Should we tell lies?
Statement of Intent: I will be arguing that we should be able to tell lies in particular unique situations if our
practical wisdom leads us to that conclusion. Hence I will be showing that the virtue ethicist’s account of
stealing is the most significant. Firstly, I will show that Kantian Ethics account of lying is the least
convincing due to the inevitable clash of duties and extreme rigidity. Next I will show that utilitarianism
whilst doing a better job then Kantian Ethics still falls short as it fails to identify properly what is wrong
with lying and fails to acknowledge the moral significance of partiality when it comes to lying. Hence I will
show that because virtue ethics is able to accommodate for both of those limitations and also reach the
conclusion that lying is acceptable in certain occasions it is the best theory.
RICE 1:
R: Kantian Ethics leads to a clash of duties. Unlike the other theories Kantian Ethics is unable to adapt to
scenarios as in doing so is unrealistic to human behaviour in that it prohibits it completely and it is the
worse account of whether we should lie. We should allow for cases for example, if you need to lie about
the whereabouts of someone to save a life ie Kant's Axe Murder’s Example. . Whilst it is an extreme case,
it still follows that there will be a clash of duties as you can’t lie but you also need to save a life but Kant
would have to say you shouldn’t lie regardless. There will be many cases where there is a clash of duties
I: If we understood Kantian Ethics we will find that a real conflict of duties can never occur. Consider the
example stated - it is a false dichotomy - you could simply tell the friend that the other friend told you to
keep it a secret and therefore you won’t tell them and so you were never compelled to lie and so there is
no conflict of duties. There appeared to be a conflict because we misunderstood what at least one duty
required of us. Because of duties are absolute we have to be careful when formulating them to avoid them
conflict. Rather then having just ‘don’t lie’ as a duty our duty could be ‘don’t lie unless you have to save a
life’ which avoids conflict. Therefore issue is resolved and you can always do your absolute duty
C: But in reality, it is much more realistic and simplistic to say that most duties are not absolute rather then
forcing them to be absolute and formulating absolute duties carefully. For instance considering the same
scenario we still have the duty to not lie but because it would not be absolute, it would be steal eg to save
a life. Less important duties can give way to more important ones and so if there is such ‘conflict’ one will
give way and no longer be a duty in that situation. This is more convincing as it is more realistic and
adaptable to scenarios - a severe lacking of Kantian Ethics in general.
E: Therefor Kant fails to accommodate for the problem of duties clashing and most notably it shows that
absolute duties is not the ways to understand morals. Therefore lying is not a perfect duty and so
utilitarianism is correct in allowing some occasions when it’s allowed.
RICE 2:
R: Utilitarianism does not give the best account of whether we should steal or not. This is because of the
issue of calculation. Whist's Kant’s theory is incorrect the response to consequentialism does ring true in
that we may not know the consequences. For example if, if we lied to the axe murderer and said that the
friends was outside and the friend just happened to have gone outside then we have led the axe murder
straight into the friend and the friend dies. Or even a more simpler example, a friend asks you if her dress
is nice you don’t want to hurt her feelings so you lie but in reality she may have not been hurt and in fact
improved on her style for the better in the long term and was happier that you were honest to her. We are
not certain of the consequences and therefore we shouldn’t assume we know the consequences and so
we can’t accurately calculate the utility gained if we aren’t sure of the consequences. If the utilitarian’s
justification for lying is that the consequences generate maximum utility for all parties involved then it
must show that realistically, consequences are accurate. Happiness doesn't have a metric, different
people have subjective views on intensity, extent, purity etc and so how the consequence is perceived
Should we tell lies? 1
Statement of Intent: I will be arguing that we should be able to tell lies in particular unique situations if our
practical wisdom leads us to that conclusion. Hence I will be showing that the virtue ethicist’s account of
stealing is the most significant. Firstly, I will show that Kantian Ethics account of lying is the least
convincing due to the inevitable clash of duties and extreme rigidity. Next I will show that utilitarianism
whilst doing a better job then Kantian Ethics still falls short as it fails to identify properly what is wrong
with lying and fails to acknowledge the moral significance of partiality when it comes to lying. Hence I will
show that because virtue ethics is able to accommodate for both of those limitations and also reach the
conclusion that lying is acceptable in certain occasions it is the best theory.
RICE 1:
R: Kantian Ethics leads to a clash of duties. Unlike the other theories Kantian Ethics is unable to adapt to
scenarios as in doing so is unrealistic to human behaviour in that it prohibits it completely and it is the
worse account of whether we should lie. We should allow for cases for example, if you need to lie about
the whereabouts of someone to save a life ie Kant's Axe Murder’s Example. . Whilst it is an extreme case,
it still follows that there will be a clash of duties as you can’t lie but you also need to save a life but Kant
would have to say you shouldn’t lie regardless. There will be many cases where there is a clash of duties
I: If we understood Kantian Ethics we will find that a real conflict of duties can never occur. Consider the
example stated - it is a false dichotomy - you could simply tell the friend that the other friend told you to
keep it a secret and therefore you won’t tell them and so you were never compelled to lie and so there is
no conflict of duties. There appeared to be a conflict because we misunderstood what at least one duty
required of us. Because of duties are absolute we have to be careful when formulating them to avoid them
conflict. Rather then having just ‘don’t lie’ as a duty our duty could be ‘don’t lie unless you have to save a
life’ which avoids conflict. Therefore issue is resolved and you can always do your absolute duty
C: But in reality, it is much more realistic and simplistic to say that most duties are not absolute rather then
forcing them to be absolute and formulating absolute duties carefully. For instance considering the same
scenario we still have the duty to not lie but because it would not be absolute, it would be steal eg to save
a life. Less important duties can give way to more important ones and so if there is such ‘conflict’ one will
give way and no longer be a duty in that situation. This is more convincing as it is more realistic and
adaptable to scenarios - a severe lacking of Kantian Ethics in general.
E: Therefor Kant fails to accommodate for the problem of duties clashing and most notably it shows that
absolute duties is not the ways to understand morals. Therefore lying is not a perfect duty and so
utilitarianism is correct in allowing some occasions when it’s allowed.
RICE 2:
R: Utilitarianism does not give the best account of whether we should steal or not. This is because of the
issue of calculation. Whist's Kant’s theory is incorrect the response to consequentialism does ring true in
that we may not know the consequences. For example if, if we lied to the axe murderer and said that the
friends was outside and the friend just happened to have gone outside then we have led the axe murder
straight into the friend and the friend dies. Or even a more simpler example, a friend asks you if her dress
is nice you don’t want to hurt her feelings so you lie but in reality she may have not been hurt and in fact
improved on her style for the better in the long term and was happier that you were honest to her. We are
not certain of the consequences and therefore we shouldn’t assume we know the consequences and so
we can’t accurately calculate the utility gained if we aren’t sure of the consequences. If the utilitarian’s
justification for lying is that the consequences generate maximum utility for all parties involved then it
must show that realistically, consequences are accurate. Happiness doesn't have a metric, different
people have subjective views on intensity, extent, purity etc and so how the consequence is perceived
Should we tell lies? 1
