I think this is true as a thought experiment, but it suggests that people who lie always do so both self-consciously and because of their self-interest. The post states: But what if we believe something that happens to be factually untrue? Are we still lying? If so, should we be castigated for our lies? It's a tragedy of the commons thing: if everyone tells the truth, we can all trust each other and get on with doing interesting stuff. But if someone lies, they can abuse said trust to acheive their own ends that not everyone may agree on.
A less-conservative definition [of telling the truth] might be, “saying things that are consistent with what we believe.”
For me, this is different from a moral standpoint: being wrong isn't the same as saying something one knows to be untrue. Blurring those is societally dicey, and we've already seen why. When politicians are terrified of being lambasted for being wrong, the irony is that it makes them more likely to lie.
Sure. They'd rather lie and risk being caught in that (because everyone knows politicians lie) than be caught in a mistake. We allow politicians to use their opponents' mistakes as a bludgeon all the time, and for years.
Hm, I've never really thought about it that way. I guess there's a fine line between holding politicians accountable for their mistakes and lambasting them for those mistakes.Sure. They'd rather lie and risk being caught in that (because everyone knows politicians lie) than be caught in a mistake. We allow politicians to use their opponents' mistakes as a bludgeon all the time, and for years.