By Robert C. Solomon lie? Common sense surely says Yes, sometimes. But legions o
ID: 3457589 • Letter: B
Question
By Robert C. Solomon lie? Common sense surely says Yes, sometimes. But legions of philosophers and other right to Is it ever moralists have answered "No," and then tried to always wrong make sense of this indefensible position. Insisting that lyi aas Thomas Aquinas and Immanuel Kant did, for example- appeals to our desire for absolutes what about the example from freshman philosophy: The Nazis come to your door asking if family. You are. Should you say "No"? Or, on a mundane level, your spouse or lover new hairdo and asks, "Do you like it?" Does morality dictate that you ruin the walks in with an utterly silly evening? Or can you, in both cases, finesse the answer, not lying but not telling the avoiding an answer to the question? If a person would lie about one thing, does it follow that he or she would lie about another? That depends demand for honesty is contextual. It depends witness against our neighbor. Perjury, we can agree, is wrong: The consequences can be awful: In a trial, a . The on what the truth concerns. The Bible tells us not to bear false jury's assumption that a person who lies about one thng wll le about another is perfectly justified. But it seems to me absolutely crucial to distinguish here between public and private life. Perjury, by its very nature, is public, as is politics. Sex, with a few obvious exceptions, is part of our private life. And just about everyone is less than forthright about sex. Lying about sex, while it may have grave significance for people in an intimate relationship, has nothing to do with one's public credibility. Indeed, when publicly asked a rudely inappropriate question about one's private (adult, consensual) sex life, it seems to me not only natural but even obligatory to lie, finesse, or refuse to answer Nietzsche once asked, "Why must we have truth at any cost, anyway2" It was an odd question, coming from the philosopher who prided himself, above all, on his brutal honesty, and it is an obscene question, in any case, for a profession that sees itself as seeking solely the truth. Even philosophers who challenge the very idea of truth not just Nietzsche and the Buddhist Nagarajuna, but also Jacques Derrida and Richard Rorty - are unforgiving when it comes to deception, misrepresentation, and "creative misreadings," at least of their own work. Philosophers in general insist on the truth even if they do not believe in "the Truth." They despise deception and ridicule self-deception. The Australian philosopher Tony Coady probably speaks for most philosophers when he writes, "Dishonesty has always been perceived in our culture, and in all cultures but the most bizarre, as a central human vice." But he adds, "we should note that this perception is consistent with a certain hesitancy about what constitutes and with the more than sneaking suspicion that there might be a number of contexts in which lying is actualy justified." Plato defended "the noble lie" and the English ethicist Henry Sidgwick suggested that a "high- minded lie" in the direction of humility might do us all a great deal of good. Not all untruths are malicious. Telling the truth can complicate or destroy social relationships. It can undermine precious collective myths. Honesty can be cruel. Sometimes, deception is not a vice but a social virtue, and systematic deception is an essential part of the order of the (social) world. In many countries Japan and Western Samoa, for example - social harmony is valued far more than truthfulness as such. To tell another person what he or she wants to hear, rather than what one might actually feel or believe, is not only permitted but expected.Explanation / Answer
The primary commence of this talk in "Is Lying for the Greater Good Ethical?"
Once in a while lying could be the more proper moral reaction to a specific clash. For instance, if your mate or dear companion says, "How would I look in my new outfit?" or "Did I put on weight amid my get-away?" or maybe "How would you like my new hair style?" One may be constrained to change reality to not outrage or hurt the sentiments of somebody who matters to you.
Total good guidelines, for example, "never lie" may be the moral approach you support. A celebrated illustration incorporates the issue offered by Immanuel Kant who asks what you ought to do in the event that somebody running by with a weapon inquires as to whether you have seen somebody fleeing minutes back and in what bearing they were heading. Coming clean may bring about death or extreme damage while lying may spare an existence. A flat out good govern, for example, dependably come clean, would bring about being straightforward paying little mind to the outcomes. Other moral methodologies, for example, the benefit of sparing life, sympathy for others, et cetera may propose that lying is in reality the privilege moral activity.
In this way, while one can contend if lying is moral from numerous edges, I may recommend that if white lies help to oversee sound connections and support others at that point lying could be the moral activity all things considered. With regards to settling on moral choices we have to adjust the upsides and downsides of utilizing different ways to deal with morals keeping in mind the end goal to make sense of what the best activity truly is. Once in a while unique moral methodologies strife. When they do, certain esteems or methodologies must trump others. In this way, empathy may trump trustworthiness every so often.
Related Questions
Navigate
Integrity-first tutoring: explanations and feedback only — we do not complete graded work. Learn more.