Introduction
In the election of public officials, such as the presidential candidacy, people sometimes twist the facts in an attempt to mislead the public. Information can be distorted, manipulated, and/or omitted. This display of moral character can be related to the virtue ethical theory. The actions of the candidate(s) in these situations are unethical based on the fact that they are lying. Possibly even more importantly, these situations are unethical based on the fiduciary responsibility of these public officials.
Virtue Ethical Theory
The virtue ethical theory judges someone by his character instead of by an act which might stray from his typical conduct. “It takes the person’s morals, reputation, and motivation” into consideration when reflecting on an odd and irregular behavior that is deemed unethical (Rainbow, 2002). For instance, if a candidate told a small lie during a speech that was later spotted by a friend of his, the friend who knows the candidate considerably will realize the candidate’s character and will be able to form an opinion about the friend. If the candidate usually follows the rules, is honest, and has a good standing among his peers, the friend who discovers the lie may be able to form an opinion about the candidate more mercifully. Maybe the candidate was tired or simply forgot what the true statement might have been. On the other hand, a candidate who has a reputation for lying and dishonesty is more likely to be judged severely for lying because of his unswerving past of unethical behavior (Rainbow, 2002).
One flaw of the virtue ethical theory is that it does not take into account a candidate’s possible change in moral character. As an example, let us assume we have two candidates who tell the same lie. One candidate has a history of being honest while the other does not. The candidate with the unethical history will be judged harshly almost immediately. The candidate with the ethical history, however, may be judged more leniently. However, let us also assume that the candidate who has performed ethically has decided to commence performing unethically. This change in character might go unseen until a considerable quantity of evidence piles up against him or her (Rainbow, 2002).
Lying
Lying has been part of politics as far back as many of us can remember. Prior to taking office, Bill Clinton promised that if he was elected, he would eliminate anti-gay policies in the military by executive order. Do to the amount of controversy from the Joint Chiefs of Staff, President Clinton settled on the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy, which basically calls for gay service members to pretend to be straight (Pegueros, 2004). Other presidents have been accused of telling lies to get into office and then tossing their promises to the wayside once they have become elected.
Lies do not just have to come in the form of blatant statements. For example, lies do not always have to be so clear as to say, “That dog over there is white,” when in fact the dog is black. There are also white lies and half truths. White lies are little lies people tell in order to save a relationship, ease a frantic situation, or buy time. Most people figure that they are better to tell than just telling the truth. For example, your wife asks you how she looks in her new dress and you say, “You look fabulous!” This is much better than telling her that it makes her hips look fat and getting slapped, right? Half truths are lying by omission. For example, when a girl “accidentally” leaves out the part where two guys are going with her and her friend to Las Vegas for the weekend, when she is seeking her parents’ permission. She figures it would just go over much more smoothly without including that “small” tidbit of information. It does not matter how you twist it or turn it, a lie is a lie, is a lie, is a lie. The truth is white like snow and lies are freshly produced oil, which is jet black in color. It does not matter if it is a big whopper of a lie, a white lie, or a half truth, when that oil hits the snow, the beautiful whiteness of the snow is tarnished just as the truth is tarnished with any type of lie.
Fiduciary Responsibility
Publicly elected officials have a fiduciary responsibility to the people whom they represent. This is the same fiduciary responsibility that lawyers and financial advisors have, where they are to look out for the best interest of their clients rather than look out for their own best interest. Politicians must reflect on decisions prior to making them and ask if their decision is for the good of the people. If the decision will only help the politician and his or her small group of peers, then the decision is unethical. George W. Bush may have made some unethical decisions in his term by telling lies in order to take control of the oil in Iraq.
President Bush stated over and over again that there was evidence that weapons of mass destruction were present in Iraq and it was imperative that we storm into and take over the country for our own well being. President Bush has always had deep ties to the oil industry, with his own Vice President formerly serving as the CEO of Halliburton, an oil-services company. Our military was sent over; we took over the country along with the oil assets. American companies were sent in to rebuild the country, including assisting the Iraqis in producing their oil fields. No weapons of mass destruction were ever found. It has been concluded by many that there was never any evidence that they ever existed. Halliburton and KBR, a subsidiary company of Halliburton, were awarded multi-billion dollar contracts for work to be performed in Iraq. Along with these contracts has come much criticism (Hefling, 2008). President Bush was looking out for the best interest of himself and his peers rather than the American people, which has cost thousands of lives and billions of dollars.
Conclusion
The distortion, manipulation, and omission of facts by candidates who hope to be public officials and by public officials themselves is unethical and unacceptable. A lie told by a politician who otherwise has a solid track record of acting ethically may be taken with a grain of salt, depending on the lie, although he or she should still get some criticism for it to keep them on their toes. On the contrary, a lie told by a politician who has a history of acting unethically should be acted upon immediately since this elected official has a fiduciary responsibility to the people whom he or she represents. A lie is a lie, regardless of how big or small it is, and a lie is unethical and has no place our political realm.
References
Hefling, K. (2008, August 12). Iraq contracts have cost taxpayers at least $85 billion since invasion. The Huffington Post: Chicago. Retrieved July 24, 2009, from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/08/12/iraq-contracts-have-cost_n_118527.html
Pegueros, R. M. (2004, March 1). Lies, damn lies, and politicians. CommonDreams.org: Portland, ME. Retrieved July 24, 2009, from http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0301-02.htm
Rainbow, C. (2002). Descriptions of ethical theories and principles. Davidson College: Davidson, NC. Retrieved July 24, 2009, from http://www.bio.davidson.edu/people/kabernd/Indep/carainbow/Theories.htm
