Intellectual Honesty Vs. Intellectual Dishonesty — An Honest Advocate Vs. A Dishonest Partisan
Having any arguments, discussions or debates with an intellectually dishonest person is a waste of time
By David Grace (Amazon Page — David Grace Website)
When people discuss a policy, a political issue or a candidate their arguments can take the form of claims which they believe to be true, or it may consist of any lie or phony argument that they think will score them points.
A person who makes arguments based on ideas or facts that they believe to be true or valid is intellectually honest. An honest advocate.
Someone who makes arguments they know to be lies or fallacious or deceptive is intellectually dishonest. A dishonest partisan.
Criminal Defense Lawyers Are Sometimes Required To Make Intellectually Dishonest Arguments
Even if the defendant has confessed to his lawyer that he robbed the convenience store and shot the clerk, the rules of legal ethics require that the defense attorney do everything in his/her power to convince the jury that they should doubt the witness’ identification of the defendant as the robber.
In those circumstances the rules of legal ethics require that the defense attorney be intellectually dishonest with the jury.
While the canons of legal ethics require a defense attorney to make any specious arguments he/she can think of in order to trick the jury into acquitting their known-guilty client, I have a problem when the “Say any lie you can think of in order to win the argument” strategy is applied to matters outside the courtroom.
Intellectual Dishonesty As A Job Qualification
In my opinion, being willing to be intellectually dishonest has become one of the job qualifications for serving as some politicians’ press secretary.
See my column:
Like James Bond’s License To Kill, Politicians Think They Have A License To Lie. Donald Trump’s former campaign manager made a shockingly honest admission that he thinks he’s entitled to lie to the press.
How often have we heard a politician’s spokesperson spout brazen lies in defense of their employer?
Vanity Fair published a list of five of Sarah Sanders lies while she was serving as Donald Trump’s press secretary:
- Denying knowledge of Trump’s hush-money payoffs to women with whom he had had sex, despite the fact that Trump himself admitted them;
- Claiming that Trump had created far more jobs for African Americans than Obama, when, in reality, Obama created four times as many as Trump;
- Insisting that Trump had never “promoted or encouraged violence” even though
>>> Trump had previously told supporters at a rally where a protester had been ejected, “I’d like to punch him in the face”;
>>>Trump had previously told a crowd in Cedar Rapids, Iowa, “If you see somebody getting ready to throw a tomato, knock the crap out of them, would you? Seriously, okay. Just knock the hell — I promise you I will pay for the legal fees, I promise”;
>>>Trump had openly fantasized about “Second Amendment people” preventing the appointment of liberal judges;
>>>Trump suggested that police officers to knock suspects’ heads against the side of their squad cars.
- Claiming that each and every one of the many women who had accused Trump of sexual harassment or assault were liars;
- Claiming that she’d heard from “countless…individuals who work at the FBI who said they were very happy” with Trump’s decision to fire James Comey. The notes of Sanders later interview by Robert Mueller state: “She [Sanders]also recalled that her statement in a separate press interview that rank-and-file FBI agents had lost confidence in Comey was a comment she made ‘in the heat of the moment’ that was not founded on anything.”
- Claiming that “multiple news outlets” had reported that in 2016 President Barack Obama ordered Trump’s phones tapped [this one from the Washington Post]
See my column:
Let’s Go For A Spin — Making Lies Seem Like Truth & Truth Seem Like Lies. The key is knowing when to claim that you know things you don’t know and don’t know things that you do know
Lying Politicians
It’s one thing for a candidate to say, “Don’t vote for my opponent because he did X which was terribly wrong” when is opponent did do X and there’s a reasonable argument to be made that X was a terrible mistake.
It’ another thing to say, “Don’t vote for my opponent because he did X which was terribly wrong” when the speaker knows that the other candidate didn’t do X or that X was actually a substantial success.
In the first case it’s truthful advocacy. In the second it’s dishonest partisanship.
These lies by politicians are so common that it was major news when John McCain acted decently and corrected a supporter who falsely said that Barack Obama was a Muslim.
Arguing With An Intellectually Honest Person
If you’re in an argument with someone who is intellectually honest, there is a chance that
- One of you might convince the other to change their position
- One of you might give the other something to think about that might eventually lead them to change their attitude
- One of you might at least reveal some bedrock principle, bias, or emotional position that causes that person to believe as they do and which is so firmly held that you realize that it’s a waste of time to argue about it further.
Arguing With An Intellectually Dishonest Person
If you’re in an argument with someone who is intellectually dishonest, they’re going to waste your time with lies, deceptive arguments, and misstatements which
- don’t mirror their true beliefs
- won’t expose you to any other valid ideas that you might want to consider,
It will be an argument that will be impossible to win because the intellectually dishonest person decided in advance that
- they are going to defend their side no matter what the facts are
- their side is always right no matter what the facts are
- they must never admit that their side was wrong
- the “other side” is always wrong no matter what the facts are
- it’s their duty to tell any lie and make up any fallacious argument or excuse in the defense of their side
Having a discussion with someone who thinks that, like a criminal defense attorney, they are allowed to tell any lie or make any specious argument they think they can get away with because they have an obligation to defend their “side” is a waste of time.
True Believers Will Never Acknowledge That Their Side Was Wrong
I’m reminded of a remark someone made about President Nixon’s hard-core supporters around the time Congress was considering impeaching him:
“They will never admit Dick ever did anything wrong,” the comment went. “If Dick Nixon strangled his wife, Pat, on live TV, they would say that she had suffered a fainting spell and that Dick was just trying to hold her upright by her throat.”
Intellectual Dishonesty Is A Hallmark Of A Narcissist
If you’ve ever known a narcissist, you will have learned that it’s futile to argue with them because a narcissist, like an intellectually dishonest partisan, will never admit that they were wrong about anything, ever.
Not all intellectually dishonest people are narcissists but all narcissists are intellectually dishonest when discussing their own conduct.
Having any arguments, discussions or debates with an intellectually dishonest person is a waste of time.
Just walk away.
— David Grace (Amazon Page — David Grace Website)
