Lying to Enemies

1. Giving Enemies Their Due:
1. Purposes of lies to enemies

i. To “divert their maneuvers” – to avert war

ii. To defeat an enemy

Consider here Plato’s Republic – that “justice is giving everyone his due.”

2. Closely related to lying in a crisis and lies for survival, but are not identical
1. Lies to enemies and their “self-evident” justification:

i. Fairness – retribution – enemies deserve to be lied to

1. Does it matter here that retribution is, by definition, backward-looking?

ii. Self-defense/avoidance of harm

1. Are there cases in which avoiding harm takes precedence over creating conditions that are good? Are they at least sometimes identical cases?

2. Analysis of these two justifications of lies to enemies

i. Fairness – because enemies have forfeited their right to be treated fairly due to their aggressive actions or intentions, lying to them is justified.

a. What is “fairness”?

2. That enemies are “bad”

i. What constitutes the accusation that one’s enemies are “bad”?

b. That people are likely to act badly – related to the past actions of enemies, their class, racial, religious affiliations.

c. Since such people can’t be trusted, treating them dishonestly is justified.

d. The adversary is outside the “social contract.”

i. What is the meaning of the phrase “social contract”?

3. Bok’s critique of the justification of lies to enemies

i. “All the dangers from indiscriminate lying and corruption of power are increased when one’s low opinion of the dupes seems to justify one’s lies.”

ii. The effects of lies on the agent, on others, on general trust.

iii. Harm from lies to enemies is likely to spread

1. From the paranoia surrounding enemy-hood. Bok quotes Machiavelli: “Because men ‘would not observe their faith with you,’ you in turn are not bound to ‘keep faith with them.’”

2. The more convinced people are of the rightness of their cause, of the conspiracy against them by their enemies, the “more self-righteously will they see their lies as merited by the iniquity of their enemies.”

a. Is this fanaticism?

iv. Therefore, most claims that lies to enemies are justified do not “stand up in the face of reasonable scrutiny.”

3. How are lies to an enemy and lies in a crisis related? “Does the fact that a crisis is imposed by an enemy add to the justification for lying in response?”
1. Sieges, invasions, torture – this is the condition Bok already described in the previous chapter in which the social bonds or rules are already severely broken. For Bok, these are justified lies – “It is unlikely that the practice of lying will spread because of the victim’s lie under duress. And the victim, finally, is in no position to take into account harm to self or to trust.”

i. In a condition of crisis (like a state of war in the Hobbesian sense), does the fact that lies are justified lead to the impossibility of cooperative activity in the future? Consider again the Hobbesian account of the move from the state of war to civil society.

2. What of lies to keep conditions in 3.a from occurring? These clearly are cases of self-defense, and since lies in self-defense are justified, these lies (to prevent siege, invasion, torture) are justified.

4. Problems with lying to enemies.
1. Likelihood of error in identifying an enemy. See also Plato’s Republic and Socrates’ discussion of Thrasymachus’ claim that “justice is benefiting your friends and harming your enemies.” What if the enemy is correctly identified?
2. Danger of lies backfiring. Lies to enemies may also have to be told to friends. Example of the U-2 spy plane and loss of public confidence. This backfiring of lies also may lead to an inability of the public and government jointly to solve problems (due to public lack of confidence in the veracity of government claims and the cynicism resulting from that).

5. Are there conditions under which lying to enemies becomes more excusable? (“Rules of the Game”)
1. Dealing with others honestly is always preferable to deceit.
2. “Whenever it is right to resist an assault or a threat by force, it must then be allowable to do so by guile. But the criteria for who is to count as presenting such a threat must be publicly justifiable.”

i. What constitutes public justifiability?

3. “…[A] special case might be made for deception in lawful, declared hostilities … Such open declarations lessen the probability of error and of purely personal spite, so long as they are open to questioning and requests for accountability. They do not, however, lessen the possibility of joint discrimination by members of a group or society, and ought therefore to function only in combination with a strong protection of civil rights.”
4. Cases of war are cases in which deception is expected, and even though no one may actually consent to it, it is known and acquiesced in.l “But the more secret the choice and pursuit of foes, the more corruptible the entire process, as all the secret police systems of the world testify.”

6. Bok’s conclusion: Deception and violence find narrow justification with respect to enemies. The escalation of lies leads to increased danger rather than safety. To give excuses for lying, the excuses should persuade all reasonable persons. (It seems questionable whether combatants are fully reasonable in this sense.)