This is a "journal" that we're required to do for my Theory of Knowledge course. Here's what I think. A lot of it is B.S, but it is my opinion. What do you think?
Is propaganda ethical? It seems like, in the United States at least, we view our World War II propaganda as ethical and good, while viewing German propaganda as vile. But is purposefully misleading the public in any case ethical? Take our propaganda in World War II. It lied to the Allied people (Germans aren't people, etc.). However, it rallied the Allies to fight against the Nazis, which is surely a noble cause, as the Nazis were truly doing atrocious things. Is this justified? On the one hand, we have Utilitarianism. The pain of being lied to is mostly unfelt in this circumstance, and the pleasure of defeating the Germans after so many years definitely was pretty high. Though I suppose you could say that the pain felt by the Germans was pretty high, but I'm looking at this from an Allied point of view, and that's looking at war itself anyway. So I'd say, from a strictly Utilitarian point of view, the use of propaganda is justified. We also have deontology. In this case, the act of lying is evil. However, the acts committed by the Germans were also evil. The question is whether or not one believes the act of lying to be worse than the act of genocide and occupation. However, I think in the general case most would believe stopping Germany by using propaganda to be the "right" thing to do. My personal opinion is somewhere between these two extremes (which both say the same thing...funny). I think that lying to the people is a terrible offense. However, I also know that telling the people everything would be even worse. I believe stopping the acts being committed by the Germans was well worth the use of Propaganda, as it was the lesser of two evils.
Is propaganda ethical? It seems like, in the United States at least, we view our World War II propaganda as ethical and good, while viewing German propaganda as vile. But is purposefully misleading the public in any case ethical? Take our propaganda in World War II. It lied to the Allied people (Germans aren't people, etc.). However, it rallied the Allies to fight against the Nazis, which is surely a noble cause, as the Nazis were truly doing atrocious things. Is this justified? On the one hand, we have Utilitarianism. The pain of being lied to is mostly unfelt in this circumstance, and the pleasure of defeating the Germans after so many years definitely was pretty high. Though I suppose you could say that the pain felt by the Germans was pretty high, but I'm looking at this from an Allied point of view, and that's looking at war itself anyway. So I'd say, from a strictly Utilitarian point of view, the use of propaganda is justified. We also have deontology. In this case, the act of lying is evil. However, the acts committed by the Germans were also evil. The question is whether or not one believes the act of lying to be worse than the act of genocide and occupation. However, I think in the general case most would believe stopping Germany by using propaganda to be the "right" thing to do. My personal opinion is somewhere between these two extremes (which both say the same thing...funny). I think that lying to the people is a terrible offense. However, I also know that telling the people everything would be even worse. I believe stopping the acts being committed by the Germans was well worth the use of Propaganda, as it was the lesser of two evils.
