An Addendum, or: Dostoevsky Knows His Shit

A little while back I wrote about the Information Age and moral relativism. Well, I had another point that I wanted to make about the Information Age that I completely left out. I have no idea how I did this. However, the time that it has taken me to realize my error has allowed me to realize one more thing: that Fyodor Dostoevsky basically makes this point (a lot better than I can) in The Grand Inquisitor. Check it out.

Anyways, I was talking to my dad again and he told me that one thing he likes about the Internet is that it will straighten out politicians, because everything they lie or flip-flop about will become public knowledge.

Now, I don't think that it is particularly likely that politicians will stop lying for fear of the internet exposing them, and I believe this for various reasons. Chief among them are the beliefs that (a) it's really easy to dismiss the internet as un-credible, (b) it hasn't stopped anyone so far, seeing as how we've seen senators solicit prostitutes, presidents cheat on their wives, etc., and finally, and most importantly, (c) to lie is part of human nature.

All that aside, I think what's more interesting is the question of whether or not its really better to know every time a politician lies. Actually "better" is probably the wrong word to use - maybe "more satisfying" is a better choice of words. Yet another choice: Are people really happier knowing everything that is wrong with their politicians? I don't think so, or at least, it'd take convincing to get me to believe that.

History itself is a dubious source because it is written by winners, but it at least seems like there were times when the public was able to admire political figures (Kennedy) or work together to support a cause (World War II). That doesn't seem like much of a reality anymore, because we know entirely too much about public figures and their private lives. In today's world, we wouldn't have whispered speculation about "Happy Birthday Mr. President;" we'd have a leaked sex tape of Marilyn Monroe doing her country a great service. I don't know which of those scenarios is "better" in the moral sense, but I think I know which one feels better for the public. After all, ignorance is bliss - but as I (thankfully) did remember to say in my last post, ignorance is getting harder and harder to come by. And given that some of the consequences of this fact are post-modern ultra-cynicism and a divided nation, that troubles me.

Anyways, I hope that was coherent, but like I said, check out the Dostoevsky version.