Kant On Lying

In her paper, The right to lie: Kant on dealing with evil, Christine Korsgaard offers an example in which lying is morally permissible under one formulation of Kant’s categorical imperative yet not another. From this Korsgaard concludes that Kant’s formulations of Universal Law and of Humanity as an End in Itself are not equivalent, and that one is more strict than the other. In this paper I will present Korsgaard's example and then use her interpretation of the Formulation of Universal Law to evaluate what it would prescribe as the correct responses to three additional cases.

Although Immanuel Kant believes truth should be always be told despite the circumstances, is it really in the best interest of the patient in a medical setting? Physicians have a duty to the patient to take care of their wellbeing and that is why they take the Hippocratic Oath. Sometimes you have to be wishy washy with the truth, but only when it is in the interest of the patient and it depends case by case. Bad news can cause a patient to feel hopeless, fearful, and depressive which may cause other problems in any procedure. Kant also argues that confidentiality gives the patient autonomy and self-determination. Full disclosure would help the patient understand the severity of the case and thus, make better decisions in regards to their health.

The murder was immoral in every sense and those causing the murder should be punished to the fullest extent of the law. We further stipulate that it is unacceptable for a coverup of the murder. Colonel Nathan Jessup defends the practice of lying under an area of lying covered by Plato.

``In criminal law, confession evidence is a prosecutor’s most potent weapon’’ (Kassin, 1997)—“the ‘queen of proofs’ in the law” (Brooks, 2000). Regardless of when in the legal process they occur, statements of confession often provide the most incriminating form of evidence and have been shown to significantly increase the rate of conviction. Legal scholars even argue that a defendant’s confession may be the sole piece of evidence considered during a trial and often guides jurors’ perception of the case (McCormick, 1972). The admission of a false confession can be the deciding point between a suspect’s freedom and their death sentence. To this end, research and analysis of the false confessions-filled Norfolk Four case reveals the

Lying is a virtue that’s known for being bad, as something that can’t have any good come from it. But when it’s the only way for you or cherished ones to be safe and alive, lying becomes a trait that’s not only useful, but life saving. Such as covering for an LGBT person in an unaccepting and bigoted home. Taken to the extremes, this form of covering could also be hiding Jewish families in your own home during WWII in Germany. It’s this ability to deceive and disobey that could mean life or death of an innocent

Firstly, by looking at the first patient, whether she gets a kidney from her father or a “cadaver kidney” , there will be no difference because she needs a kidney nonetheless. The second patient however, cannot agree to give his kidney away because one of the main reasons is that he’s scared and lacks “the courage to make this donation”9. So right at this point, it can be seen that it would be better if the father didn’t give his kidney away because it wouldn’t cause him any happiness, whereas the daughter has two options to gIn everyday life, whether on a personal base or on a professional base, difficult scenarios, or also known as moral dilemmas, are present. Depending on whom the person is or what their belief and value systems are,

Kant argues the it is never permissible to lie as it is immoral. He believes a lie harms humanity and our entire social life. He then states "it is never permissible to lie, even if by lying we could save a friend from being murdered. Although Kant believes it is immoral to lie, it may sometimes be immoral to speak the truth. When speaking the truth it may improve their life but that is not always the case. If we speak the truth to cause pointless embarrassment or harm to one another it is just as bad as lying to them. The truth is sometimes more damaging than useful and will make that person rethink of what they have been doing and a worse life experience. Sometimes the truth should be avoided if it is to cause pointless pain and

If a loved one could be saved by you lying I highly doubt guilt is a feeling that would arise after having saved their

In the “Un-numbing of Cory Willhouse” by Virginis Euwer Wolff, telling the truth is the morally right thing to do and this is shown through the protagonist,

7. Bluffing can be ethical, depending on the circumstances and how it is employed. In fact, Beatty Samuelson, in Essentials of Business Law, points out the “Kantian evasion or plater”, which serves as the basis for deceiving someone in an ethical way. She describes it as “a truthful statement that is nonetheless misleading” (36). For instance, Kant’s example of a murderer coming to our door -asking for someone who is in our own home and who he wants to kill – illustrates an instance when answering questions fully could lead to terrible consequences (36). In that case, Samuelson argues, telling the truth and pointing the killer to the victim would be very costly, so it is better to employ Kant’s evasion principle and reply with a truthful, but misleading statement.

The term maxim as Kant uses it is defined as a personal policy that motivates one’s action. In his book called the Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals, he mentions

Honesty; a responsibility crowned upon each person. In any circumstances, lying is never necessary nor acceptable. There are many pieces of evidence to support this claim in the articles “Rejecting All Lies: Immanuel Kant” by Sissela Bok and “Brad Blanton: Honestly, Tell the Truth” by Barbara Ballinger. Unlike honesty, lying harms one’s worth and mental state.

Lying has become an integral part of life, hiding the ugly truth from ourselves, and others. I lie. You lie. We all lie. We all tell those harmless little lies, little falsehoods that seem to do no damage, that do not hurt anything. And none of us feel the slightest bit guilty about it. But does our lack of guilt illustrate the justification of lies? When someone lies, they can harm themselves, in addition to society and others. In short, “when someone lies, someone loses”(Ericsson 121); This is apparent in works such as Stephanie Ericsson’s essay “The Ways We Lie,” Nathaniel Hawthorne’s novel The Scarlet Letter, and John Steinbeck’s novel East of Eden.

Kant gives an example for why lying is not a right action. He states that there is a man who needs money even though he knows he will not be able to pay it back, his maxim is “’I will borrow money and promise to pay it back, though I know that this will never be done’” (Kant 534). Kant explains that this maxim would not work as a universal law because every banker would not believe someone who says they are going to pay money back, therefore would never give out any loads. He goes on to explain how people should treat each other. He argues that it is not acceptable to treat someone as “a merely as a means but “at the same time as an ends” (Kant 536). He says that to treat someone as a merely a means is to treat them merely as a machine in ones plan and involving them without their ability to consent. He argued that people needed to be treated as an ends meaning that people needed to be able to enter agreements of their own free will and without manipulation (Kant 537). Kant believed that treating people merely as a means was without good will and therefore could never produce a right action.

Savulescu’s argument also has some flaws in regards to his responses to a few possible objections he talked about. One objection that Savulescu responds to is the objection that genes are pleiotropic meaning they have different effects on different parts of the body (The Ethical Life, 454). The example given was that a gene that prompts depression might also be responsible for heightened creativity and productivity (The Ethical Life, 454). Savulescu 's response to that was that we would have to “limit interventions until our knowledge grows” and we would have to do more“adequate research” before expanding the types of interventions (The Ethical Life, 454). The problem with that is that it requires experimenting and testing on children and embryos which would be treating them as a means to an end rather than an end in itself. Kant would agree and say that these children “exist as an end in itself, not merely as a means to be used by this or that will at its discretion” (Kant, 96). Savulescu is suggesting research on children and embryos in order to reach the goal of allowing genetic enhancement. He is using them as a means to his end result. This is a major flaw as Kant would argue that treating people as an end is showing them the respect they deserve while treating them as a means is just dealing with them so that they can help to achieve the person’s goal (Shafer-Landau, 174). Therefore, a child should never be treated as a means to an end to help reach a goal for either