In Sissela Boks Lying: Moral Choice in Public and Private Life, the philosopher examines the behaviour of lying and deception in public and private life. The results of such lies are then investigated through many real-life situations in which people are involved, either as liars or as the victims of deceit. The main focus of this paper will show that Bok did not adequately address an objection to the position that she discusses. Sissela Bok believes in ethics, morality, and individual rights. She sheds light on how it has been a deep-rooted tradition that political philosophy endorses some lies for the sake of the public (67). Many generations of rulers and religious figures have created and preserved myths played on the gullibility of the ignorant, and sought stability in shared beliefs. (67). These people in power see themselves as superior to those they have fooled, believing that they have a better understanding of what is at stake. They do not believe that the public will be able to bear the burden of the truth. Bok believes lying is not acceptable, she directs her core argument mainly around prioritizing being truthful over avoiding harm to the deceived. The limitation to her premise is that it is only justifiable if deceptive practices can be openly debated and consented to in advance in a democracy. Similar to a debate between ones legal duties versus ones moral duties. Bok argues that politi
cal fabrication is usually consequential, especially lies told by those occupying positions of power and authority in American society. The first application of her premise is the case of American involvement in the Vietnam war as an example of political deception. Where President Johnson made himself look like the candidate of peace during the election, but shortly after winning the United States launched massive bombing raids (7) in North Vietnam. Bok examines the lies by political figures that are rationalized as producing more public good, and questions whether it is justifiable if the purposes are so altruistic. She believes that that political leaders get used to deceiving that they become apathetic to truthfulness and equality, which are the foundations of democracy. Bok also examines deception and consent in public life. She understands that white lies are as common in political affairs as they are in private lives. However, Bok advocates that white lies should be kept to the absolute minimum to limit widespread deceitful practices (76). For Bok, it is normally inexcusable for public officials to deceive the public for their own good, yet she argues that in situations where the public receives a chance to publicly discuss a certain type of deceit, then that deceit can be justified if consent is given in advance. Bok is essentially claiming that it is rare in cases where lying can be justified.