or rather, it shrinks and takes refuge in intentions. I wanted to ... well I did not want that ...
Good. The problem is that we might bless anything with it. Even the Nazi executioners wanted the good of humanity - humanity just for them that all those who were excluded not Aryan. The sincerity of choice would be it, then the only element to take into account, and a white lie, the liar would wash it his fault?
If political action is political insofar as it involves a community, then it must be something that brings people together Community referred to it.
Thesis: the political community is a community topics which have a link enabling them to live together .
- If men are in politics objects, then there is no problem to lie to them is one way as another handle, and only then pursued the goal of service.
But from the moment they are subjects (in the sense of free people to choose and to govern themselves, as in democracy), then lie to them is their decline to hear the reality on the When they are asked to act or decide.
- The problem is compounded when trying to learn how to realize the so-called "living together . It may indeed prefer solidarity to freedom - Yes, but it is also preferred his mother to justice (Camus). Between public life and private life, relationships and multiple fractures need to be finely analyzed. Doctor Philo'll do that someday ... maybe.
Staying at immediate: how to live together if the lie is to conceal the reality of others? If the lie is hiding, I saw, I speak only masks, never real men.
also remains to make a distinction outside of lies, we can also blame the politicians not to engage in its About. He who said: "I do not lie to you ..." and then who, after having promised, does not keep his promise because in the meantime he has changed his mind - for pragmatic course.
You see who I'm talking about?
0 comments:
Post a Comment