Can Lying be Justified/Moral?

In today’s class we discussed Kant and his belief that there are certain ‘laws’ that we all must follow in order to be considered moral human beings. His belief is that the ‘categorical imperative,’ or what we must always do, consists of three main principles: first, act only in such a way that you could will the maxim of your actions as universal law. Second, act only in such a way that you treat humanity (within yourself or others), never simply as a means, but always as an end-in-itself. Finally, act in accordance with the maxims of a member giving universal laws for a merely possible kingdom of ends. One can use these principles as a way to answer the question “what ought I to do?” (Richards)

Kant believes that this categorical imperative is “the fundamental, universal and indisputable moral truth of the universe, and as such it is the touchstone for judging whether our actions are good, or not.” (Richards) An example that we discussed in class was showing up to class on time. Since all of the students came to [or tried to] come to class on time, they unconsciously or consciously are saying that this action is a universal law or even that it can qualify as a universal law. Since it follows the first principle, it can be considered a good action. On the other hand, lying is generally considered an action that is “bad” (Richards) or immoral. No one believes that lying should be a universal law; if they did then the whole world would collapse.

            There are some problems that arise when we talk about Kantian philosophy, for example, is it moral to tell a lie if telling the truth is going to hurt someone? The classic example of this would be Nazis searching for Anne Frank and her family. If a Nazi soldier came to their house and asked if there were any Jews then wouldn’t it be morally right for the owner of the house to lie? If they didn’t lie then there would be a chance that Anne Frank and her family dies. Would it be moral to lie in that case? Many people would say that it is perfectly fine to lie in that instance. Kant would definitely disagree. He would say that any type of lying is morally wrong and that lying goes against the first principle of the categorical imperative. Why does he believe that? It’s because we live in a world that operates on the notion that everyone tells the truth; but if everyone lies when they wanted to then we would end up in a situation where we wouldn’t be able to trust anyone. Society is built upon the notion that everyone tells the truth; when you are at a supermarket and you are looking for watermelon to buy, you expect to buy a watermelon that hasn’t been de-juiced with a syringe; you expect to get a full juicy watermelon. But if we did live in a world where it was okay to lie then no one would believe a liar anyway, so it is irrational to lie. “If we want to tell lies, then other people should be allowed to tell lies, but then if everyone else is telling lies… you get the picture!” (Richards) Kant believes that since we live in a world where communal interactions are imperative, we can’t “live as we please without due regard and respect for others.” (Richards) We must act as we want others to act. 

Richards, Stephen. "That Religious Studies Website." The Categorical Imperative (Immanuel Kant). N.p., n.d. Web. 14 Sept. 2012. <http://www.thatreligiousstudieswebsite.com/Ethics/Moral_Theory/Deontology/categorical_imperative_kant.php>.