Lewis Vaughn's Lie: A Morally Permissible Lie

A Morally Permissible Lie Suppose a person finds himself in a situation where he can merely bend the truth a bit for his own personal gain; he is at a very low risk of being caught; and even if he does get caught, there will be little to no consequences for his actions. Would it be morally permissible to lie in this situation? Conventional moral judgments may immediately throw up a red flag, signaling that this action is immoral because lying is wrong. The answer is not quite as clear as it seems.

Enter the world of ethics. More specifically, take a look at a particular moral theory called ethical egoism. Lewis Vaughn defines ethical egoism as, “ . . . the theory that the right action is the one that advances one’s own best interests” (78).

Within the frame of ethical egoism, this lie for her own personal gain would be morally permissible.

From the perspective of ethical egoism, the author acted permissibly because the discounted rate brought about more good than evil. Vaughn notes that, “Ethical egoism says that one’s only moral duty is to promote the most favorable balance of good over evil for oneself”

(78). When the author made the decision to lie on the application, she benefitted herself by obtaining a discount on her membership. There is a very low chance of her being caught. Even if she were caught, the consequences would have been nearly non-existent. In other words, she is

Hudson 2 saving herself money on the membership, which brings her happiness, all while taking very little risk of bringing herself any pain. The risk was far from out-weighing the gain.

Another reason an ethical egoist would find her lie to be morally permissible is because of the gain the author makes from the fact that her friend benefits from the lie as well. Vaughn states that ethical egoists, “ . . . also have to take into account their interactions with others.

She will save money on the membership, which brings about happiness in her life. This, in turn, will benefit the author because it builds more of a positive relationship with her friend.

From a different perspective, an ethical egoist could go as far as to say that the author’s other option to not lie would, in fact, not be morally permissive. Vaughn tells us that, “Act- egoism says that to determine a right action, you must apply the egoistic principle to individual acts. Act A is preferable to Act B because it promotes your self-interest better” (78). Basically, an egoist would see the author not lying in this situation as non-moral because if the author decides to not lie, she would then have to pay a higher rate for her membership and she would miss out on the opportunity to provide a benefit for her friend as well.

Given the moral dilemma that the unnamed author faced and given the moral frame of ethical egoism, it would appear that the author acted in an ethical manor. By telling the lie, the author brought about good for herself by saving money. She was also able to save her friend money as well, which could possibly strengthen the friendship between the two, which, in