Lies and evasive truth

“I want to say one thing to the American people. I want you to listen to me. I’m going to say this again. I did not have sexual relations with that woman. Ms. Lewinsky. I never told anybody to lie, not a single time. Never. These allegations are false.” — Bill Clinton, 1998

The carefully worded denials of Bill Clinton during the Lewinsky Scandal in 1998 pose an interesting moral dilemma in the realm of justice. These denials came under scrutiny during the impeachment trial of President Clinton as Representative Bob Inglis (R- South Carolina) accused President Clinton of lying to the American people. White House Special Counsel cited the fact that President Clinton did not actually lie when he said the statement above. At the trial, the President’s testimony that he did not have “sexual relations” with Monica Lewinsky was honest. The defense claimed that Clinton construed the meaning of “sexual relations” to mean vaginal intercourse thus indicating that his statement was not a lie since his interactions with Ms. Lewinsky were limited to oral sex. Though the argument was “hairsplitting” and “evasive” in the words of Gregory Craig, a White House Special Counsel Representative responsible for defending President Clinton, it was understood by the prosecution that the words of President Clinton were not in fact a lie but rather a misleading version of the truth. This was a consistently strong rebuttal to the accusations against the President’s statements since President Clinton, though attempting to intentionally mislead the American people, did not in fact lie. The question to explore here is whether or not there is a moral distinction to be made between a lie and a deliberate evasion of the truth.

When considering the purpose of each action, one could argue that the motivation and intention for both lying and deliberately evading the truth is by and large the same. By extension, it could then be concluded that the actions themselves are essentially the same. Because the goal of lying and providing a misleading version of the truth are to obscure reality from others, there is little difference between the two actions given that the means by which this goal is achieved are almost the same. A carefully crafted version of the truth that is intended to mislead cannot be any better than a lie because both are fashioned with the same purpose in mind—deception.

On the other hand, an argument against equating lying with intentionally evading the truth is that, while the consequences of those actions might be the same, the actions themselves are completely different. To break this argument down further, the actions of lying and evading the truth are only the same from a consequentialist perspective. When you lie, you know that you do not believe what you are saying. On the other hand, when you provide a misleading truth, you believe what you are saying and you intend for others to believe what you are saying because it is true, even if it isn’t telling of the truth. Thus, even though the ultimate consequence is deception, the modes of achieving the deception matter with regard to how information is relayed. This would suggest that the two actions are categorically different and are therefore not morally the same.

When one considers this question, it might be useful to first consider that lying is not categorically wrong from a moral standpoint. One might also find some use in attempting to understand President Clinton’s approach to the situation. Clinton, in an effort to protect himself, might have lied as a circumstantial measure until more convincing evidence (i.e. the Starr Report) was brought forth. Torn between the realms of liberty and necessity, would the rest of us not have done the same? A lie seemingly without consequence… perhaps a moral hiccup but otherwise an opportunity too good to pass up. While it would be wrong to say that President Clinton should have been acquitted on the grounds of being subject to the frailties of human beings, he at least chose not to lie outright. Though he did violate some sort of moral dogma, he paid homage to duty and said a truthful statement that settled the concerns of the American people without incriminating himself. Somewhere internally, his course of action was influenced by the notion that lying is wrong and, President Clinton, by choosing to carefully evade the truth as well as a lie, showed a degree of respect for the moral dignity of the law.

What do you think? Was Bill Clinton’s statement just as morally improper as a lie? Were his impeachment charges of obstruction of justice and perjury worthy of acquittal in light of his false testimony? Is an intentionally deceiving truthful statement as bad as an outright lie in our daily lives? Is either action bad at all, or should necessity occasionally warrant lying? I will likely explore the ethical foundation of lying through the works of Immanuel Kant in a later column. Stay tuned...

Ajay Desai is a Trinity freshman. His column runs on alternate Tuesdays.