Lying again?

As a result of the latest political sex scandal, we have a raft of people out saying that everyone lies, especially about sex, so let's just get over this.

I am on record as believing it is no sin to tell a lie (also here and here and here) so can I possibly object?

Just watch me!

First, I should say that this move is a classic when you cross bad morality with politics. I grew up in a family where everyone was a card-carrying member of a particular political party. Whenever the other party was in power, the dinner-table conversation would resound with moral condemnations of the elected representatives of the government. When the party my family supported was elected and the elected representatives of our part did exactly the same things we had condemned in others, the answer was always "Everybody does it, so move along".

But it isn't just the politics it is the deontology. Deontology is the approach to morals that defines morality as the duty to follow moral rules. And you can see how this is inevitably going to produce problems because deontology will necessarily require rules against what are universal human traits such as lying or hypocrisy. So when these rules inevitably fail to be very useful in moral argument, a fairly natural move is to go the opposite end and declare that lying or being a hypocrite is just fine.

For example:

Before you reach for your rosary, there's more: “Lying isn't a perversion of our nature,” writes Mr. Leslie, “it's central to it.” Early humans learned to lie as a way of surviving in groups (winning food and mates, and avoiding a club to the head, through deceit). Later humans built relationships that rested on tissues of lies: “What an extraordinarily pretty hat. Now will you sleep with me?” 

That is Elizabeth Renzetti writing in the Globe and Mail. Having established something we already knew, she goes on to say the following:

In the rush to judge Rep. Anthony Weiner, maybe we should look at our own balance sheets ...

That is horse-crap of course.  The problems with it are so obvious that any high school debater could rattle off devastating arguments against it. But what makes it horse-crap?

Largely the fact that it is still deontology. In order to get where she gets, Renzetti has to pretend that the only thing that matters is a moral rule. Context vanishes. What the politician lied about, who he lied to and how he lied are left aside. And all three matter a whole lot in this case, particularly the last.

To get away from politics, consider two examples.

1. I meet a fellow writer at a party and compliment her on a recent piece of hers I saw in print. In fact, I think her piece was beyond lame but I want to have a friendly conversation and see no reason to offend her.
2. Exactly the same scenario with an additional factor: I also hope to convince her to have sex with me.
3. Exactly the same scenario as 2 only with an additional factor: I want to convince her to have sex with me because I hate her husband.
4. Exactly the same scenario as 3 only with an additional factor: I plan to videotape our sex and then publish the video in the hopes of destroying his marriage.

It's the same lie in all four cases.

Here is why I think (and I know I'm not alone) the Congressman's lie was particularly blameworthy. Because sex is not a purely private matter. Our sexual conduct affects others and not just the person we interact with for sexual thrills. Our ability or lack of ability to keep promises and commitments we make around sex, and particularly around married sex, are an important measure of our moral worth.

The congressman himself acknowledged this by lying.