seems that Van Rysselbergue not only lied, but who told the public that his lie bordering on illegal, meriting an impeachment, and now, without desist notice to exercise the law in "for the truth."
Lies, the human behavior that perhaps no one escapes has been a human problem and philosophy for centuries. A moral and ethical issue that has been the focus of various allegories and fairy tales, stating that lying is not good, or at least not recommended.
philosophers and thinkers of all time have been treated to address, analyze and criticize. Some have justified as a valid method, whose use depends on the intended purposes, others have questioned a priori as unethical, because it is a breach of truth or at least to your search.
Whatever the case, lying is a complex issue, in which around always find different justifications, philosophical, legal, technical, depending on who uses it, and the aim to do so. Activity policy is no exception to these pretexts.
When the controversy erupted around Van Rysselbergue lies to get subsidies for not affected, some politicians waved various justifications in favor , paths and other charges raised against . In all cases, be appealed to the ethics, integrity, legality, piety, usual lying is policy, and much more. Everything seemed to revolve around the political doxa, the mere feeling.
In this dimension, the discussion seemed no end, because in reality there is no specific penalty for lying in politics, an issue not unusual, ranging from campaign promises to the alleged rivalry between political elites. The truth is that lying is a common practice in politics and soon punished, like it or not.
However, when it peaked the possibility of impeachment, he immediately went from merely political to the legal aspect . Then the discussion began to revolve around the legal limits by walking lie in politics and when it could constitute a failure.
The possibility of impeachment implied that there were reasons beyond mere political doxa to punish the now former mayor of the eighth region. That at least seemed to be the situation until they that raised the legal possibility, the rule to the resignation of Van Rysselbergue .
But then questions arise If the seriousness of lying warranted an impeachment by an ethical imperative why annulling the resignation of the Intendant?
Could it be that the legal issue was not so or lose importance with mere resignation? Is impeachment was another lie only within the natural lie of political show business?
Worse Does not that make it virtually complicit in the lie of Van Rysselbergue, their own prosecutors, members of Congress?
Basically it seems that in all this, Van Rysselbergue not only lied, but also those told the public that this lie bordering on illegal, meriting impeachment , and now, without warning deterred from exercising the law in "for the truth."
As usual in politics, always a discussion after the debate there are two dimensions: one is reduced to simplistic policy trench, and another, in-depth discussion, where the issues radical importance, the Policy. Van Rysselbergue case has proved to be the first ends to dominate the public debate, while the second is forgotten in the eyes inattentive public, although is the most important.
Maybe I should not wonder, because what ever acknowledged is that lying is always present in politics, in this discussion of trenches that attracts the public and therefore distracting.
0 comments:
Post a Comment