Ethical Question Regarding Bush's (alleged) Lies

[BasketCase]

This is directed to those of you who think Bush is a disaster for America, for the world. A modern Chernobyl, a modern Titanic, a modern Vanilla Ice.

Would you, or wouldn't you? (I can see a lot of "I couldn't possibly stoop to his level" answers incoming....)

 

[zippy]

I would have thought that telling the truth would be enough.

Then again, about 80% of the population of the UK know that Blair lied over the war in Iraq, but I still expect him to win the next election. No-one ever went broke overestimating the stupidity of the British public. I don't suppose the US or any other country is different in that respect.

 

[Yom]

I'm not going to vote in this poll because it doesn't offer enough options. It doesn't describe the magnitude of the lie. I would tell a small lie, but not a large one.

 

[ManOfMiracles]

I can't think of any lie I could tell that would make a difference so why bother.

 

[Yom]

I can't think of any lie I could tell that would make a difference so why bother.

I can't either. If I were trying to convince a person to vote for Kerry, or at least not vote for Bush, I'd think the truth would be enough.

 

[Akka]

If you need to lie to kick someone out of the office, it means that the truth is not enough.
If the truth doesn't contain a good enough reason to kick him, then how are you morally justified to actually kick him out of office ?

 

[Shadylookin]

why so I can sway the 3% of voters that change their minds every 5 seconds and by tomorrow forget anything ever happend?

 

[bobgote]

what akka said.

I'm not going to vote in this poll because it doesn't offer enough options. It doesn't describe the magnitude of the lie. I would tell a small lie, but not a large one.

so that'd be a "yes" then.

 

[Plotinus]

Then again, about 80% of the population of the UK know that Blair lied over the war in Iraq, but I still expect him to win the next election. No-one ever went broke overestimating the stupidity of the British public.

Maybe the British public aren't as stupid as you think - they know that the alternative is Howard!

As for the question - the end would definitely justify the means. In fact, I can't think of many means that wouldn't be justified by that particular end.

 

[The Person]

As long as I don't lie as much as Bush, I would've done it, except that I'm a terrible liar. (Or at least so I think. How can we be sure that nobody here doesn't lie all the time.)

 

[AVN]

As for the question - the end would definitely justify the means. In fact, I can't think of many means that wouldn't be justified by that particular end.

So if I interprete you correct it's allowed to tell some lies to remove a president of who you think he's a big liar.

Hmm, I'm thinking about a certain word now, on which meaning we agreed in another thread yesterday.

 

[Marla_Singer]

I would have thought that telling the truth would be enough.

If you need to lie to kick someone out of the office, it means that the truth is not enough.
If the truth doesn't contain a good enough reason to kick him, then how are you morally justified to actually kick him out of office ?

Zippy and Akka has said it all.

Then again, about 80% of the population of the UK know that Blair lied over the war in Iraq, but I still expect him to win the next election. No-one ever went broke overestimating the stupidity of the British public. I don't suppose the US or any other country is different in that respect.

Yeah but in the case of England, you have a decent excuse... You know that on that level the alternative party is even worse. Actually, I think that even Robin Cook would be a harder challenge for Tony Blair than any tory.

I must say Cook's resignation speech was absolutely brilliant. It made me feel proud of the British democracy.

 

[North King]

No I would not, not only for the morals of it but because his opponent is not worth lying for to get into office.

 

[Rik Meleet]

No - I will not lower myself to his level.

 

[Godwynn]

I wouldn't lie. I would just give everyone the truth. That will be enough to get him out of office.

 

[Richard Cribb]

No I would not, not only for the morals of it but because his opponent is not worth lying for to get into office.

You said it for me. As for your signature: Besides what could be a better way of getting rid of this individual than just simply to tell the truth about him?

 

[Plotinus]

So if I interprete you correct it's allowed to tell some lies to remove a president of who you think he's a big liar.

Hmm, I'm thinking about a certain word now, on which meaning we agreed in another thread yesterday.

Not so - because my opposition to Bush has got nothing to do with any lies he may or may not have told. It's to do with the things he has *done*, and I certainly wouldn't do any of those.

 

[~Corsair#01~]

I would have thought that telling the truth would be enough.

Then again, about 80% of the population of the UK know that Blair lied over the war in Iraq, but I still expect him to win the next election. No-one ever went broke overestimating the stupidity of the British public. I don't suppose the US or any other country is different in that respect.

Trust me, if knew much about Michael Howard, you'd see why Blair looks so brilliant in comparison.

 

[Jawz II]

This is directed to those of you who think Bush is a disaster for America, for the world. A modern Chernobyl, a modern Titanic, a modern Vanilla Ice.

HAHAHAHAHAHAH, vanilla ice!!

gotdamerung that was a good one

ps. with the kind of slander and lies he has used against john mc cain and al gore in 2000 and kerry now, tru the swift boat liars, anything done to him is well deserved!

unfortunately it looks like the democrats are taking the high (losing) road!

 

[stormbind]

There should be no need to lie, to bring Bush's name into disrepute.