No. There is no such thing as a "noble" lie, since describing something as noble or using consequential analysis of the action itself does not affect that which inherently makes lie immoral in the first place. It is still a lie.
There is no need to dress it up in the fancy language of philosophical justification, particularly one predicated on one's own unique ability to accept the truth, whereas others cannot. What makes the so called village wise men more able to accept the truth than someone else, and how are they able to decide this?
Yes. If popular opinion is against the correct course of action (as decided by the village wise men), then their lie to conceal their true intentions is justifiable.
I see a Noble lie as when a government withholds information or denies the truth for the greater good. When the Pierre Salinger denied that the U.S. had dismantled its Turkish missiles in exchange for the disarmament of Soviet missiles in Cuban, he told a "Noble" lie. If he had been honest with the reporters, the deal would've been scuttled and a nuclear conflict between the U.S. and the USSSR might have occurred.
But who decides the greater good? Who is to say that had Pierre Salinger told the truth, a nuclear war would have occurred? Sure, it "might" have occurred. But then it might not. And any number of other things also might have occurred to lower the risk of nuclear war. Kennedy could have backed down on the blockade. And so on and so on.
But even if you accept that the lie was "necessary" (which has not been proved), that does not make it noble. It is still an immoral act, a defeat for principle, and if Salinger or his bosses self-congratulated themselves on those grounds it would only lead them to be more likely to cross other moral boundaries in the future-- as decided by them of course.
So you’re arguing that a lie is inherently wrong under any circumstances? I don’t dispute this assertion, but I believe that weighing magnitude is helpful in these situations. Disclosing state secrets in the middle of a war could endanger the lives on serviceman and jeopardize the nation’s security. A lie to prevent such information from leaking to detriment of a nation’s populace it is clearly morally justifiable. That’s one standard I place on a noble lie. Can the lie prevent the needless deaths of human beings? If the lie is to simply to save a government’s popularity, it is not noble.
Now you are entering into fraught waters with your “wise men” critique. Who determines the composition of this nebulous group and how do we know that they have our interests in mind? Did the early Athenians governments represent the people? Not if one was a slave. If we assume that the modern wise men are policy makers, career bureaucrats not political appointees, we can also assume that they are more knowledge and thus more likely to accept the “truth” about an issue in their domain of understanding.
While some may have personal biases that preclude them from acknowledging a self-evident truth (that’s for another debate), the consensus in a department of wise men is usually more valuable than a consensus on a street corner. The Iraq war refutation is non-germane because those behind the war were political appointees.
The wise men decide the greater good. Those 13 days ended in peace, not nuclear annihilation, because Kennedy compromised on the Turkish issues. Lowering the blockade otherwise would’ve been equivalent to surrendering to the Russians. Your point that other factors could’ve come into play is valid.
But even if you accept that the lie was "necessary" (which has not been proved), that does not make it noble. It is still an immoral act, a defeat for principle, and if Salinger or his bosses self-congratulated themselves on those grounds it would only lead them to be more likely to cross other moral boundaries in the future-- as decided by them of course.
Without the lie, the agreement was null and void and the rest is unknowable. Could we have been plunged into a nuclear showdown with the Soviets? Quite possibly. Arguing that lying on this issue would lead to other lies is a slippery slope fallacy. It’s impossible to prove that that one lie was the linchpin to further lies.
Finally, I submit to you the example of this man.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/japanese-schindler-who-saved-lithuanian-jews-is-honoured-450970.htmlHe lied to his Japanese bosses to save the lives of thousands of Jews. If he had accepted that no lies are morally acceptable, his heroic deeds would not have happened.
