Introduction
Lying has long been considered one of the main issues tackled by philosophers. Different philosophic theories have diverse views on this concept and, over the years, the notion has acquired bitter opponents as well as staunch supporters. From a Kantian perspective, lying is impermissible since it violates the basic Kantian postulate of treating others as one wants to be treated himself or herself. Moreover, lying runs in contrast with Kant’s assertion that a person should choose a way of behavior through the prism of another person’s perception.
Argument
According to Kant, the man in himself is the highest value. Each person has a notion of his or her self-worth, which they protect from any encroachments (Kouvelakis). However, any other person has a sense of self-worth too. Therefore, no ill-treatment can be justified in relation to another human being since it would seriously upset his or her feeling of self-worth. Lying as an example of disrespect and deceit is totally unacceptable in Kantian theory because it contradicts the principle of equal treatment for all people and can seriously damage another person’s pride and self-respect.
As a human being, a person is not capable of being a measure of good and evil. There is no perfect person who could be the embodiment of these qualities. Consequently, Kant believed that the concepts of good and evil were bestowed on men by God (Kouvelakis). Seen as an ideal and perfection, God would have never approved the idea of lying. Therefore, people who perceive God as moral guidance should discard this idea as well.
Finally, Kant’s theory presupposes that when choosing how to act, a person should take into account not only his or her desires but also universal human rules, which are called categorical imperative. This categorical imperative is seen as an absolute moral requirement, consisting of a person’s awareness of his duty to himself and other people, based on free and reasonable will (Kouvelakis). A person’s duty to others consists in behaving in a moral way, which excludes all forms of lying and deception. Thus, in Kantian theory, lying is unacceptable because it contradicts the concept of good bestowed upon men by God, violates the principle of treating others as one wants himself or herself to be treated, and, eventually, damages other persons’ feelings of self-worth.
Objections to the Argument
Other philosophical theories see the concept of lying differently and raise objections to Kantian arguments. Thus, the proponents of utilitarianism believe that to determine whether an action is good or evil, one should consider whether an action serves to cause the greatest possible good to a large number of people (Kouvelakis). Regarding lying in this context, it can be justified, provided that it brings more good than evil to a large number of people. For example, lying to terminally ill patients that they have a long life to live may be justified in this context as it alleviates people’s suffering, relieving them of despair and uselessness they may otherwise experience.
Hedonism, championed by the classics of utilitarianism Bentham and Mill, is the view according to which the action is good if it brings pleasure or happiness. Within this concept, lying is acceptable if, as a result of lies people get happier. Thus, a child may lie that he or she made homework to get a piece of cake, which would increase his or her happiness. From the perspective of hedonism, this action will be justified.
Pragmatism assumes that the truth of judgments can only be guaranteed by their practicality. Ideas are useful when they are warranted and “fit” some problematic situation, like a key fits a lock (Kouvelakis). In this sense, lying may be warranted when it serves to solve some problem. For example, when a company wants to hire a much-needed specialist and lies about a salary to urge him or her to sign a one-year contract, it can be seen as warranted action since it helps to solve the problematic situation for the company.
Opponents of Kantian theory argue against the impermissible character of lying based on the concept of universal rules set by God as unwarranted and having no scientific justification. The principle of treating others as one wants himself or herself to be treated that prohibits lying does not consider the increase or decline in happiness or the pragmatic usefulness of the action; therefore, it may be challenged. Finally, lying may not damage another person’s feeling of self-worth, provided it is done to alleviate trouble or increase happiness. To these arguments, the proponents of Kantian theory may respond that people in their actions must be guided by higher principles since lying, good and useful for one person, may not be good and useful for others. Therefore, the balance of happiness or usefulness cannot be the measure to justify lying.
Conclusion
In conclusion, I have examined Kant’s argument that finds lying impermissible and tried to show how he defends his position. To do that, I have considered objections against his view and refuted them using his stances. Though Kant’s position may be arguably challenged, we cannot deny that the notion of moral responsibility in relation to the impossibility of lying is a strong one and people must be guided by the moral code when considering lying as a solution to their problems. Lying is a controversial issue, and further examination of other theories not covered in this work may be instrumental in determining whether it can be justified in certain situations.
Work Cited
Kouvelakis, Stathis. Philosophy and revolution: from Kant to Marx. Verso Books, 2018.