Ethical question du jour. Given that a President.... Edit! Now with poll for the lazy!

[Hayabusa Rider]

...feels that a particular military action is absolutely necessary, but he feels that the public will not support it,

Does the President have the right or obligation to mislead or outright lie to the public in order to get this must-have action?

Or

Does the President have the obligation to tell the truth regarding the situation as can best be ascertained in good faith with due diligence although he believes that the country will probably be harmed as a result?


NO THIS IS NOT ABOUT ANY PARTICULAR PRESIDENT.

This is a hypothetical situation where telling the truth may harm, but then again truth may outweigh risk.

How would YOU resolve this ethical dilemma?

 

[crimson117]

The president is not the entire government. He is one elected official out of many. He needs to have a fair amount of congressional support. What he thinks isn't final, thank god, as it would be in a dictatorship or monarchy. When teh president starts lying or pursuing his own agenda against congress and the people, regardless of how much good he thinks (or claims!) he's doing, he must be removed.

 

[maluckey]

With the conviction that, as you put it "...feels that a particular military action is absolutely necessary."

In a case such as this, do what you must. Not doing something for the good of your country, despite being unpopular, is really not an option.



If it's for personal gain or glory, without feeling there to be no rational choice, then you are a weasel.

 

[Ozoned]

Lincoln told the truth and look where that got us...