The article examines the intriguing question of why individuals lie when the truth is sufficient. Using Trump's response to the Democrats' Green New Deal as a case study, it questions the necessity of lies in political discourse. The author argues that if factual criticisms of a proposal are valid, there should be no need for falsehoods. The exploration of this phenomenon points to psychological motivations and reflects on the broader implications of dishonesty in political arguments, urging readers to consider their own examples of similar instances.
If one must lie to attack it, this suggests a lack of arguments against it. To use an analogy, if a prosecutor lies to convict a person, this suggests they have no case-otherwise they would rely on evidence.
The question of why Trump (or anyone else) lies when the truth would suffice is a matter for psychology, not philosophy.
Collection
[
|
...
]