Can there be such a thing as a "Noble" Lie?

[Beet]

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.

Going along with the lies the Soviets told us concerning the amount of nukes they had so as we could build up an even larger "deterrent" to them, is that a Noble Lie?  Our "wise men" thought it was best.  Is it only a Noble Lie when we agree with the conclusions?

Did our policymakers realize that they we're being lied to by the Soviets? If they did, and proceeded to use this convenient lie to warrant their decision to expand our nuclear arsenal, they did not act with noble intentions.

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.

[Beet]

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.

Hmm, interesting scenarios. Here is what I would say, personally:

If a lie is told under the duress of torture, then it is neither noble nor ignoble. It is acceptable to do things that would ordinarily be considered immoral in order to directly counter something immoral being done to you. For example, it is acceptable to hurt in self-defense.

<digression>

Under similar reasoning, under circumstances of war, a lie may be neither noble or ignoble, but justified. However, this is tricky because IMO it depends on whether the war is justified. A military lie under conditions of war is merely an extension of that war; just as a military killing under conditions of war is not a murder, merely an extension of that war.

Thus if the enemy is about to act against a nation's security and telling a lie is necessary to protect that security, the telling of the lie is inseparable from the cause of the war. For example, from a third party's perspective, was it immoral for a Nazi soldier to kill a Pole? Yes. Was it immoral for a Polish soldier to kill a Nazi? No. But even then, not really actively moral or "noble". Just justifiable, because in this case the Nazis were the unprovoked aggressor.

But from the Nazi standpoint, things are reversed. As a Nazi soldier, is it immoral to do your duty to your country? No.

In times of war, the standards of right and wrong are turned on their head because in most societies, the standards of right and wrong are defined within the larger standards of the nation. That is why, genocides come so easily during wars, and why conscientious objection is such a rare and difficult phenomenon. To be a conscientious objector, one must put oneself outside the boundaries of one's whole society in which you have been raised (including in most cases your parents, siblings, children, possibly spouse, children etc.) and derive a source of morality completely independent of it. Religion sometimes can create a safe space to do this, but you can see why it is so rare.

Thirdly, if the person is not under duress of torture, and enemy action is dependent on the person talking, they can simply refuse to provide information.

</digression>

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Hmm, one of the problems with the argument about the Cuban missile crisis I think is that you're reasoning from consequences-- those 13 days ended in peace, QED the lie was moral or noble. My neighbor could come to my house and murder me, and steal my things. Little known to my neighbor, tomorrow I would have caused a car accident that will kill a family of 4 as well as myself. The consequences of my neighbor's action was good in a utilitarian sense, but that does not make her action moral.

Or if you think that example too extreme, an angel could appear at my neighbor's window and say "Tommorrow, Beet has a 50% chance of causing an accident that will kill himself and 4 others. You can kill him tonight and prevent it." If she came to my house and killed me, her action would still not be moral.

Now if the chances were upped to 100%, then you would have a whole different debate. But that is not what we are talking about.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This is assuming that (1) the wise men are always smarter (see Hayek), and (2) the wise men always have the street corner's interests in mind (see the fact that not even parents sometimes have their own childrens' interests in mind, sadly). If these two assumptions were reliably true, then you may have a point. It may be better to run everything by a set of wise men who are able to tell lies. However, I don't see how these assumptions are proven. Further, I don't see how they could be policed. Even if it were proved today that you had X set of wise men who were smarter than everyone else, and they had the masses' interests completely at heart, how do we know that in 5 years or 50 years such would still be the case?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Once the justification for a lie is broadened intellectually, the conscience (which is generally the first and last line of defense before the moral abyss) inherently constricts its range of activity. That ought to be enough to believe that more lies would be told, unless one believes that conscience has no power at all, in which case the person is hopeless anyway .

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This is a strong example... first of all I do not categorize unnecessary acts of violence against civilians during times of war as "military acts". They are never justified, regardless of whether the war itself is justified. Sugihara committed something that would ordinarily be considered immoral but in this case justified --perhaps noble-- because it was an act in defense of someone else, similar to the principle of self-defense. Still, there are limits to that line of reasoning. Would Sugihara have been justified to kill a Japanese soldier to achieve his works? 100 soldiers? 100 soldiers and the captain's family? What of the terrorist who thinks he is helping his countrymen? This is a matter on which I'd be quite 'conservative'.