The third lecture as part of the 'Being bad' module was named 'Telling lies with integrity'. This lecture was basically just talking about lying, peoples perception of lying and if lying is ever justifiable and indeed if there is ever integrity in lying. I found that this lecture created the most lively debate of all the sessions so far. Generally, lying, within most societies, is seen as a negative thing. However there was a general consensus amongst the group that lying was acceptable if it was done to help someone, or just done, genuinley in someone else's interest. What was seen as a worst thing, was when an indivudual lied simply for their own gain, at the expense of others. The subject which seemed to create the most contraversy in the group was the topic of lying within politics. It is a generally acknowledged truth that politicians lie! When this was talked about in the group many people argued that lying was unjustified, especially when it came to politics. Alot of people argued that politcians should not lie to citizens the way they do and the fact that they are in a position of authority, which makes it quite easy for their lies to be believed, made it even worse when politicians lie!!
In my opinion, in the so-called 'democratic' society that we live in , citizens need to be lied to. In a society where people are socialised, from childhood, into thinking the world works in a certain way, by the state, it would be completley irrational for politicians, who are prime figures in the state, to then tell the whole truth about everything. Ultimatley politics is a very complicated institution. An institution that very few average people within the population really understand. So surely, it would be much simplier for politicians to just lie to citizens who would propbably not actually understand if they were told the whole truth about political issues anyway. Sure, it maybe argued that most people, whether they understand politics or not, would appreciate the gesture of politicians telling the truth but I believe that on the whole people are lied to to protect themselves. The prime example of this which springs to mind is the war in Iraq. When the USA waged war agianst Iraq in the name of democracy and emancipation of a oppressed country led by a sadistic dictator, the citizens of the USA and UK were painted a picture of the heroic west looking to free a country who needed saving! In my opinion, the USA used the arguement of 'war on terror' and emancipation of an oppressed state to provoke a reaction of support for their actions, in concerns to Iraq. If politicians had told the whole truth and talked about their own gains from the Iraq, namely the huge oil supply which Iraq was sitting on, that certain western countries were despecrate to get, citizens would have been much less willing to support their countries in the patriotic fashion which they did. Even if the citizens of the USA and UK had known the complete truth, the government probably still would have sent their armies into Iraq anyway, and this is where my arguement about lying is based. Ultimatley, in my opinion, whether citizens supported the war or not the goverments would have invaded, so it was much more easy to just lie. This not only kept citziens happy and supportive of their contries, but also meant the invasion was alot easier ie with the backing of the patriotic civilains. Therefore, it was needed to lie to the public, so that the public could, in their blissfull ignorence sleep peacefuly at night, in the knowledge that their heroic country was freeing a oppressed society on the other side of the globe. More importantly though, politicians could sleep just as peacefully knowing their corrupt decisions and hidden agenda's were being supported by loyal civilians, and so they were not going to get caught for their crimes. So ultimatley, everyone won, yes some were lied to but maybe those lies were much more easy to swallow that the harsh truth. Others, namely politicans and governments, gained....so everyone wins, well not the iraqi citizens...but then again, do they even matter?; afterall, british politicians dont have to directly deal with them everyday...so obviously not!
Bullying is something that is generally percieved to occur within schools and amongst young people. However, in actuallity, bullying is something that happens within all social and proffesional situations, and within most age groups. It is true that bullying does happen a lot within schools, however, it is also common for froms of bullying to occur within the work place and amongst adults. Everyone will agree that bullying is wrong! To single out one person, becuase something of theirs is not quite like your's, is not only wrong though, but irrational! Ultimatley, just because the situation you are in may percieve you to be 'normal' does not make it so! If you think about it, chances are in another situation later in life you could be the one who is not 'normal' because ultimatley no one actually is pefect for every group, society or situaion! And if one thinks about that, I am sure most would think twice before making any nasty comment to anyone!
During the first lecture, we talked about the arguments against smoking and the arguements for the freedom to smoke. Firstly, we looked at the statistics, frequently used on television and in classrooms, about the health hazards of smoking. We then went onto looking at the two arguments about smoking and some of the groups set up in the U.K, which campaign either for or against smoking. We then looked at smoking in the media and in entertainment, eg films, television etc. From the presentation I realised just how influencial smoking is to people's lives, especially in the media...and how smoking is used in films etc to reinforce a stereotype. Learning this I have realised just how influential and contraversial smoking is. Therefore, the smoking debate will undoubtedly go on for years to come, but whether it will ever be resolved is questionable.