the target of my various claims

I am prompted to say the following by a friend's comment on some of what I had to say in "the most difficult presidential decision" under "commentaries". Although this friend was very sympathetic to what I had to say, he noted the following. (Especially from a utilitarian perspective, which I have already noted in some blog entries that I endorse) it can be sometimes perfectly reasonable for a president (or other elected official) to say something he or she does not believe, or to say something with a level of confidence that he or she does not think is actually warranted. This is because it can sometimes be necessary in order to have some needed/important effect, e.g. inspiring in the populace confidence in their president, a crucial means to the president's being effectively able to get things done.

I totally understand my friend's point, and agree. To explain, it will be extremely helpful for me here to explicitly note that, when it comes to claims I make (especially under "issues" and commentaries") of the "agree", "stupid", etc. sort, there will usually be one of two particular kinds of targets I will have in mind:

1. I might be agreeing with, challenging, etc. the CONTENT itself of some claim. So, for example, in the blog entry mentioned above, when I criticized Laura Bush, her husband, and others for saying things like "sending troops into harm's way is always the most difficult decision for a president to make", what I was most exactly criticizing was the TRUTH of that claim. I argued simply that it was FALSE (indeed, wildly false).

2. I might be agreeing with, challenging, etc. the SAYING/MAKING of some claim (or something similar) on the part of one or more other individuals. So, to use the same example again: in the blog entry mentioned above, nothing I said was directly to the effect that it is stupid or unreasonable for people like Laura Bush, her husband, and others to say things like that. I am perfectly happy to admit that it is sometimes wise and reasonable for politicians and elected officials to say something they believe is false or say something with a greater level of confidence than they actually think is warranted. (More on this, in part, when I start talking more directly about politicking and what I think are frequent unfair charges of "sliminess" and the like.)

Now, when it comes to the SAYING/MAKING of the particular claim "sending troops into harm's way is always the most difficult decision for a president to make" by someone like Laura Bush, I think the issue is trickier. On the one hand, since I think this claim is false (indeed, wildly false) for the reasons explained, a mark against MAKING it is the following. One thereby helps to promote false beliefs on matters of harm and death, which can lead to bad decision on the part of those with these false beliefs. Further, one thereby more indirectly promotes later bad decisions on the part of elected officials who feel the need to satisfy their constituents who have these (false) beliefs. On the other hand, given the current political context, especially the war in Iraq, and given a very common current false beliefs on such matters, NOT MAKING such a claim might be unfairly interpreted by others as expressing a morally problematic whimsical attitude toward the lives of US soldiers (or something similarly bad). My own best guess right now is that, nonetheless, MAKING such a claim is (on the whole) a bad idea and unreasonable. That is, MAKING that EXACT CLAIM, WITHOUT ANY QUALIFICATION. If, instead, what were claimed was something like "sending troops into harm's way is always a very difficult decision for a president", then it would be a better idea and more reasonable (even though still, as I see it, strictly speaking false).

I have drawn this distinction rather narrowly in terms of the CONTENT of a claim and the MAKING of a claim. I strongly suspect the distinction generalizes in intuitive and natural ways, but I won't (at least right now) try to explicitly articulate those ways. I note this simply because I'm quite sure that some of the things I say in some of my blog entries can be understood in terms of this distinction only when we think of it as generalized.

From here on out, I will try to be clearer about what exactly is the target of any claim I make, though inevitably I will fail to be perfect in this regard. If you, as a reader of my blog, are ever unclear on what exactly is the target, do let me know by way of adding a comment, and I will try to be clearer in a reply. Or, if you think I'm just wrong, also let me know by way of adding a comment. Then perhaps (in some cases) I can reply by noting you misunderstood (through my failure to be maximally clear the first time around) the nature of my target.