Is it ethical for governments to put forth misleading propaganda, even though it might be beneficial to people

Question

What if the propaganda takes on the look of a real news story? A popular book or song? A court case? A contrived election intended to sway public opinion locally or abroad? Or better still, a completely bogus, albeit real-looking, government-created internet website created for the sole purpose of changing public opinions, all under the guise of being something from, say, pop culture?

Is misleading the public with propaganda on any level at all ethical, even when it is for the overall "good of the public?" Do good lies really exist? And is social engineering fair in a free society?

Definition of "ethical" (note the third definition) from Merriam-Webster's online dictionary:

1 : of or relating to ethics

2 : involving or expressing moral approval or disapproval

3 : conforming to accepted standards of conduct

4 of a drug : restricted to sale only on a doctor's prescription

Answer 1

Good question...try applying that to religion....

Answer 2

There are several times when this is a wise action.

We are at war. No matter how information gets communicated to the people, it also goes to our enemies, the terrorists, mafia, a variety of bad people. Sometimes it is important to put out info that will mislead the enemy.

We can lose a war if we are totally open with the enemy about what we know.

During the Gulf War we were puzzled when Saddam troops machine gunned air conditioning ducts over some Kuwaiti office buildings. Come to find out, news media had been ambushing escapees and broadcasting their stories. Some of them had hid in those ducts. The news media wittingly or unwittingly had become an arm of Saddam's intelligence service.

On the eve of the massacre at Tianamen Square, western news media interviewed Democracy Monvement Students & sent the video by commercial satelite back home. These feeds were intercepted by Chinese intelligence, which is every bit as good as the USA's NSA, and the video feeds used to identify traitors to be tracked down and executed.

So do you feel that freedom of the press knows no bounds, and the people who died in the above examples, it was just their tough luck, or should the news media practice a bit more self-censorship?

Sometimes it is not a wise action.

We have various disasters occur, like 9/11, and a bunch of politicians say "No one could have imagined that terrorists would hijack planes and fly them into buildings." Well some of us (me anyway) knew of prior such plots, such as Air France vs. Eiffel Tower (foiled because none of the hijackers knew how to fly, so it was then obvious that some of them would be learning to fly, and our intelligence community should have been on the alert for that, but we now know they were not), and later we find that the 9/11 commission found no less than 12 such prior plots. So this means that those politicians who claim that "no one" could have expected such a thing, they just undermined their own credibility.

We hear the same kind of thing after Katrina, and the bridge that just fell down in Minnesota. Well I can believe that SOME politicians were never interested enough in certain risks to get briefed, but this constant drum beat of disaster followed by verbally ignorant politicans sure undermines credibility in our government.

Subliminal advertising has been ruled illegal on TV and other places where it can be used to "hypnotize" consumers into buying products they might not buy otherwise, but there are many places where it is legal.

You can be in a big store like Sears or Walmarts, and unbeknownst to you, there is subliminal advertising sending the message "Do not steal", "Do not Shop Lift" etc. I wonder if it would work if the police used billboards with one kind of message to disguise the fact they really saying "Do not speed."

Answer 3

The government in this country (USA) lies and twists the truth all the time and the news media is in on a lot of it. No... it is not ethical, moral, right or anything like it. Bush and his cohorts have their own agenda and don't give a hoot what the public wants.

Answer 4

Propagandist lies are never beneficial to the people. And when governments start deciding what's "beneficial to the people," it's time for a new government.

Answer 5

No, telling a lie is never ethical. Look what a mess GWB made by lieing.

Answer 6

If it is done for the benefit of the people with no possibility of gain to the propagandist, then it is not unethical, but it remains, nevertheless, a lie.

Answer 7

It's all manipulation of others so, no, it's not ethical. but you forgot the golden rule: "he who has the gold makes the rules."

What website would you be referring to?

Answer 8

I think that's one of those rhetorical questions. Or an oxymoron..."ethical" and "government"!!

Answer 9

when did governments tell lies that actually benefited the people

Answer 10

You are confusing "ethics" with morals. It is not moral. It is ethical. Ethics = duty. If the propaganda fulfills a duty, then it is ethical even if it is not moral.