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).
…show more content…
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.
…show more content…
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
Richard Gunderman asks the question, "Isn 't there something inherently wrong with lying, and “in his article” Is Lying Bad for Us?" Similarly, Stephanie Ericsson states, "Sure I lie, but it doesn 't hurt anything. Or does it?" in her essay, "The Ways We Lie.” Both Gunderman and Ericsson hold strong opinions in regards to lying and they appeal to their audience by incorporating personal experiences as well as references to answer the questions that so many long to confirm.
In “The Ways We Lie”, Ericsson describes the different types of lies: white lie, facades, ignoring
Utilitarian ethics focuses on the maximizing the pleasure and the minimizing the extent of pain. The biggest factor to note here is that Utilitarian ethics are not act driven, but rather they focus completely on the consequences of an action. If lying in a situation was to create more Good than telling the truth, then by these ethics, lying is not only acceptable but the right thing to do (Philosophy- Ethics).
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...
Psychological egocentrism states that people engage in interactions with other to satisfy their self-interest. In the example I used above the psychological egoist would be the one to share the resources to further improve their chances of survival that way. The ethical egoist would rather hog the supplies to improve his well-being. The different point of view both these types of egoisms share is pronounced very well. The psychological egotist would view the choice of helping the other human as part of helping themselves and their well-being. On the other hand, ethical egoist would have a view that shows that you prioritize yourself and only you even if it causes harm to others. This clearly states the only affair that matters to a person is their well-being. Psychological egoism is a theory based on years of researching individuals and seeing the choices they make to help their
Psychological Egoism by Russ Shafer-Landau was written to argue against arguments that support the idea of psychological egoism. The argument from Our Strongest Desires follows a hypothetical syllogism. It states:
The interests of others are best promoted if each of us adopts the policy of pursuing our own interests
Egoism is a teleological theory of ethics that sets the ultimate criterion of morality in some nonmoral value (i.e. happiness or welfare) that results from acts (Pojman 276). It is contrasted with altruism, which is the view that one's actions ought to further the interests or good of other people, ideally to the exclusion of one's own interests (Pojman 272). This essay will explain the relation between psychological egoism and ethical egoism. It will examine how someone who believes in psychological egoism explains the apparent instances of altruism. And it will discuss some arguments in favor of universal ethical egoism, and exam Pojman's critque of arguments for and against universal ethical egoism.
Lying is an issue that has been debated on for a long time. Some people believe that lying is sometimes ok in certain circumstances. Some people believe lying is always acceptable. In contrast, some believe lying is always bad. Keeping all other’s opinions in mind, I believe that lying is a deficient way of solving problems and is a bad thing. I claim that only certain situations allow the usage of lies and that otherwise, lying is bad. Dishonesty is bad because it makes it harder to serve justice, harms the liar individually, and messes up records. Furthermore, it should only be said to protect someone from grave danger.
In the article, “The Truth about Lies and the First Amendment,” the author Ken Paulson writes to illustrate an important point regarding Xavier Alvarez, who was arrested and charged with a criminal offense for lying about being a recipient of the prestigious medal of honor award, and free speech: that the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with its findings that the first amendment also protects Xavier Alvarez’s lies from legal, governmental prosecution.
The principle of utility influences people to act on the wrong terms and encourages its followers to make decisions solely based on what produces the best results. Consequentialists, Jeremy Bentham and John Stewart Mill believe that it doesn’t matter why a person does something or what motivates them to do so; but rather they think that the outcome is the most important factor in decision making. These two Utilitarian philosophers concluded that the greatest form of good in society was happiness, and that the absence of pain and the presence of pleasure should always be one’s number one priority and ultimately always one’s end goal. Encouraging members
Philosophy has been a field of study for centuries. Some philosophers have developed ways to determine what is ethical and what is not. This has led to several normative ethical theories describing how people are ought to live a moral life. Some of the most prominent of these theories have set the criteria for morality in very unique and peculiar ways. Two of which are the ethical egoistic theory and the utilitarian theory, each seeing morality in its own distinctive way. By comparing and contrasting the view these theories pose on morality and by analyze how each stands in some of the world’s most modern day issues, one can understand why utilitarianism is a
Everyday people are faced with situations that they have to weigh their emotions out and decide if what their actions agree with their own internal moral code. Everyone faces challenges where they want to be successful, but at the same time want to be virtuous. To be virtuous means to have a morally good character. (Webster Dictionary) These issues are something that philosophers have been attempting to find the ethically correct answer to for centuries. One ethical dilemma that people are faced with daily is lying. A lie is an intentional false statement. Many people feel the need to lie to make themselves feel better or to get out of something they have done wrong. It is clear that in those situations it is morally wrong to lie, but what
Lying is morally forbidden under any and all circumstances. These are words that Immanuel Kant believed and preached. Kant did not believe a person should lie even if good consequences could result from the lie. According to Kant we are morally obligated to be honest. He was a man who was set in his beliefs and lying was simply not tolerated. Kant did not believe that there was any morally correct way to lie. He held that even in extreme cases of an “Inquiring Murderer” we must still tell the truth. Even if lying to that “Inquiring Murderer” could save someone’s life, telling the truth is the morally right thing to do.
Ethical egoism can be a well-debated topic about the true intention of an individual when he or she makes an ethical decision. Max Stirner brings up a very intriguing perspective in writing, The Ego and its Own, regarding ethical egoism. After reading his writing some questions are posed. For example, are human beings at the bottom? Following Wiggins and Putnam, can we rise above our egoism and truly be altruistic? And finally, if we are something, do we have the capacity to rise to a level that we can criticize and transcend our nature? These questions try to establish whether or not we are simple humans, bound to our intrinsic nature, or far more intellectually advanced than we allow ourselves to be.