The culture of lying is ingrained in the entire world. It is almost universally accepted and a part of every culture. Paradoxically, it’s also condemned. Even the most important religions, laws, and social norms warn against lying. Immanuelkant and other philosophers have argued that lying is wrong. They did so within the framework of deontology which is the focus on duty or morals. His fundamental idea was universalization determines whether an action is ethical or not. However, other great minds were against his ideas. John Stuart Mills’ philosophy revolved around utilitarianism. This is the belief that the best for society can be achieved even at the cost of a minority. The morality of lying is determined by the perspective of both parties.
There are many ways to tell a lie. Lies are different for each class of society. The “white lies” are usually small, unimportant and without real consequences. Other lies are more grave, and can even tear families apart or countries apart. It can seem that a person is compelled to lie by their morals, or that they are obligated to maintain peace. Or that reason itself is a lie. Immanuelkant’s view on reason was that “… Its true function is to produce goodwill, not just for the sake of other ends, or as an aid, but simply as something good. How can someone know if lying is wrong, when their reasoning says it’s beneficial? Kant believes that rationality comes from reason. Kant also argues that the ability to think logically and to choose without emotion is a key to being rational. One can argue that one should not rely on their reason to decide if something is morally right or wrong. Kant may have said that the reason itself must be a virtue and not an end in itself, but a rational person will find it difficult to separate themselves from any equation in which they are involved. However, the truth does not come out in all cases. Kant’s statement that a falsehood that is only for your benefit or that harms someone else is not moral could be taken as Kant saying this. It is not moral to lie in order to hurt someone else or only benefit yourself. The truth should never be lied.
With solely-self-beneficial lies being branded unethical, the question of how one can discern between other rational choices of when lying is right or wrong comes into play. Kant’s answer is also relevant. In a hypothetical situation, A helps B get home. In one example, two people walk home after a night out. A is walking ahead and appears to be a bit lost. B then asks A if A has been drinking. A lies, but says that it’s not true. They still get home safely. If A were to lie and drive home, then this would be considered immoral, unethical, as well as dangerous for both parties. Kant says in “Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals,” “I wonder if I would be satisfied if my maxim (to escape a situation through an untruthful pledge) became a universal law, both for myself and for others )…”” (Kant, 739) Kant is stating that, according to him, a moral basis for lying comes from an idea that an act must be good and universal. It is important that this action can be performed in any situation. If you cannot do this every time possible, it’s not universally ethical. Kant believes that a falsehood is always bad. The maxim that a lie is always wrong cannot be applied to a person because it would be incorrect in certain situations. Even if the lie is as innocent as saying you agree with someone even though you don’t, it must be compared to lying in general. Kant seems to be against lying in general. Kant would be against any form of lying that only benefits oneself as a way to reach a goal. Along these lines, it would seem that no lie is universal. In truth, it is difficult to imagine how a community could survive or thrive if its patrons knew that their fellow citizens were lying. It would collapse, as no group can be united if the truth is not present. According to Kant, lying is always wrong.
But Kant is wrong. Instead of universalization, imagine simply that ninety-nine-point-nine percent of all people prosper from feeling ethically able to lie. One percent might suffer. They could feel they cannot be trusted or that no-one can really trust them. This is only a small portion. This society is generally happy. This society thrives, grows and is doing very well. The truth is that people do not always lie, but they don’t have to. It can be beneficial to a group or nation to tell a lie. John Wilkes Booth’s murderer, whether he was captured or not before his death is a lie that has been debated throughout American History. This country has told generations that Booth was cornered in a barn and murdered. The lie was told to generations of Americans, making them feel safer. This also gave closure to the entire nation. Historians and Booth’s descendents believe that Booth escaped and lived his life. It is a lie known by millions, which harms the family history and historians of that time. It was true that it helped the majority. John Stuart Mills stated that “according to the principle of greatest happiness…the result [consequence] human action is necessarily the standard morality” (PPW2-3). This means that if a greater number of people is happy or content, then the action is moral. This means a group’s disadvantage, or harm is less important because the majority matters. Mills’ perspective would suggest that lying can be moral at times. Mills’ scope is much broader than Kant. Mills believes that a lie can only be moral if it is more beneficial than harmful. Mills would find it immoral if a leader lied to justify the war his country is going to. This would lead to unnecessary death. But if the leader lies to stop a war it will save more lives than it harms. A lie should only be told if it benefits others. Kant’s base of reason would agree with the idea that one should act ethically if their duty or mental generalized morality benefits many people. Kant would agree with Mills that it is good to help others. Mills has a majority-rule outlook, which may make it seem cold to minorities. However, this is because Mills wants the best for everyone.
They would disagree with each other’s ideas. Kant will strongly protest any ideal that does not allow for maxims or actions to be universalized. Kant would consider it immoral to punish a small group for an act. He would simply not agree to it. Mills, too, would be against universalization. A lie that can benefit the majority of people has accomplished its task. It does not need to please everyone all the time. Both ideologies are incompatible. Thus a question remains. Is ever lying wrong? Mills says that lying can only be wrong if you do not think it is in the best interest of the majority. Kant believes that lying can only be wrong if you benefit yourself and is not universal. This pondering raises a deeper question, which is whether lying and truth are both wrong.
If telling the truth is moral, then lying must also be. The truth is moral too if, as shown, lying is moral under certain conditions. The morality of lying and telling the truth is defined by a deeper outline. Intent. As Thomas M. Scanlon says. “When a person believes their actions are likely to harm, if they are impermissible it is not due to the agent’s beliefs but because there were, under these circumstances, reasonable grounds to believe that this harm could occur.” (Scanlon 838) If a person knows that what they’re doing is bad, then they know they will be allowing it to happen if they continue with their actions. Mills is broad in his definition of morality, while Kant is narrow. They both have guidelines that make lying immoral or too permissible. Intent is the best way to determine if a lie would be morally acceptable. For a liar who cannot imagine the harms their lie could cause and yet it would hurt more than benefit people, it doesn’t make sense to label them unethical. Is it immoral if someone intends to lie morally every time but is wrong? This means that morality is not a part of lying. The lie can be words that are spoken or printed on paper, and it could have many different effects on its recipients. The lie is defined by what the person who created it intends to be.
Lies are neither immoral nor moral. Lying is an amoral act, regardless of theories or ideologies. It does not sum up to being good or bad. The truth is simply what it truly is. As stated previously, it is a communication method that has been used in every society the human race has created and destroyed. The intent behind the lie defines the lie. It is only when the liar’s intent is to harm others and not just themselves that it becomes a morally right act. To answer the question: Is lying wrong at all? This is the answer to the question, is lying ever wrong?
Author
