Kant and the Lie

The lie in philosophy: 3 approaches
Emmanuel Kant deals with the lie in his short essay titled "An alleged right to lie by humanity, in response to the text of Benjamin Constant (Political Reactions), which defends a right to lie by humanity. Before discussing the Kantian arguments, let us resume Constant's thesis:

"The moral principle that to say the truth is a duty, if it were taken in an absolute and isolated way, would make any society impossible [...]. To tell the truth is a duty. What is a duty? The idea of ​​duty is inseparable from that of rights: a duty is what in one being corresponds to the rights of another. Where there are no rights, there are no homework. To say the truth is therefore only a duty to those who are entitled to the truth. But no man has the right to the truth that harms others. "

Against Constant, Kant asserts that lies are always morally wrong, that lies are never right. This is based on a conception of subjectivity. Indeed, he argues that all people are born with an "intrinsic value" that he calls human dignity. This dignity comes from the fact that humans are rational agents, able to take their own decisions autonomously.

Thus, according to Kant, lies are doubly reprehensible:

• the lie corrupts the moral capacity of the man

• it prevents others from acting rationally and freely, in other words, lying calls into question the dignity of others.

Kant's ethics, his moral formalism, led him to refute everything to lie. A second perspective, that of the ethics of virtues, also argues that lies are morally reprehensible, but less strictly than Kant. The moralists of virtue insist more on the development of the qualities of the subjects than on their intentions or the respect of a formal rule. According to them, honesty is a virtue that must be cultivated because it is a foundation on which man can support his moral development.

Utilitarianism and lies:
According to a third perspective, utilitarianism, lies or truth must be judged by a calculation of disadvantages and advantages. In other words, if a lie maximizes the benefits of a situation, the utilitarian finds it moral to lie, the worse it would be even immoral not to lie. The weak point of utilitarian ethics is in the estimation of the consequences of the lie, on which the individual can be mistaken. But it is interesting to note that utilitarianism considers lying as an option always possible. For example, the case of the doctor lying to his patient about his chances of survival, thinking that he will allow him to enjoy the remaining time, refers to this utilitarian logic.

thanks for reading my article if you liked upvote resteem