Is It Ever Moral to Lie in Political Life?

BY CAROLINA VLACHAKOU

One of the foundational moral teachings,engrainedinusfromchildhood, is that it is morally wrong to lie. But is that still the case when in the pursuit of noble aims? This question lies at the intersection of moral and political philosophy.

Political ethicists study the values that underpin political decision-making, and analyze their moral implications (Thompson, 2013). A central debate in political ethics is whether there is a fundamental difference between the morals that govern politics and those dictating everyday life. Whilst thinkers like Machiavelli and Walzer advocate for a separationofpoliticalandeverydayvalues, others such as Kant argue that the moral principles expected in daily life should equallyapplytothepoliticalsphere.

Machiavelli’s seminal work, The Prince (1532), offered a practical guide for successful leaders. In this work, the term ‘virtú’ transformed, shifting from Aristotle’s notion of ‘moral worth’ to one of effectiveness (O’Rourke, 2019). For Machiavelli, an effective leader must be prepared to commit whatever immoral actionnecessarytomaintainhispower.He writes: “It is necessary for a prince wishing toholdhisown,toknowhowtodowrong, and to make use of it or not according to necessity” (Machiavelli, 2004, XV). For Machiavelli, in conflict, a prince faces a choice:tofollowthelaws,thewayofmen; or to enact force, the way of beasts. Recognizing the impracticality of strictly following the laws, the Machiavellian Prince must learn to fight both as a man andasabeast.

Machiavelli’s philosophy is illuminated in theDiscourses(1531),whichcomplements The Prince as a guide for the successful organization of republics. For Machiavelli, the primary objective of a leader is to secure the glory of his state. This perspective leads him to morally justify actions such as Romulus’ murder of his own brother to secure his kingship, as

Romulus possessed superior qualities for leadingtheRoman republic.

In the realm of leadership, dealing with individuals who may exploit one’s honesty and benevolence is a constant challengeleaders are always surrounded by duplicitous people. Machiavelli employs a striking metaphor, likening an effective prince to both a fox and a lion (Machiavelli,2004, XVIII). This image highlights that a successful leadermust be both cunning and sly as well as strong and courageous. An idealistic politician who solely relies on the attributes of the lion is fated to ruin, and endangers the state, leaving it vulnerable to self-interested leaders. Whilean evilpolitician will lie and attempt to deceive the public in order to obtain likeness and support, the moral politicianmustlieanddeceivethepublicto safeguard the citizens from falling into the evil politician’s trap. The fox-like qualities of cunning and strategic thinking become indispensable for a politician to outmaneuveradversaries,maintainpower and protect the citizens’ interest. Therefore, according to Machiavelli, lying is not only permissible, but necessary, for effectivepoliticians.

American politicaltheorist Michael Walzer further develops Machiavelli’s thought in his work Political Action: The Problem of Dirty Hands (1973), arguing that exceptions to moral principles can be justified in the pursuit of important political goals (Walzer, 1973, 161). Walzer contends that the morality of political actions cannot be based on religious morals or conventional moral standards

(Walzer, 1973, 168). He asserts that the natureofpoliticsitselfexemptsitfromthe moral considerations that guide everyday life. There are three reasons why moral exceptions can be made in political life: moral isolation, compromise and extrication(Coady,2018).

First, politicians surrounded by corruption may at times have to lie to protect the greater good from this corrupt influence. Second,theneedtocompromiseinpolitics sometimes requires politicians to alter their positions, pretending to wholeheartedly support an action they maytrulybeextremelydiscontentwith,to achieveoutcomes.Third,intimesofsevere threat to the wider community, politicians may perform actions that would ordinarily be considered moral wrongdoings. An example of extrication can be seen in Barack Obama’s use of George W. Bush’s covert counterterrorism programs; the tortureofterroristsuspects,andtheuseof drones to kill them outside of traditional battlefields (Zenko, 2016). For Walzer, politicsisauniquely‘dirty’sphere.Aleader whoisunwillingtogethishandsdirty,fails to meet the obligations of his office, and cannotgoverneffectively.

Kant, on the other hand, takes a staunch stance against lying for the greater good. He firmly asserts that lying is inherently immoral and that politicians are bound by the same moral standards as ordinary citizens. In his work The Metaphysics of Morals (1797), Kant posits that lying contradictstheprinciplesofhumandignity which are rooted in inner freedom, and thus is always immoral. Heidentifies lying, avarice, and false humility as vices opposing the human character (Kant, 2017, 187). Kant extends this stance to politicians in Perpetual Peace (1795), distinguishing between a moral politician and a political moralist. A moral politician adheres to ethical principles in statesmanship,whereasapoliticalmoralist forms self-serving moral standards. Kant emphasises that political ethics cannot deviate from universal morality. Consequently, lying lacks justification for anyone, including politicians, as Kant prioritises intent and goodwill over effectiveness. This highlights that Kant's notion of the greater good differs from conventional interpretations, emphasising morality over outcomes, and rendering lyingincompatiblewith virtuousaction.

Whilst recent opinion polls have shown declining voter trust in politicians and political institutions, philosophers have long made moral exceptions for political life. The problem seems to be that voters perceive politicians to be more Machiavellianthan pragmaticincharacter, who they view as “out for themselves”, rather than leaders compelled to make difficult decisions in the interests of the public good (ippr, 2021). Whilst it is clear that political actors must sometimes be cunning,itisthe‘why’,notonlythe‘what’, thatdeterminesthemoralityoflying.

References

Coady, C.A.J. (2018) ‘The Problem of Dirty Hands’, In E.N. Zalta (ed.) The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy 5th edn. Stanford: Metaphysics Research Lab

Crimmins, James E. (2021) ‘Jeremy Bentham’, In E. N. Zalta (ed.) The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. 9th edn. Stanford: Metaphysics Research Lab.

IPPR (2021) Revealed trust in politicians at lowest level on record.

Machiavelli, N. (1983) Discourses on Livy. Translated from Italian by Leslie J. Walker London: Penguin Classics.

Machiavelli, N. (2003) The Prince. Translated from Italian by George Bull. London: Penguin Classics.

O’Rourke, J. (2013) ‘Machiavelli’s The Prince: Still Relevant after All These Years’, BU Today, 6 February.

Pandya, S. (2016) ‘The Greater Good Theory (Utilitarianism)’ , SCMS - Editorial Board, 20 December.

Sagarika, K. (2016) Machiavelli and When, If Ever, Should Evil Be Done for the Sake of Good?

Thompson, D. F. (2013) ‘Political Ethics’, International Encyclopedia of Ethics, 1 February.

Thompson, D. F. (1987) Political Ethics and Public Office. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Zenko, M. (2016) ‘Obama’s embrace of drone strikes will be a lasting legacy’, The New York Times, 12 January.

Weber, M. (2009) ‘Politics as a Vocation’ , From Max Weber. Translated from German by H. Hearth and C. Wright Mills. London: Routledge

Walzer, M. (1973) ‘Political Action: The Problem of Dirty Hands’, Philosophy & Public Affairs, 2(2), pp. 160–180.

Wilkes, J. (2022) ‘Operation Mincemeat: how a corpse duped Hitler’, History Extra, 14 April.