Evil or Ignorant or Santa Claus?

EVIL OR IGNORANT OR SANTA CLAUS?

Over my years on this earth I have had occasion to hear or read statements by people which I knew, or later found out, to be untrue. I have said or written things that were untrue. It is unlikely that any human being is 100% truthful.

When people make statements that are untrue, it is my contention that those statements usually come from evil or ignorance. The exceptions to that will be discussed later. For now, let's confine our discussion to statements of fact. Let's say that someone makes the statement that 2+2 = 5. That is obviously not a true statement. Depending on the situation of the person who made that statement, it could have been done with evil intent or out of ignorance. A small child who is just starting to learn the basic facts may make that statement out of ignorance – we are not born knowing basic mathematical facts. However an older student, perhaps looking to cause trouble for a younger sibling, might have evil intentions in trying to convince the young person of this incorrect fact.

This brings up the interesting point of when a false statement is a lie. It seems to me that it is a lie when the statement comes from evil intent, but not when it comes from ignorance. By evil intent, I mean that the person knows that the statement is not true but for whatever reason they choose to portray it as a true statement. Let's use a very politically charged statement from 2003. “Iraq has weapons of mass destruction.” Almost everyone now agrees that was false. Did the people who made that statement know that it was false but, because they wanted to start a war with Iraq, felt they needed to convince the people of the USA that action had to be taken? That could be seen as evil and the statement would be classified as a lie, making whoever said it a liar.

If, however, the statement was honestly believed to be true by whoever said it, then it was made out of ignorance or from erroneous information and therefore not a lie. If the people who said this had “cherry-picked” the evidence, had ignored the counter evidence or established an atmosphere in which counter evidence would not be sought out or presented, then that becomes evil again.

Where does Santa Claus come into this discussion? During the raising of a child, the story of Santa Claus is usually told by parents to their children. I think it is basically harmless and is a good tradition to maintain. Parents are knowingly telling their children a lie, but it is because the myth is a wonderful tradition and fun for everyone. In other words, parents justify the lie on the basis that much more good than bad will occur and it will not do damage to the child.

So maybe, the people who said in 2003, “Iraq has weapons of mass destruction,” were using Santa Claus reasoning. They knew it was a lie, but they calculated that the war in Iraq would do America and the rest of the world much more good than harm and so it was justified in their mind. It makes the statement a lie, but a “benevolent” lie. One of the problems with benevolent liars is that they can't always calculate the damage of their lies, especially in the long run. Also if they employ that tactic often, they risk not being believed when they do tell the truth. The benevolent liar is tacitly saying that the audience for those lies cannot be persuaded to do the right thing if they are told the truth. That could be evil, or at least disrespectful, to those in the audience to which the lies are directed. (Many people will remember Jack Nicholson in “A Few Good Men” telling Tom Cruise, “You can't handle the truth!”)

Benevolent lies may give birth to other lies that are not so benevolent but are necessary to “cover” the original lie. “Oh what a tangled web we weave, when first we practice to deceive,” has always been true. Thank you Sir Walter Scott.

I also believe that those who regularly use Santa Claus reasoning (except when it is actually about Santa Claus!) may start to believe that what they are saying is actually true. Those people can sometimes be dangerous. I think this is where cult leaders are born. Jim Jones (“Jonestown”, in Guyana, was where his followers drank the Kool-Aid that caused them to die) might have been an example of this, but I don't have all of the facts in that situation to say that is more than just my opinion.

Of course opinions are different from facts. Opinions can be considered true or false only to the extent that the opinion is or is not what the person stating the opinion actually believes. I might say that my favorite professional football team was going to win the next Super Bowl. It could be that I truly believe it or it could be simply wishful thinking and not my true belief.

What does this all mean? If I said I knew for sure that would be evil, ignorant, or Santa Claus type of thinking. I think it's best that you decide for yourself what it all means. Let me know what you (truly) think.