DC : “So you agree that there are lies and there are lies ? That lying is not a monolithic offence ? That some lies are worse than others, some are permissible, some even ethically mandatory ?”

AC : “No, I do not. To lie is to do a morally objectionable thing, no matter what circumstances. It is better to shut up. Why didn't President invoke Fifth Amendment, right not to incriminate himself by his own lips ?”

DC : “Because as much information is contained in abstaining to do something as in doing it and because if he did so, he would have provoked riotous rumours. Rumours are always worse than truth. Rumours are always worse than most defiled lie. It is better to lie than to provoke rumours.”

AC : “Unless your lies are so clearly lies that you provoke rumours regarding what is true, thus inflicting a double blow upon public peace that you were mandated to and undertook to preserve …”

DC : “Again, you make distinctions between types of lies – this time, by their efficacy. I am not sure this is progress. Let me give you examples of three cases : where one would do morally well to tell truth, where one would achieve morally commendable outcomes only by lying and case where lying is as morally permissible as telling truth. Imagine a young sick adult. Her life is at peril but can be saved if she were to agree to consume a certain medicine. This medicament, however, will render her sterile. Surely, she must be told truth. It should be entirely her decision how to continue his life : in person or through her progeny. Now, imagine that this young woman, having suffered greatly already, informed her doctor that should she learn that her condition is terminal and that she needs to consume medicines with grave side effects in order to prolong it or even to save it altogether – she is determined to take her life and has already procured means to do so. Surely, it is mandatory to lie to this young woman in order to save her life. Imagine now third situation : that she also made a statement that having a child is her only, predominant, all pervasive, wish in life. Faced with two conflicting statements, some may choose to reveal truth to her – others, to withhold it, and with same amount of moral justification.”

AC : “And what are we to learn from this ?”

DC : “That moral life is a chain of dilemmas, almost none of which is solvable. The President may have lied in order to preserve his family, to protect his only child, to shield his aides from embarrassing legal scrutiny, even to protect his nation from what he perceived to have been destructive zeal of special prosecutor. Some of his lies should be considered at least common, if not morally permissible.”

AC : “This is a slippery slope. There is no end to this moral relativism. It is a tautology. You say that in some cases there are morally permissible reasons to lie. When I ask you how come - you say to me that people lie only when they have good reasons to lie. But this crux of your mistake : good reasons are not always sufficient, morally permissible, or even necessary reasons. Put more plainly : no one lies without a reason. Does fact that a liar has a reason to lie – absolve him ?”

DC : “Depends what is reason. This is what I tried to establish in my little sad example above. To lie about a sexual liaison – even under oath – may be morally permissible if intention is to shield other meaningful individuals from harm, or in order to buttress conditions, which will allow one to fulfil one's side of a contract. The President has a contract with American people, sealed in two elections. He has to perform. It is his duty no less than he has a duty to tell truth. Conflict arises only when two equally powerful principles clash. The very fact that there is a controversy in public demonstrates moral ambiguity of this situation. The dysfunction of American presidency has already cost trillions of dollars in a collapsing global economy. Who knows how many people died and will die in pursuit of high principle of vincit omnia veritas (the truth always prevails) ? If I could prove to you that one person – just one person - committed suicide as a result of financial turmoil engendered by Clinton affair, would you still stick to your lofty ideals ?”

AC : “You inadvertently, I am sure, broached heart of this matter. The President is in breach of his contracts. Not one contract – but many. As all of us do – he has a contract with other fellow beings, he is a signatory to a Social Treaty. One of articles of this treaty calls to respect Law by not lying under oath. Another calls for striving to maintain a generally truthful conduct towards other signatories. The President has a contract with his wife, which he clearly violated, by committing adultery. Professing to be a believing man, he is also in breach of his contract with his God as set forth in Holy Scriptures. But President has another, very powerful and highly specific contract with American people. It is this contract that has been violated savagely and expressly by President.”

DC : “The American people does not seem to think so, but, prey, continue …”

(continued)

Sam Vaknin is the author of Malignant Self Love - Narcissism Revisited and After the Rain - How the West Lost the East. He is a columnist for Central Europe Review, United Press International (UPI) and eBookWeb and the editor of mental health and Central East Europe categories in The Open Directory, Suite101 and searcheurope.com.

Visit Sam's Web site at http://samvak.tripod.com

AC : “This is again same Presidential pattern of deceit, half truths and plain lies. The President may not have promised anything explicitly – but he sure did implicitly, otherwise why would Miss Lewinsky have availed herself sexually ? Even if we adopt your more benevolent version of events and assume that Miss Lewinsky approached this avowed and professional womanizer with intention of taking advantage of him – clearly, a deal must have been struck. “

DC : “Yes, but we don't know its nature and its parameters. It is therefore useless to talk about this empty, hypothetical entity. You also said that he committed these acts of lust in a building belonging to American public and put at his disposal solely for performance of his duties. This is half-true, of course. This is also home of President, his castle. He has to endure a lot in order to occupy this mansion and separation between private and public life is only on paper. Presidents have no private lives but only public ones. Why should we reproach them for mixing public with private ? This is a double standard : when it suits our predatory instincts, our hypocrisy and our search for a scapegoat – we disallow private life of a President. When these same low drives can be satisfied by making this distinction – we trumpet it. We must make up our minds : either Presidents are not allowed to have private lives and then they should be perfectly allowed to engage in all manner of normally private behaviour in public and on public property (and even at public's expense). Or distinction is relevant – in which case we should adopt “European model” and not pry into lives of our Presidents, not expose them, and not demand their public flagellation for very private sins.”

AC : “This is a gross misrepresentation of process that led to current sorry state of affairs. The President got himself embroiled in numerous other legal difficulties long before Monika Lewinsky story erupted. The special prosecutor was appointed to investigate Whitewater and other matters long before President's sexual shenanigans hit courts. The President lied under oath in connection with a private, civil lawsuit brought against him by Paula Jones. It is all President's doing. Decapitating messenger – special prosecutor – is an old and defunct Roman habit.”

DC : “Then you proceeded to accuse President of adultery. Technically, there can be no disagreement. The President's actions – however sexual acts are defined – constitute unequivocal adultery. But legal and operational definitions of adultery are divorced from emotional and moral discourse of same phenomenon. We must not forget that you stated that adulterous acts committed by President have adversely affected dignity of his office and this is what seems to have bothered you…”

AC : “Absolutely misrepresented. I do have a problem with adultery in general and I wholeheartedly disagree with it …”

DC : “I apologize. So, let us accord these two rather different questions – separate treatment that they deserve. First, surely you agree with me that there can be no dignity where there is no truth, for you said so yourself. A marital relationship that fails abysmally to provide parties with sexual or emotional gratification and is maintained in teeth of such failure – is a lie. It is a lie because it gives observers false information regarding state of things. What is better – to continue a marriage of appearances and mutual hell – or to find emotional and sexual fulfilment elsewhere? When pursuit of happiness is coupled with refusal to pretend, to pose, in other words, to lie, isn't this commendable ? President Clinton admitted to marital problems and there seems to be an incompatibility, which reaches to roots of this bond between himself and his wife. Sometimes marriages start as one thing – passion, perhaps or self delusion – and end up as another : mutual acceptance, a warm habit, companionship. Many marriages withstand marital infidelity precisely because they are not conventional, or ideal marriages. By forgoing sex, a partnership is sometimes strengthened and a true, disinterested friendship is formed. I say that by insisting on being true to himself, by refusing to accept social norms of hypocrisy, conventions of make-belief and camouflage, by exposing lacunas in his marriage, by, thus, redefining it and by pursuing his own sexual and emotional happiness – President has acted honestly. He did not compromise dignity of his office.”

(continued)

Sam Vaknin is the author of Malignant Self Love - Narcissism Revisited and After the Rain - How the West Lost the East. He is a columnist for Central Europe Review, United Press International (UPI) and eBookWeb and the editor of mental health and Central East Europe categories in The Open Directory, Suite101 and searcheurope.com.

Visit Sam's Web site at http://samvak.tripod.com