A lot of the superficial evilness and stupidity is softened by the follow-up post, where in reply to the objection that politicians uniformly following this principle would result in a much worse situation, he says:
The fact that most people would botch applying a theory does not show that the theory is wrong. So, for instance, suppose—as is often argued—that most people would misapply utilitarian moral standards. Perhaps applying utilitarianism is too hard for the common person. Even if so, this does not invalidate utilitarianism. As David Brink notes, utilitarian moral theory means to provide a criterion of right, not a method for making decisions.
So maybe he just meant that in some situations the "objectively right" action is to lie to voters, without actually recommending that politicians go out and do it (just as most utilitarians would not recommend that people try to always act like strict naive utilitarians).
So maybe he just meant that in some situations the "objectively right" action is to lie to voters, without actually recommending that politicians go out and do it
I'm confused. So would he recommend that the politicians do the "objectively wrong" thing?
All of that looks a lot like incoherence, unwillingness to accept the implications of stated beliefs, and general handwaving.
The fact that most people would botch applying a theory does not show that the theory is wrong.
So the problem is that the politicians can't lie well enough?? X-D
You know the drill - If it's worth saying, but not worth its own post (even in Discussion), then it goes here.