Politicians often lied and so misled when it was necessary or advantageous. A false claim or representation made with knowledge of the truth or intent to deceive lies. The idea that politicians intentionally mislead the public for their gain predates today’s claims of fake news. From Plato to Machiavelli, renowned political theorists saw politics as a sphere where lies and deception naturally flourish, such as the objectives justify the means approach, which allows leaders to lie within limits. However, motivations and lies have long been used in political talks. Their critics are either naive fools or clever scam artists, likely to be even bigger spreaders of lies and deceit than themselves. As we shall see, claims of lying and deception and the desire to deceive and mislead seem to be linked to incorrect expectations, false beliefs, and self-delusion on both sides of the political and public spectrum. In this regard, lying has proved to be critical and hence should not be considered a problem. Therefore, it should be celebrated.
By character, Machiavelli paints an image of a leader who is nobler but resorts to deception to acquire prowess and control. In addition, he details no evidence that the legislator is impacted by his repeated lies, which Plato would find objectionable. For example, Plato would consider such deeds harmful to one’s spirit and internal liberty. He would further question whether the ruler will be seen as truthful once the deception is detected, which is usually the case with political leaders. Although Machiavelli is not overly concerned with the damages incurred by lies and deceit, he set some boundaries on untruthful procedures. Precisely when he emphasizes that a prince should practice deception only when it is necessary to achieve his objectives or when he says a prince should at least appear to be somehow telling the truth. Machiavelli also lists particular occasions in which breaking trust is allowed, for instance, when the pledge becomes a burden, which seems to indicate that these are outliers rather than the rule being followed. Despite the fact that he is not always clear on the topic, he claims that the prince is acting in the country’s best interests.
Based on Machiavelli, there are some circumstances in which it is appropriate to lie. For example, when the commitment or promise turns against rulers, the reasons that motivated him to take the pledge are no longer valid. The leaders, according to Machiavelli, must violate trust in this manner for the sake of their state, irrespective that it is wrong to do so. Further, Princes must also conceal their false goals by seeming friendly and genuine to everyone. However, bearing the falsehood factor, the prince must manifest specific characteristics: faith, compassion, honesty, humanity, and religious belief. The ruler will have to go against these characteristics in practice, but he will be protected since the general public perceives he is competent at his job. These characteristics will assist a prince in avoiding hostility and contempt from other rulers and citizens. Thus, he will maintain his people’s faith and respect while pursuing political benefit via deception and brutality.
In regards to Machiavelli, violence solely does not secure power for a ruler. Thence, deceit is essential for the effective execution of power within the jurisdiction. In this way, a successful prince will exploit lying to attain his purposes but create the idea that he is genuine to the population. Typically, a prince is well-educated and is generally a kind guy, but he learns how to be terrible and understands when he must deploy lies. He would speak the truth when feasible or reasonable, resorting to lying when required to retain or increase his influence. Basically, Machiavelli wants rulers to fulfill modest pledges that will not limit their authority but employ cunning to funnel more power toward themselves. If one participates in such dishonesty, he will be considerably more powerful and effective than someone who constantly preserves trust.
In Plato’s work, he demonstrates that the idea of lying in personal or public life, which is a crucial part of knowing the truth, has been eradicated from human consciousness. The situation, therefore, is one in which reality is rendered meaningless by a rhetorician seeking to be successful in his dictatorship. The upshot is that we are getting closer to an aftermath-of-truth condition that takes into consideration aspects other than whether a citizen or leader is intentionally propagating a specific deception. Overall, falsehood is a critical topic in man’s everyday life; it would be reasonable to define rationally to include persons who would use prejudices and feelings to achieve political advantage.
Moreover, both Plato and Aristotle agree that the purpose of lying is conviction rather than an understanding of the subject matter. But he pushes for viewpoints opposed to the majority of the population. Gorgias argues that this is an admirable objective; however, Plato believes that the concept of placing persuasion above the facts in this dispute is unjustified and unworthy of consideration. Regarding Plato, the rhetorician is not concerned with educating people about what is good and evil, false and true; instead, he is concerned with convincing them regarding one or more issues. Persuading people via emotions rather than facts is a popular persuasive approach, and it is also a crucial part of the act of deception.
Plato’s assertion for a need of falsehood in social and political life is expressed in his account of the education and upbringing of children, as well as in his discussion of the ways in which sociocultural expertise is transferred an early age through teaching and learning, as well as through myths, fictional character, and stories. In Plato’s view, the most crucial reason for his preoccupation with rearing and education. He exacerbates that it is most easily shaped and takes on the design that is desired to be stamped onto it. Hence, mothers and nurses should mold the spirits of children by telling those tales from a distance rather than molding their bodies with their hands. Furthermore, the fictive stories presented to children are deemed by Plato to be a kind of ‘lies in speech. To be specific, he believes that families begin by telling children stories, and the fairy tale is incorrect when viewed as a whole, but there is truth in it as well. The consequences of being exposed to cultural material at a young age conveyed by a story’s fictitious and sometimes inaccurate narrative are long-lasting and difficult to modify.
According to the Republic, the idea of genuine or fundamental falsity is associated with poetry and the false beliefs that it legitimizes and propagates. Platonic’s work on true lies is based on his ethical principles, which highlight how one should live and what one should seek as a goal in life. More than that, he compares the poets’ distorted ethical teachings to the biggest falsehood about the things of the most significant consequence, a description that embraces their epic tales of gods and heroes. These tales include Uranus and Cronos, gods at war and fighting, God producing evil or misleading humanity, and heroic narratives that encourage uncourageous or incorrect action in the event that deception is allowed to run rampant. Plato argues that poetry is often false because it is made by those who are uninformed of the most fundamental things, which causes deception among its audience.
Ultimately, lying is desirable in situations when politicians are attempting to exercise authority or safeguard the interests of people. However, lying has its drawbacks and should be avoided at all costs in order to avoid serious repercussions in the future. According to this viewpoint, prominent philosophers such as Machiavelli and Plato employed deception in their regimes, and their theories are still in use today by many people.