Lying in Public Service

Lying In Public Service
Name
Institution
Lying in Public Service
The concept of lying is an act of betrayal, primarily if it emanated from politicians and directed to the general public. It defines their (i.e., politicians, military and government leaders, business leaders) lack of respect and unfairness towards the people they represent thereby, destroying their nature and debasing their character. Deception by political officials results from their desire to “cover-up” a fact or event, for concealment of the truth, or to gain a political purpose through influencing the opinion of the public. Nonetheless, politicians believe that it is worth the risk to lie rather than reveal the truth; people are more obliged to hear what they want politicians to “feed” them (Carl, 2007). In times of political jeopardy or war, deception might not be the ideal option however it is assumed to carry fewer consequences than telling the truth.
Lying to the public can be considered as an evil act, especially towards a population that elevated the respective politician to power. In some cases, it can be argued that lies are for the common good of the general public, but politicians fail to realize that at some point in time the truth shall be revealed. The phrase “the truth shall set you free” seems to be insignificant when life-threatening scenarios impact a society. The politicians are torn between showing the magnitude of the situation and risking their political position by lying to the public.

However, it is democratic, to tell the truth; lying impedes it (Fenwick, 2006). The sense of trust a society had on their leader substantially declines since most people view deceit as a lack of respect and a form of misdemeanor against their rights.
The public generally perceives politicians as physical representations of the public’s interests thereby feel that they are entitled to legit information no matter the consequences. On the other hand, people fail to understand that these lies are what defines a politician. Fenwick, (2006), has described Niccolo Machiavelli, as an advocate for “political deceit”. From the book, The Prince, by Niccolo Machiavelli he clearly reveals how politicians involve lies in order to attain or retain seats of power.
In some instances, lies might be permissible, for example, lying to save a life is acceptable. It might also be acceptable when a politician lies to encourage people. However, the fact remains that a lie cannot replace the ideal truth but can be considered as permitted exceptions. Lying to achieve something you desire is wrong or using deceit to avoid something, example, being a witness to a crime but giving a clear a misdirection (one that the jury will fail to determine as a form of deception) to free a friend. Also, lies distort the desire for truth and justice.
From a personal perspective, lies are morally depriving, despite some having positive impacts on people’s lives. Once a person lies, they have to formulate another lie to cover up the previous one. Carl, (2007), states that if people are willing to accept the assumption that politicians deceive the general public paternalistically, then democracy (i.e. a government of the people, by the people and for the people) has been ruled out. Lying can seem delusional, but it has dire consequences and poses a calamitous danger, specifically to the public, when these lies are exposed.

References
Cody Fenwick (2006). Lying Politicians: Why They Do It, And Why We Let Them. Politics & Government. https://patch.com/us/across-america/lying-politicians-why-they-do-it-why-we-let-them-0Cannon M. Carl (2007). Untruth and Consequences. The Atlantic. https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2007/01/untruth-and-consequences/305561/