In class we discussed how according to Kant lying is always wrong regardless of whether or not we are doing it for a good reason. Lying to protect someone is still wrong because we could not wish the maxim "it is ok to lie when necessary" as a universal law. This seems reasonable and rational, even if given the choice we might still have a hard time telling the truth if we knew it might cause harm. We can understand the danger in allowing people to lie whenever they felt it "necessary" because we can imagine the chaos and distrust that would follow. No rational being would wish this.
Kant also describes the only absolute good as being the good will. The good will is acting for the sake of duty alone. He says that the will of an act is not inseparable from its consequences and therefore an act of good intention is still good regardless of whether or not the outcome is good.
Keeping this in mind, I would like to return to the idea of the act of lying to protect someone as being wrong. It seems to me that when someone lies to help another, they are acting with good intentions. Therefore it seems that their will is good. They feel they have a duty to protect whoever they are lying for and they act based on this duty. If their will is good and they are acting based on duty, why is their action wrong? I think Kant would say it is because their duty is not to the person they are lying for but to the moral law and therefore they cannot lie even if it is for a seemingly good cause. I understand this but I am not sure I agree with it. I think that maybe this situation could fall under a different maxim "it is ok to lie if the will behind the lie is good". Does this maxim have the same faults as the other? Would it cause the same problems or could it rationally be wished as a universal law? I’m not sure but I am also not sure that telling the truth with the knowledge that it can cause harm is really better than lying with the intention to do good.
I'm interested to see that you returned to this idea of protection, as we mentioned many times in class, for protection (whether of ourselves or of someone else and even in the case of abused "protection") is normally why most lie.
ReplyDeleteI find your argument logically sound, but I feel like you never thought about (or maybe you just didn't have an answer for) situations where the lie, once revealed, causes more harm than the truth would initially. If you tell your girlfriend she looks great in pants that make her look like Urkle, would you rather you had suggested her change and being huffy for an afternoon or she later realize she looks like Urkle and hate you for weeks with a potential break-up looming?
Additionally, I feel like one's will being good doesn't always account for lying being acceptable. Sociopaths are always the exception to the rule, it seems, but I think it could be larger than just the mentally damaged. If someone who believes that his selfish act will truly lead to world peace lies about the act he commits, how does that allign with consequences? I feel like Kant would still believe this person is in the wrong because we can have no idea of what consequences will truly be like.
I think that you are absolutely correct in thinking that Kant would think that the duty is to the community and not that particular person. Kant is utilitarian, so everything is for the benefit of the whole. Lying is wrong no matter what, but the fact that lies to protect individual people do not benefit very many people, generally, makes lies completely unacceptable. I do wonder, though, what Kant would think about lies with reference to a leader of a group of people, political or otherwise. Would the truth about that person always be best for the people who follow him? If that truth creates an otherwise unwarranted loss of faith in that ruler, it almost certainly was not beneficial to those followers.
ReplyDeleteAubrey
I think this is a very intriguing subject. It does seem that lying (or anything, really) for the sake of protecting or helping another should be good. I also really like your proposition that, since it is done with good intent, it should not be immoral. However, that begins a slippery slope, which leads to the question of whether murder, committed with good intent, is also acceptable. I'm not entirely sure, but I think that in Kant's view, even as slight a modifier as "this is morally good only if done with good intent" would be seen as circumstantial and thus not acceptable as a universal law.
ReplyDeletePersonally, however, I do feel that anything done with true good intent remains good, no matter the act.