Secrets, Lies, and the Sacred Trust

Abstract:

What are the differences between secrets and lies? There is a sacred trust between the protected and those responsible for protection. Secrets are an essential part of this trust, as are well-placed and necessary lies. However, when secrets and lies are irresponsibly leveraged, the sacred trust is eroded, and the protected may demand and facilitate a change.

The longevity of any society depends upon the relationship between those protected and those who protect, or the protectorate. The protected rely on the judgment, capability, and integrity of the protectorate and place a sacred trust. The protected maintains the right to define, among other items, the moral, legal, and political parameters in which the protectorate may function. The protectorate guarantees three major functions within this sacred trust. First, there is the guarantee of the protectorate’s ability to protect the protected. Second, it promises its monopoly on absolute violence will never be used to threaten or destroy the protected. Third, the right of the protected to define its will and what courses of action the protectorate may pursue to fulfill obligations aligned with this will.

Moral Ambiguity

This sacred trust is in continuous jeopardy due to the moral ambiguity in which the protectorate must operate. There is a thin grey line between two opposing forces of survival and destruction, and this presents a dangerously unique setting where moral clarity degrades, potential results weigh heavily upon the standard ethical paradigms, and principle is often suspended for immediate survivability and postponed moral outcomes. This ethical arena is constantly navigated by the protectorate, while the moral arena is mainly a luxury perspective of the protected. While ethics and morals overlap in degrees and diverge at increased echelons, the protected should not aggressively scrutinize each minute detail of all decisions or results of the protectorate’s actions, for it is not only unrealistic and dishonest, but also counterproductive. Idealism can easily become the enemy of appropriate and the final judgment of the protected to the protectorate must be tempered with prudent and pragmatic empathy.

The protected must understand that the protectorate, of necessity, operates in the world of secrets and lies to maintain an advantage over common enemies. Capabilities may be understated or overstated, and plans may be leaked or kept a secret to provide the element of surprise or to ensure the success of a strategic objective. This is generally understood, and the protected find solace in their often naïve or willing blindness to these particularly difficult realities. The protected may not be fully aware of the details of the protectorate’s actions. The moral and ethical complications of the protectorate’s actions necessitate trust over detailed explanations for both efficiency and practical exercise of action. Therefore, the protected and protectorate enter a sacred social contract based upon the trust of execution and results.

However, the “prudent empathy” displayed by the protected may be suspended when the protectorate consistently demonstrates patterns of perceived unethical behavior outside the parameters of what has been outlined for the sacred trust. The danger of lies, even of necessity, becoming more common than truth is the erosion of trust, loyalties are shaded in doubt, and ethical and even moral individuals–both protected and protectorate–find themselves questioning their adherence to ethical and moral absolutes in a system seemingly void of these essential parameters. Such an atmosphere promotes distrust between the protected and protectorate and ultimately, the sacred trust is defiled, and the protectorate loses its ethical and moral justification to operate in the ambiguity required for successful defense. The difference between and utilization of lies and secrets must be clear for the effectiveness and longevity of the sacred trust.

Lies and Secrets

Webster’s dictionary defines a lie as “to make an untrue statement with the intent to deceive” and “to create a false or misleading impression.” Additionally, Webster’s dictionary defines a secret as “containing information whose unauthorized disclosure could endanger national security.” Thus, fundamentally, a lie is intended to deceive while a secret is intended to protect. Who is being deceived and who is being protected then becomes a focal point in the morality of both lying and secrets. Specifically, Military Deception (MILDEC) and Operational Security (OPSEC) further darken the lens of ethical and moral perspectives required to maintain the sacred trust between the protected and protectorate. Further, the moral and ethical justifications for lies and secrets, when focused upon a physical enemy, are seemingly unambiguous. However, a danger exists when the definition of “enemy” gradually broadens to include ideological, mental, or even spiritual entities outside of oneself. Thus, secrets and lies are highly effective yet potent tools in the pursuit of survivability.

National-level secrets provide a fortification for a national body, its governing apparatus, and those involved in its execution, both citizen and politician alike. These various “protectorates” utilize secrets against those who desire to execute harm upon the protectorate and those protected, and are therefore moral means for conducting activities in the name of preservation and advantage. Simply stated, secrets support “the greater good,” which does play a persistent and valuable role in the survival of our national sovereignty and its citizens. As such a tool, secrets are not immoral or unethical by nature but rather are important and significant due to the gravity of their potential disclosure.

Lies are untrue statements made with a deceitful intent. The deceit can either be for a moral or immoral purpose; however, the lie itself is always immoral. For example, lying to a murderer to save a potential victim’s life pits the immoral act of lying against the immoral act of murder. The latter certainly outweighs the former; thus, the lie would be considered the lesser of two evils. However, the lie does not convert to a moral act simply due to its potential result. While lying is immoral, no human being in their proper state of mind would allow a person to be killed to protect their personal adherence to honesty. The judgment between immorality and morality, of necessity, weighs and often even depends upon the nature of its outputs. Add the complexity of strategic thinking, and this paradigm becomes even more difficult to navigate ethically or morally.

The Ultimate Slippery Slope

This presents a slippery slope of significant risk when the results of lying are not clear or if intentions are less than admirable. Theoretically, is it ever moral to lie to the protected?  For example, telling citizens of the nation you are not conducting illegal surveillance on them, when in fact, you are? Or that there are no troops deployed in a foreign country fighting a major strategic enemy when, in fact, the opposite is true? Is it moral to lie about the death of a famous athlete turned soldier? Or, more complex, is it moral to conduct activities against the legal policies of the very nation you have sworn to protect in the name of truth? Such a quandary should provide illumination for intent and purpose to future persons engaged in the moral haziness required for survival to overcome destruction.

Is the survival of our culture or nation the ultimate morality? This question is at the heart of our understanding of ethical and moral behavior generally, and more specifically, provides an arena for discussing the balance and necessity of secrets and lies. However, without the trust of the protected, the protectorate ultimately fails in its quest for survivability. For if the protected lose their trust of their benefactor in the name of survival, what purpose does the culture continue to serve, and what is the future of the protectorate no longer in a position of trustworthiness? Is the risk of distrust worth the reward of a lesser survival?

Conclusion

There are few principles more essential to the preservation of a nation than the trust between the protectorate and the protected. When this sacred trust is compromised, the protectorate can find itself at high risk for reprimand, or worse, replacement. It is the moral and ethical duty of all members of the protectorate to conduct themselves morally and ethically to maintain and strengthen the trust between them and the protected. Secrets must be kept, and significant moral results from carefully analyzed lies must never jeopardize the sacred trust. A crucial question all must constantly ask: “What is the current state of our sacred trust?”