“By a lie a man throws away and, as it were, annihilates his dignity as a man.” (Kant) In other words, I believe Kant was saying that there is nothing worse a person can do to themselves than to tell a lie, or withhold information. In the Huckleberry Finn dilemma, Immanuel Kant would believe that Huck’s decision was the wrong one, and lying no matter what the consequences of telling the truth may bring, is an immoral choice. For “an action, to have moral worth, must be done from duty.”(Kant) Huckleberry’s societal duty is to report to the officials with the truth, and at this time in society it is against to law to be helping a black man escape and prevent his persecution. Even though Kant believes that parts of slavery is irrational, the subjective morality in Huck’s case is undeniable, and to not fulfill his duty is irrational, and or immoral. Kant believes that the foundation of slavery is wrong, however only that the contract to bind a human being is irrational not touching that owning a person and treating them as property is wrong.
The Case of Benevolent Lies In “Autonomy and Benevolent Lies” Thomas Hill presents the case of benevolent lies and if they are morally troublesome. Philosophers have been debating the moral difference between a malicious lie, told in order to hurt people, and a benevolent lie. According to Hill benevolent lies are “intended to benefit the person deceived, for no ulterior motives, and they actually succeed in giving comfort without causing main” (Thomas E. Hill). Many argue that benevolent lies are no different from a malicious lie because telling a lie is morally wrong. Others argue benevolent lies and malicious lies differ because of the deliberate intentions.
It might seem that lying to get yourself out of trouble is a situation that makes the lie justified. But I think that is a selfish reason for your own good and that people are thinking less about the society and more about their own good. Lying to get out of trouble is one of those many lies that are not justified.
Most of the cases of regulation that he examines display what Thomas Grey of Stanford calls “practical neutrality,” or an intervention of regulation meant to protect individuals from illocutionary speech acts that can incite violence against them or psychological harm that may be incurred because it is intrinsically the right thing to do (305). This kind of regulation has ties to moral and political values, therefore from a liberal standpoint is unacceptable regulation. Altman agrees that hate speech can cause serious psychological damage to those who are victim to it, but maintains that it is not reason enough to regulate hate speech. Instead, he says that the wrong involved in hate speech is the act of treating another individual as a moral subordinate. The interests of these individuals as well as the value of their life are viewed as being inherently less important than the interests and lives of the reference group.
Kant argues that a lie makes you potentially liable for the consequences or your lie, while truth telling cannot be punished (“Lie” 2). Part of what makes this argument so odd is that it seems to argue for truth telling on consequentialist grounds, rather than the pure obligation to duty he claimed to be the source of moral action. Essentially, he’s saying to tell the truth so you won’t be prosecuted. By justifying in this way, he also opens the door for judging the CI on similar contingent
Kant would be opposed because it is the moral conviction of torture being wrong why one should not undertake in it. One extra wrench is that Kant would not be opposed to the idea of torture, or the ethical stance on the issue, because only the actions would really matter in the real world. Aristotle, on the other hand, or another virtue ethicist is more of an idealist, in which if one COULD perform torture but only chooses not to, that person is a bad person That the circumstances surrounding terroristic acts the need for torture by siting examples and upping the ante by appealing to the fears of a variety of people and their need to protect their lives and
She adopted a broad definition of lying and she defined it as the statement that is made in order to deceive. Bok seems to distance herself from the views of both Kant and Aristotle in relation to the issues of lying. She disagrees with Kant that lying is always wrong and she states that there are situations when lying is necessary especially where it can save a life. On an equal measure she totally disagrees with Aristotle that an individual should balance between the benefits and harms to decide if lying is morally justifiable (Bok 54). He disagrees with the Aristotle approach because it ignores the damages that is done to the liar by trying to cover up such as loss of credibility if the truth is realized, use of a lot of energy in attempt to cover up, damaging of overall trust in the communication in the society and it increases a propensity to lie in the future.
The second is the hypothetical imperative, “… an action is good for some purpose, either possible or actual”. Therefore the motive is subjective as it is adhering to inclinations of achieving a specific outcome. The flaw I find with this train of thought comes in the form of analysis of motives, how can one truly “know” the motives of an action? Kant does address this at the beginning of section two, “We like to flatter ourselves with the false claim to a more noble motive; but in face we can, even by the strictest examination, completely plumb the depths of the secret incentives of our actions (19)” He goes on to say furthermore that one must be a “cool observer” and not take into consideration personal experience (p20). Having reason said to be universal, this means subjective inclinations are not needed to examine actions because ... ... middle of paper ... ...a poor example for the universality of Kant’s theories due to the fact murder is wrong yet countries are constantly going to war.
Simply, moral terms therefore do not describe some objective state of affairs - but are reflections of personal taste and preference. Hence the statement above, which refers to both `doing good' and `doing bad' are not universal imperatives - but reflections of the specific intentions and desires of the contract and the individuals involved. Furthermore this raises the issue, as to whether one can do good or harm anyone who was done so to ... ... middle of paper ... ...ng surprising here: it is tough making it alone and so there are good reasons why humans will do better if they do co-operate with others. But does this prove that co-operation is just another form of selfishness that we care only about our own interests and we co-operate in order to further those interests? In effect an answer to this depends entirely upon the individual; such an ambiguous statement undoubtedly entails a great difference in answers and interpretation.
Even though privacy is very important for everyone and he or she might not want other people to know what is happening in his or her daily life, the authors and the speaker still encouraged the people to always be truthful to others as this quality set up a proper foundation for every kind of relationship to grow. Contrary to the beliefs of the authors and the speaker, I believe that honesty is sometimes but not always the best policy. In today’s world, everyone lies so much that it can potentially be a horrifying scenario of pinocchio. As a society, we are hypocrites in terms of honesty as we denounce dishonesty with our words but praise it in our actions by being ignorant to lies around us. I profess that the decision to whether lie or be honest is solely on the severity of the situation.