Intellectual Dishonesty

March 6, 2003 7:49 AM

Intellectual Dishonesty
Intellectual dishonesty is pure poison to the enterprise of the law. Yet countless examples show intellectual dishonesty has now become a routine, expected part of American discourse. The most obvious half-truths and hypocrisies are greeted with shrugged shoulders and a grunt of "what did you expect?"
Is the ultimate goal more important than truth, honesty, integrity and "playing by the rules?" Or, put another way, does the end satisfy the means? "Restoring honor and integrity" would indicate not.
posted by nofundy (12 comments total)

The most obvious half-truths and hypocrisies are trotted out by practitioners of the law. hoo haw. remove the beam from thine own eye...
posted by quonsar at 8:32 AM on March 6, 2003

Tonight's special report: George Will has a political bias which clouds his objectivity.

And tomorrow, see the first installment in a three-part series that will shock you with its findings: Is the Pope Catholic?
posted by DevilsAdvocate at 8:44 AM on March 6, 2003

This is an interesting topic. Very thought provoking. But the author doesn't really do it any justice in this piece. I think he fell off the clue train somewhere.

"The flip-flop is an embarrassment to Will and his reputation."

Huh? How so? I thought Will was an opinionated, right oriented, spin savvy columnist. I think this meshes with his reputation rather solidly.

On preview, what the Devil guy said.
posted by y6y6y6 at 9:05 AM on March 6, 2003

The most obvious half-truths and hypocrisies are greeted with shrugged shoulders and a grunt of "what did you expect?"
posted by nofundy at 9:09 AM on March 6, 2003

Lazarus might try writing a letter to the editor of the Washington Post and calling Will on his flip-flop - and see if he responds. I'd love to hear what Will's response might be.

I mean, besides "What do you expect?"
posted by kgasmart at 9:46 AM on March 6, 2003

On the other hand, the most banal of observations are treated by some as shocking revelations and major societal paradigm shifts.

Not that that ever happens on Metafilter.
posted by dhartung at 9:49 AM on March 6, 2003

Now what makes you say that, Dhartung? :)
posted by Karl at 10:24 AM on March 6, 2003

nofundy: I don't mean to suggest that we shouldn't call Will on contradictions like this. It's just that a contradiction like this from one commentator, known to harbor a political bias, does not equate to the collapse of American civilization, as Lazarus would have us believe.

From the article: "In the culture wars, Will and others like him have been the army defending such concepts as objective truth and personal responsibility." What others like him? There may well be others like Will, but I wouldn't know it from reading Lazarus' article. If I had written something like this for a high school assignment, giving one example to support my thesis, I would not have gotten higher than a C.
posted by DevilsAdvocate at 11:02 AM on March 6, 2003

Lawyers have to argue for interpretations of the law that they personally disagree with as a matter of principle all the time, no matter how public-interest minded they are. It just goes with the job of representing clients. Even public-interest minded lawyers do this. The same legal principles that protect the poor from draconian welfare policies are used by corporations to shirk environmental regulations. I don't really have a problem with the same lawyer taking different positions on the legal principles as long as it is in the context of the actual cases they are litigating. Of course, just because lawyers have to do it as part of their job doesn't mean that columnists, judges and other thinkers should be allowed to get away with it.

Also, the argument that cloture votes are unconstitutional strikes me as bizarre. If the cloture system is unconstitutional, than so is the committee system, the House Ways and Means committee and every other Congressional procedure that stands in the way of an up-and-down vote on every bill that is proposed.
posted by boltman at 11:59 AM on March 6, 2003

First, and slightly o/t but something that's really bugging me: By thus nullifying the president's power to shape the judiciary, the Democratic Party will wield a presidential power without having won a presidential election.

Can any of you with greater law background than mine explain this “presidential power” to me? I thought both the executive and the legislature were to have input in shaping the judiciary. Why do people seem to be saying now that Senate advice and consent should be a merely formal recognition of Presidential will? (This is also a larger question about how much recognition should be given to the minority in the legislature—none??)
posted by win_k at 8:36 AM on March 7, 2003

First, and slightly o/t but something that's really bugging me: By thus nullifying the president's power to shape the judiciary, the Democratic Party will wield a presidential power without having won a presidential election.

Can any of you with greater law background than mine explain this “presidential power” to me? I thought both the executive and the legislature were to have input in shaping the judiciary. Why do people seem to be saying now that Senate advice and consent should be a merely formal recognition of Presidential will? Wouldn't that delete one of our checks and balances? (This is also a larger question about how much recognition should be given to the minority in the legislature—none??)
posted by win_k at 8:40 AM on March 7, 2003

Sorry for the double post--my computer ineptitude.

Second, while I agree with many of the above points criticizing Lazarus’s particular arguments about Will and cloture, I still think Lazarus has identified a real problem beyond those specifics. Maybe he’s mischaracterizing a problem that has always existed as something new:

Now, however, it seems integrity is being radically redefined, as pure loyalty - fealty to the party, the political beliefs, the results that one prefers. … Ellsberg contended that our society had become so divided, with each side so bent on perpetuating itself in power, that government and the world around it imposed a sustained and terrible pressure on good people to make a choice. They could either leave that world or, far worse, give up the search for truth, in exchange for the search for victory.

I think Lazarus is pointing out that when you’ve got people who believe in one truth, and who accept any means to ensure their one truth dominates, our systems start to malfunction. The true/false, victory/annihilation perspective creates division and conflict that’s counterproductive (to say the least). Reason and moderation are the casualties of this polarization. The great scientist Niehls Bohr said, “A great truth is a statement whose opposite is also a great truth.” Where is the place for his view now? We should be seeking the balance between truths that leads to consensus rather than victory of one side.
posted by win_k at 9:05 AM on March 7, 2003