Is lying good or bed?
This paper will discuss the facts about lying and point of view of different philosophers on the act of lying. Lying is the act when a person provides a false statement or it also refers to the untruthfulness of the person (dictionary.com). The reasoning for lying may differ according to the situation. It may also depend on the characteristic of the person lying. Different philosophers have different opinion on lying and based on their theory and arguments, lying can be either good or bad based on the situation.
German philosopher Immanuel Kant’s point of view on lying differs from the British philosopher John Stuart Mill. This paper will compare and contrast the arguments of Immanuel Kant and John Stuart Mill on the act of lying.
Kant believes in developing a pure moral philosophy, a universal law, based on a priori concept of reasoning. A priori knowledge is the knowledge a person has before any experience. He also talks about a posteriori knowledge, which stands for the knowledge after experience. As a posteriori knowledge is depended on experiences, it cannot be considered in making a moral decision because it requires a general law. Kant also refuses to consider any kind of specific interests and circumstances in making a decision. Hence, lying is not an option, according to Kant, in making any kind of moral decision. He also emphasizes that consequences don't matter regardless of outcomes. Hence, the moral law is a general formula that is applicable in all situations. So, instead of commanding certain actions, Kant believes in expressing the principle that all the actions to make a decision should be undertaken with pure motives without consideration of the consequences. In other words, Kant is a stro...
... middle of paper ...
...ld. He also did this to keep his family happy and to avoid the whole family from being separated by the society because of his disease. In this situation, Kant would have suggested him to tell the truth about his sickness to the world. This would have led to break hearts of thousands of his fans. He would have lost the contract with NASCAR and would have become jobless. His family would have faced the consequences and all the outcomes of being separated from the rest of the world. But instead, he decided to lie to the world about his illness and looked at the consequences of his actions and then acted accordingly. This example helps me argue that Kant’s moral theory is very rigid and strict. The maxim not to lie in any situation cannot be universalized in today’s imperfect world. It can be appropriate for a perfect ethical world but not for today’s imperfect world.
In the article “Is Lying Bad for Us”, Richard Gunderman persuades his readers the effect of lying can have on our daily lives. He expresses strong opinions towards being honest and how lying has negative consequences on not only our mental health but
In “Autonomy and Benevolent Lies” Thomas Hill presents the case of benevolent lies and if they are morally troublesome. Philosophers have been debating the moral difference between a malicious lie, told in order to hurt people, and a benevolent lie. According to Hill benevolent lies are “intended to benefit the person deceived, for no ulterior motives, and they actually succeed in giving comfort without causing main” (Thomas E. Hill). Many argue that benevolent lies are no different from a malicious lie because telling a lie is morally wrong. Others argue benevolent lies and malicious lies differ because of the deliberate intentions. Hill provides the reader with three cases of a benevolent lies. The three cases he presents are the possible suicide of a student which a Professor lies to the student’s mother, the
As John Ruskin once said, “The essence of lying is in deception, not in words.” This essence is debated in “The Ways We Lie”, written by Stephanie Ericsson, and “Doubts about Doublespeak”, written by William Lutz. In “The Ways We Lie”, Ericsson talks about the different ways people lie on a day to day basis. By comparison, in “Doubts about Doublespeak”, Lutz discusses the different forms of doublespeak that many individuals frequently use. Lutz considers doublespeak as a language that distorts the meaning of words in order to deceive another person, and only “pretends to communicate” (83). Although both authors agree that lying is about the use of deceptive language, Ericsson describes this use of language as occasionally being necessary,
In “The Ways We Lie”, Ericsson describes the different types of lies: white lie, facades, ignoring
Lying is an issue that has been debated on for a long time. Some people believe that lying is sometimes ok in certain circumstances. Some people believe lying is always acceptable. In contrast, some believe lying is always bad. Keeping all other’s opinions in mind, I believe that lying is a deficient way of solving problems and is a bad thing. I claim that only certain situations allow the usage of lies and that otherwise, lying is bad. Dishonesty is bad because it makes it harder to serve justice, harms the liar individually, and messes up records. Furthermore, it should only be said to protect someone from grave danger.
When initially asked about the morality of lying, it is easy for one to condemn it for being wrong or even corrupt. However, those asked are generally guilty of the crime on a daily basis. Lying is, unfortunately, a normal aspect of everyday life. In the essay “The Ways We Lie,” author Stephanie Ericsson makes note of the most common types of lies along with their consequences. By ordering the categories from least to most severe, she expresses the idea that lies enshroud our daily lives to the extent that we can no longer between fact and fiction. To fully bring this argument into perspective, Ericsson utilizes metaphor, rhetorical questions, and allusion.
John Stuart Mill famously criticized Immanuel Kant and his theory of the Categorical Imperative by arguing that,
Kant proves this by coupling it with the universal law, as one “can indeed will the lie but can not at all will a universal law to lie” (Kant, Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals, 15). He reasons this in an intellectual way, which leans heavily on the law of universalizability, as “by such a law there would really be no promises at all” (Kant, Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals, 15). He therefore reasons that this maxim “would necessarily destroy itself just as soon as it was made a universal law” (Kant, Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals, 15). Kant has therefore proved conclusively that lying is always wrong, but has only done so if his opinions on universal law remain
Actions of any sort, he believed, must be undertaken from a sense of duty dictated by reason, and no action performed for expediency or solely in obedience to law or custom can be regarded as moral. A moral act is an act done for the "right" reasons. Kant would argue that to make a promise for the wrong reason is not moral - you might as well not make the promise. You must have a duty code inside of you or it will not come through in your actions otherwise. Our reasoning ability will always allow us to know what our duty is.
The works of Shelly Kagan and Charles Fried will be studied in determining the wrongness of lying. The definition of lying will first be presented followed by the arguments as to why lying is perceived as wrong. It will then be argued that lying is not necessary wrong.
Kant’s moral philosophy is built around the formal principles of ethics rather than substantive human goods. He begins by outlining the principles of reasoning that can be equally expected of all rational persons regardless of their individual desires or partial interests. It creates an ideal universal community of rational individuals who can collectively agree on the moral principles for guiding equality and autonomy. This is what forms the basis for contemporary human rig...
While Kant’s theory may seem “overly optimistic” (Johnson, 2008) now, it was ruled as acceptable and rational behavior then. Kant believed that any moral or ethical decision could be achieved with consistent behavior. While judgment was based on reason, morals were based on rational choices made by human beings (Freeman, 2000). A human’s brain is the most advanced in the animal kingdom. Not only do human beings work on instinct, but they have the ability to sort out situations in order to make a decision. This includes weighing the pros and cons of decisions that could be made and how they affect others either positively or negatively. This is called rational thought. Kant believed that any human being able to rationalize a decision before it was made had the ability to be a morally just person (Freeman, 2000). There were certain things that made the decision moral, and he called it the “Categorical Imperative” (Johnson, 2008). If someone was immoral they violated this CI and were considered irrational. The CI is said to be an automatic response which was part of Kant’s argument that all people were deserving of respect. This automatic response to rational thinking is where he is considered, now, to be “overly optimistic” (Johnson, 2008).
Using Kantian philosophy a lie is always immoral and wrong, no matter what the situation is. Kantian ethics establishes the idea that good will be based on the action itself rather than outcome or any inclination one may have to perform an act could be good will.
Kant believed that one should never lie because one will never be able to know what the unintended consequences are of said lie. However, Machiavelli believed that it was sometimes necessary to lie because it could strengthen the effect that a ruler has over his people. Lying or not lying has a very large impact on what type of a ruler that a person will be. A lying ruler will have the potential to be a much more powerful ruler because of the deceit that he has accomplished, but he also has a much higher potential to get overthrown if his lies are found out. Kant’s ruler may be much more trust worthy, but there is only so much that a ruler that does as he sees best without
Lying is against Deontologist school of thought because it is irrational when following the categorical imperative and it hijacks autonomous decision making. The maxim followed is: “Lying is always wrong”. We must consider what this means for an argument - when is it attractive to lie, but we still must refrain?