preview

John J. Mearsheimer's Five Types Of Lying

Good Essays

Lying, a five letter word that is naturally connected to most politicians and leaders. How does this assumption come to be? And what causes them to be perceived in this manner? When a leader wants to get something accomplished, especially when it comes to International relations, they must consciously think of ways to persuade their followers into siding with them. The first thought that most naturally comes to their mind is, how am I going to persuade or coax the general public into siding with them on a particular issue and what tools do they have in accomplishing this goal? Is it really for the benefit of the nation or for a politician’s self-shish motives. These are the types of inquires that John J. Mearsheimer fields in his book, Why …show more content…

Starting with the intro, here the author suggests why he is in favor of lying as a sometimes tolerable and necessary act. He also lays out, a step by step, on how the book is supposed to help his readers conceive what motives leaders have for lying. Moving into the next few chapters of the book (1-3), the writer describes to the audience what his definition of a lie is and other types of deception, in which he calls, “Spinning and Concealment” (Mearsheimer 16-17). Also in this section of the text, Mearheimer attempts to show that there are two distinctly different types of lies that leaders convey, one for themselves and one for the benefit of others. Transitioning into the next segment of the book (4-6), the novelist describes a few of the different types of international lies that he suggests leaders use in an attempt to help the public. The first of these is fearmongering, which the author advocates is, “a way for superiors to warn their publics of a surfacing danger” (Mearsheimer 45). The next of these lies are, strategic cover-ups, which he suggests are ways of, “shielding a nation’s interests, or hiding a smart strategies.” (Mearsheimer 63) The last of these helpful lies is nationalistic myths, which Mearsheimers puts are, “false stories that help fuel group solidarity.” (Mearsheimer 73) Shifting in the next couple chapters (7-8), which focus mainly lies being told all the time by politicians, which the public …show more content…

Such as, what is the author’s concept of lying, to the view he looks at lying with, and if something isn’t definitively a lie, then what is it? Let’s start by focusing on what the author considers to be a lie. A lie according to Mearsheimer is, “when a person makes a statement that he knows or suspects to be false in the hopes that others will think it is true.” (Mearsheimer 16) This is a pretty good definition, but looking at from a rhetorical standpoint, what then is truth? Because in order for something to be considered a lie, there has to be an opposite of truth to it. This idea of truth according to Nietzsche is an attempt to “make the unreal appear as real” (Nietzsche), which is essentially lying to someone. This bases of truth must come from a more moral position. Are politicians really moral enough to be concerned with truth? Now, that the author has established what he considers to be a lie, let’s shift to what view he thinks of lying with. Mearsheimer observes lying with, “a strictly utilitarian view”. (Mearsheimer 10) So, the author is viewing the topic from a completely practical view, in other words a fully sophist interpretation. This shows why he is open to international lying, as sometimes a necessary act. This act in a governmental setting according to the Roochnik article, states that, “political life is contingent happenstance.” (Roochnik 236) Meaning that political

Get Access