All Bullshit and Lies?

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Chris Heffer
Keyword(s):  
Public Discourse ◽  
Weapons Of Mass Destruction ◽  
Multiple Forms ◽  
Mass Destruction ◽  
Psychology And Law ◽  
Poisoning Case ◽  
Greater Good ◽  
The Many ◽  
Voter Fraud ◽  
Comprehensive Framework

In a post-factual world in which claims are often held to be true only to the extent that they partisanly confirm one’s preexisting beliefs, this book asks the following crucial questions: How can one identify the many forms of untruthfulness in discourse? How can one know when their use is ethically wrong? How can one judge untruthfulness in the messiness of situated discourse? Drawing on pragmatics, philosophy, psychology, and law, All Bullshit and Lies? develops a comprehensive framework for analyzing untruthful discourse in situated context. The TRUST (Trust-Related Untruthfulness in Situated Text) framework sees untruthfulness as encompassing not just deliberate manipulations of what you believe to be the truth (the insincerity of withholding, misleading, and lying), but also the distortions that arise pathologically from an irresponsible attitude toward the truth (dogma, distortion, and bullshit). Truth is often not “in play” (as in jokes or fiction), or concealing it can achieve a greater good (as in saving another’s face). Untruthfulness becomes unethical in discourse, though, when it unjustifiably breaches the trust an interlocutor invests in the speaker. In such cases, the speaker becomes willfully insincere or epistemically negligent and thus culpable to a greater or lesser degree. In addition to the theoretical framework, the book provides a clear, practical heuristic for analyzing discursive untruthfulness and applies it to such cases of public discourse as the Brexit “battle bus,” Trump’s tweet about voter fraud, Blair’s and Bush’s claims about weapons of mass destruction, and the multiple forms of untruthfulness associated with the Skripal poisoning case.

Discourse and Democracy

2020 ◽  
pp. 233-261
Author(s):  
Chris Heffer
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
United Kingdom ◽  
Public Discourse ◽  
Large Scale ◽  
Weapons Of Mass Destruction ◽  
Democratic Legitimacy ◽  
Common Theme ◽  
The European Union ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
Voter Fraud

This chapter summarizes the main analytical moves in the TRUST heuristic for analyzing untruthfulness. It then applies the heuristic to three short texts that have been widely called out as lies: Trump’s tweet about large-scale voter fraud just before the 2016 presidential elections; the “Brexit Battle Bus” claim that the United Kingdom sent £350 million per week to the European Union; and Tony Blair’s 2002 statement to Parliament about Iraq possessing weapons of mass destruction. The cases share a common theme: the capacity of untruthful public discourse to undermine democratic legitimacy by, respectively, questioning the integrity of electoral procedures, harming the capacity of voters to make a rational choice, and undermining faith in the rational and responsible deliberation of one’s leaders. The chapter troubles the simple attribution of lying in these cases and shows how a TRUST analysis can lead to a deeper understanding of the types and ethical value of untruthfulness.

Military Enforcement of Arms Control in Iraq

1998 ◽  
Vol 11 (3) ◽  
pp. 497-511
Author(s):  
Guido den Dekker ◽  
Ramses A. Wessel
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Security Council ◽  
Arms Control ◽  
Weapons Of Mass Destruction ◽  
Fundamental Issue ◽  
Mass Destruction ◽  
Enforcement Action ◽  
Legal Questions ◽  
Council Decision ◽  
The Many

The effects of the 1990 Iraqi invasion of Kuwait are felt strongly up to the present day. On numerous occasions, the inspection teams of the UN Special Commission (UNSCOM) have encountered serious problems and opposition by the Iraqi government when verifying the non-production of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Among the many legal questions raised by the Iraqi-Kuwait war's aftermath, a fundamental issue is whether – in the absence of an explicit Security Council decision – compliance by Iraq with its obligations may be enforced by military means. In this article, this question is addressed by examining whether military enforcement action can be based on Security Council resolutions adopted earlier in the course of the conflict, especially Resolutions 678 (1990), in which the Council authorised the use of ‘all necessary means’, and 1154 (1998), in which the ‘Memorandum of Understanding’ between the UN and Iraq was endorsed. It is argued that without a further mandate from the Security Council, military enforcement of arms control in Iraq under the present circumstances is prohibited by international law.

scholarly journals Weapons of Mass Destruction—Conceptual and Ethical Issues with Regard to terrorism

2021 ◽  
pp. 49-69
Author(s):  
Jonas Feltes
Keyword(s):  
United Nations ◽  
Public Discourse ◽  
Ethical Issues ◽  
Weapons Of Mass Destruction ◽  
Chemical Weapons ◽  
Mass Destruction ◽  
The Core ◽  
Definition Of ◽  
Scientific Debates ◽  
United Nation

AbstractThe concept of WMD is part of numerous national laws and is the core of one of the most important treaties of the United Nations (Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons in Convention on the prohibition of the development, production, stockpiling and use of chemical weapons and on their destruction, 1992; United Nation Office of Disarmament Affairs in The convention on the prohibition of the development, production and stockpiling of bacteriological (biological) and toxin weapons and on their destruction, 1975). Yet, the definition of what should be considered a WMD is far from established and subject to controversial debates. Academics, policymakers, and legislators have been introducing a variety of partly conflicting conceptualizations of WMD into scientific debates, public discourse, and legislations over the last eight decades.

Debating Targeted Killing

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tamar Meisels ◽  
Jeremy Waldron
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Armed Conflict ◽  
Just War ◽  
Just War Theory ◽  
Weapons Of Mass Destruction ◽  
Moral Justification ◽  
Mass Destruction ◽  
Targeted Killing ◽  
The Many ◽  
The Right

In this “for and against” book, Jeremy Waldron and Tamar Meisels defend competing positions on the legitimacy of targeted killing. The volume begins with a joint introduction, briefly setting out the terms of discussion, and presenting a short historical overview of the practice—i.e. what is targeted killing, and how has it been used in which conflicts and by whom. The debate opens with Meisels’ defense of targeted killing as a legitimate and desirable defensive anti-terrorism strategy, in keeping with both just war theory and international law. Meisels unreservedly defends the named killing of irregular combatants, most notably terrorists, during armed conflict. Additionally, she offers a possible moral justification for rare instances of assassination outside that framework, specifically with reference to recent cases of nuclear scientists developing weapons of mass destruction for the Iranian and Syrian governments. The debate continues with Waldron’s arguments focusing on the dangers and the inherent wrongness of governments’ having the right to maintain death lists—lists of named individuals who are to be hunted down and killed. Waldron notes the many differences between individualized targeting and ordinary combat, and he resists the attempt to assimilate targeted killing to killings in combat. Waldron also cautions us to consider carefully what a world of targeted killings will be like, the many abuses it is liable to, and why we should be very cautious, morally and strategically, in our thinking about it.

Identifying suboptimalities with factorial model comparison

2018 ◽  
Vol 41 ◽  
Author(s):  
Wei Ji Ma
Keyword(s):  
Experimental Design ◽  
Model Comparison ◽  
Process Models ◽  
Multiple Forms ◽  
Factorial Experimental Design ◽  
Factorial Model ◽  
Multiple Components ◽  
The Many

AbstractGiven the many types of suboptimality in perception, I ask how one should test for multiple forms of suboptimality at the same time – or, more generally, how one should compare process models that can differ in any or all of the multiple components. In analogy to factorial experimental design, I advocate for factorial model comparison.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document