The Moral Permissibility of Lying
Missing Works Cited
The question of what constitutes morality is often asked by philosophers. One might wonder why morality is so important, or why many of us trouble ourselves over determining which actions are moral actions. Mill has given an account of the driving force behind our questionings of morality. He calls this driving force “Conscience,” and from this “mass of feeling which must be broken through in order to do what violates our standard of right,” we have derived our concept of morality (Mill 496). Some people may practice moral thought more often than others, and some people may give no thought to morality at all. However, morality is nevertheless a possibility of human nature, and a very important one. We each have our standards of right and wrong, and through the reasoning of individuals, these standards have helped to govern and shape human interactions to what it is today. No other beings except “rational beings,” as Kant calls us, are able to support this higher capability of reason; therefore, it is important for us to consider cases in which this capability is threatened. Such a case is lying. At first, it seems that lying should not be morally permissible, but the moral theories of Kant and Mill have answered both yes and no on this issue. Furthermore, it is difficult to decide which moral theory provides a better approach to this issue. In this paper, we will first walk through the principles of each moral theory, and then we will consider an example that will explore the strengths and weaknesses of each theory.
Lying is simply an act of not telling the truth, and this definition of lying will be used in future sections of this paper. There are three groups of lies t...
... middle of paper ...
...f utilitarian calculus might indicate that there is something wrong with utilitarianism, since a morally correct action can sometimes go against our conscience, and Mill has called conscience the foundation of morality. This is interesting, because it raises the question of whether we will ever have a moral theory that works in all cases. I believe that human nature is too complex for any consistent moral theory to be written down on a few pages. Perhaps a philosopher might come to do that someday. However for now, questions of morality such as whether lying is permissible should be answered by Kant’s moral theory. In cases where Kantianism cannot supply an answer, likely there is no other moral theory that can. Some questions, under some circumstances, must sometimes remain unanswerable—whether for the greatest good or happiness, or because of our respect for duty.
The patriots are making drawings and paintings were drawn for the Boston massacre that doesn't show accurate events or make us look bad. In document 1(The Boston Massacre (1770)) a patriots, Paul Revere made an engraving that shows that the red coats (the British army) are just firing at the patriots. In the caption it states “… help to increase the Americans’ outrage over the Boston massacre.” The engraving was made to anger the colonist because the British is just firing their guns at the patriots. The Boston massacre happened because the patriots started to throw at thing like snowballs at the red coats. In class (America the Story of Us), the video we saw it showed that the patriots threw something at the loyalist first. The gun fire wasn’t on purpose. It was a mistake and when one gun goes off all the guns goes off. The red coats didn’t want to fight. So the patriots are trying to make us look bad when the British were innocent.
After 9/11 there was a great increase in security nationwide. One major example of this is the number of agencies created as a result of 9/11. Among these agencies include the creation of the TSA (Transportation Security Administration), the DHS (The Department of Homeland Security), the ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement), and lastly the massive advancement of the US Coast Guard. Every one of the budgets of these agencies has doubled since 9/11. The creation of the transportation and security administrations primary goal is to improve the safety of all American Citizens traveling by plane. The TSA started implementing, new policies and new technological advancements.
“What time should we leave? Two hours in advance? Three? Four?” Millions of people ask these questions each year before boarding a plane. Between driving, security, walking to the gate, and getting settled, boarding a plane exhausts travelers. But out of all of these different activities, one frustrates and restrains travelers the most: TSA security. People ask why they need all this security, complain about the inconvenience it causes, and ultimately annoys people to no end. Created after 9/11, Transportation Security Administration, or TSA, nationalized airport security, increased screening duration, and supposedly increases security on flights. However, statistics say these added security measures never come to fruition and potentially cost more lives than they save.
In this paper, I will argue that Kant provides us with a plausible account of morality. To demonstrate that, I will initially offer a main criticism of Kantian moral theory, through explaining Bernard Williams’ charge against it. I will look at his indulgent of the Kantian theory, and then clarify whether I find it objectionable. The second part, I will try to defend Kant’s theory.
Lowering the drinking age to 18 would make a lot of sense in the world. Lowering the drinking age to 18 would make more sense. It would be better for the teens that drink on college campus. The drinking age should be lowered to 18 because you can vote at eighteen, buy tobacco, it’ll reduce the thrill of breaking the law, evidence supports that early introduction of drinking is the safest way to reduce juvenile alcohol abuse, and college people that are not 21 drink also.
To make the lower drinking age work, we will need the help of the parents, the teachers and every role model possible. We need to teach the younger generations the disadvantages of drinking regularly, but we must not prohibit it. We should not embrace it, but not take it away. We must teach the young adult/teen how to deal with the “forbidden fruit”. Teach them how to take a sufficient amount that will not hurt them or others. It is time to approach this situation in a different manner, not to prohibit it, and not to pretend that it is not happening. But by making the safest environment possible for this to be taken care of appropriately, will help significantly. It’s time to try to improve our life quality by equally being able to enjoy what life has to offer.
Before the dreaded day of September 11, 2001, a person or persons flying could be escorted to their gate by family members and loved ones. The thought that a gun would or could be brought on board of an airplane and used as a means to hijack an airplane never crossed a passenger’s mind. Isaac Yeffet said, “After Lockerbie, everyone thought; now we’ve learned the lesson of how to be proactive instead of being reactive. Unfortunately, September 11 came and we know the result. Thousands of people lost their lives. Security totally failed, not at one airport, at three different airports around the country.” Due to the terrorist attacks on 9/11, the United States government decided airport security needed to be updated and become more stringent. These updates included a formation of TSA and Sky Marshalls, tighter security measures, and policy changes.
A major reason behind teenagers drinking is because of the thrills that it entails. Not only does it give teenagers the feeling of being drunk, but it also give them the thrill of breaking the law. According to Ruth Engs, drinking by teenagers is seen as a “forbidden fruit, a badge of rebellion against authority and a symbol of adulthood.” (Why the Drinking Age Should Be Lowered) ProCon.org says that if America changed the drinking age back to 18, then drinking for these youths would become more of a normal activity. They wouldn’t hide it from their parents or law officers, so they would be less prone to injuries or deaths. Then they would be under proper adult supervision, and at a place where they can learn how to drink responsibly (Drinking Age).
When it comes to the discussion over lowering the legal drinking age to eighteen, people express various different ideas and beliefs concerning the issue. Some believe that the drinking age for alcohol should be lowered and others believe that it should stay the same. Those that do believe lowering the drinking age is the best route to take, do have valid points. However, there are others who argue that changing the law will not change things for the better. In the end, one could feel that lowering the drinking age to eighteen could actually show signs of promise in equality for all American adults. Changing this law could decrease the tendency of young adults to break the law, and could train them to have more self-control.
When initially asked about the morality of lying, it is easy for one to condemn it for being wrong or even corrupt. However, those asked are generally guilty of the crime on a daily basis. Lying is, unfortunately, a normal aspect of everyday life. In the essay “The Ways We Lie,” author Stephanie Ericsson makes note of the most common types of lies along with their consequences. By ordering the categories from least to most severe, she expresses the idea that lies enshroud our daily lives to the extent that we can no longer between fact and fiction. To fully bring this argument into perspective, Ericsson utilizes metaphor, rhetorical questions, and allusion.
After more than two thousands years, the same discussion topic is among the philosophers world. Until today, no one can be sure and give an exact answer on the question concerning the foundation of morality. With John Stuart Mill, there will have a whole new view of the concept of morality and its implications and applications.
The terrorist attacks on September 11, 2011 prompted the world to reevaluate and drastically modify airport and airline security. “Four targets had been chosen, all iconic American buildings that would send a clear message of the depth of their hatred for the United States. All four planes crashed, killing all on board—terrorists, crew members, and passengers, along with hundreds who were killed inside the structures, on the ground, and the men and women who ran into collapsing buildings in an effort to try and save others” (Smutz 1). As Jason Villemez said “the decade after the 9/11 attacks reshaped many facets of life in America” (Villemez 1). Before the attacks, people did not think that large scale hostility towards innocent people in our country was remotely possible. Ever since that fateful moment, citizens in America are on their toes every day worrying about another attack happening. United States citizens have had to adapt and change in response to this fear of further terrorist assault on our country. One of the ways they have adapted is by changing their means of security concerning airline travel.
The right to lie predisposes the society to a place where an individual can lie in order to achieve his/her own desires while in complete disregard to other people’s interest. The Kantian principle seeks to ensure that people are treated respectfully as independent, rational, and moral beings. Through such kind of treatment, a person’s sense of dignity is respected and valued, which is an essential element of personhood. The right to lie violates the Kantian principle through deny a person the rational, moral, and independent choice of his/her essential personhood. Therefore, the right to lie should be denied in order to ensure that people are not treated as means of accomplishing some personal goals and desires at the expense of
Kant’s argues that his Categorical Imperative (CI) or, more properly, his multiple versions of the CI are universal in the sense that they apply to everyone at all times. If the CI actually is universal in this sense, it fulfills one of the major traits necessary for a moral principle (Pojman 7). The vagueness of the CI, however, makes its universalizability hard to assess. To simplify the issue, this paper will examine Kant’s response to Benjamin Constant’s objections to telling a murderer the truth. That examination will expose how the CI falls short of its claim as a universal principle through inevitable contradiction and, working from Kant’s own strategy of consequence-based reasoning,
Overall, the ongoing dilemma between Israel and Palestine is slowly coming to a conclusion, where it looks like Palestine is finally going to be declared a state.