Should I be the cause of a car accident I am required to lie and not admit to being the cause of the accident otherwise my car insurance will be repudiated. I know I caused the accident but cannot say so. The injured party/ies may protest and may clearly elucidate the sequence of events but I am not allowed to agree with them. Obviously I understand that in all the pent up emotions at that moment of an accident my perspective on the events may be distorted. Clearly unscrupulous 'victims' may seek to take advantage of that vulnerability and push events to demonstrate their 'innocence' to their insurance companies advantage. So yes there are grey areas and we need to be on guard against free admissions where there might be elements of doubt. But not to the point of requiring me to institutionally lie against the plain evidence. When the sequence of events, the facts of the case, are clear to all and witnesses, when does a no comment become a lie. It is a lie if you know the true cause but choose, or are required, not to admit it.
We see time after time, exemplary investigations into corporate failings of one ilk or another, be it meat not as described, irresponsible lending to clearly insolvent clients, to plain manufacturing defects or flawed materials or staff failing to provide the level of care required, and the institution at the centre, twist and turns, shifts focus, counter claims against another party, anything other than admit they failed to act in a timely fashion. In this litigious world we now live in any slight admission will be the staring pistol for a host of damage claims, real, exaggerated to the pure fanciful. All of which would have to be defended at considerable cost even should not guilty as charged be the final outcome. Any admission, no matter how slight, inflames the counter case, hinders the assembly of a not guilty argument. No wonder companies are loath to admit. The end result, the victims, those who suffered as a consequence of bad decision made by others, are left without restitution, with the stigma of blame left in their laps, unable to overcome the mountainous costs of initiating actions against well-heeled corporates. Corporates who can afford to weather the storm of claims, knowing few can succeed against them and that time with eventually erase any suspicion's, so long as they do not concede to any failings. Despite all the clear unambiguous contrary evidence. Dissemble, misdirect, be economical with the truth, even bare faced lie rather than agree to the truth. Company policy.
Our elected representatives, appointed to promote our well-being are now schooled in the craft of avoiding answering direct questions. Anything that might give rise to concerns, or might put in doubt past decisions, that may give an opponent a free scoring point, might upset an important voting or funding cadre, anything that does not have a positive upbeat outturn is to be side-stepped. Far better to answer your own question you are comfortable in answering than answer the actual question posed that might lead you into troubled waters. Of course the baying pack of hyena media is there snapping at your heels just waiting for that gaff. Any gaff, ill at ease posture or unfortunate turn of phrase, waiting to maximise and ridicule to their waiting audience. Never admit to any mistake, no matter how small as it will be turned into defacto incompetence of government, leadership, policy flaw, loss of voter confidence, anything that may help mud stick. When you speak as an MP the credulity of your party is on the line, so keep to safe issues which will have a favourable reception. Never mind what you actually think, did or did not do. Keeping voters loyal is far more important than esoteric concerns such as honesty or truth.
Our past choices make the Society we now live in. Nothing is immutable, we can change what we have chosen, we can choose to go in different directions from now on. Language is so clear, yet so fickle. The words I speak, or write, will resonate differently to each one of you. You will each form your own unique interpretation of my words. The words are the same, but being unique individuals with our past we bring our own different levels in meaning, experience and judgements to the self same words. What each of us does have to do is seek to choose those words which are as close to the truth, the essence, of what you want to say as you can. The more serious the subject area the more rigorous we have to be. We cannot afford the dashed off but instantly regretted Text or EMail. The recipients reaction to a careless choice of phrase cannot be brushed aside with an oophs, the damage can be lasting, tainting the relationship well into the future. We owe it to each other to be as truthful as we possibly can with each other. I don't buy the white lie, (see also my It is not important) the truth will out, eventually, meanwhile you live in a sham, concealing, obscuring your true thoughts, (see also News Propaganda). No one will ever know? Do you believe that you too are so inept at reading people that you could be fooled?
We live in a matrix society, having to deal with a wide range of peoples from all sort of alien, to us, backgrounds. If you can no longer trust anyone to speak the truth, to be honest, just how are you going to negotiate your way in this Society? Truth is the core trust that binds our Society together. Trust in the truth is what empowers us to make contracts with all those strangers we daily encounter. The next time you witness a Politician, a Company Executive evading giving a direct answer or you are required to agree to lie, pause and ask yourself, "Is this the Society I want to live in?"
Answer truthfully.
No comments:
Post a Comment