The concept of utilitarianism states that the correctness of actions is determined by their usefulness. Any action must provide the most significant benefit to the largest number of stakeholders or, simply put, people (Scarre, 2020). That is, unlike deontological ethical theories, utilitarianism is a teleological theory, where the goal is understood as the maximization of the good (Scarre, 2020). In this case, the solution to the posed dilemma assumes that, under certain conditions, morally sanctioned (that is, permissible or even imputed to be committed) may be those actions that contradict specific moral prohibitions; however, the commission of which in a particular situation allows to prevent a much larger violation the same (or other) moral prohibitions (de Lazari-Radek & Singer, 2017). Evaluation of the morality of an act will proceed from the idea of maximizing the good and, accordingly, from different points of view on what the good is. In this case, this is human life and its preservation, so it is necessary to lie.
Relativism is a philosophy that asserts that there is no absolute moral law that would apply to all people, anywhere and at all times. Moral relativism asserts that morality is not based on any absolute standard (Wreen, 2018). According to his supporters, ethical “truths” rather depend on variables such as situation, culture, someone’s feelings, and many others. Ethical relativism can include various levels. On the individual level, a person decides for themselves what is right and what is not (Kellenberger, 2018). The cultural level says that each culture has its own ideas about good and evil, and in reality, the lack of a single standard creates chaos (Kellenberger, 2018). At the moral level, relativism says that there are no uniform standards, and people act rationally in accordance with their beliefs and goals. Here, again, the assessment will come from different moral systems. If beliefs are built on the principle of “do not lie,” then the person will be forced to betray those who are hiding. If the goal is to preserve life, then lying will be morally inevitable.
In my opinion, the dilemma reflects the problem of a lie out of philanthropy, or a well-meaning lie, more precisely versus the inadmissibility of a lie even out of philanthropy. In reality, we are not talking about a well-intentioned lie in general, but about a particular case of it, that is a lie in a situation of compulsion to confess, moreover, an unlawful one, the price of which can be the well-being, or even the lives of other people, in relation to whom the person who is compelled to confess has certain moral obligations.
Testifying at a fair trial is not the same as testifying at a trial subject to the arbitrariness of the ruler, and certainly not the same as informing malefactors under duress. It seems like a situation wherein one is at choice of informing malefactors violating obligations to third parties (Dimmock & Fisher, 2017). Therefore, in contrast to the Kantian imperative, where there is no difference between these two situations, my decision proceeds precisely from this premise. Taking the side of moral relativism, I recognize and consciously choose that I am in a system of values where the highest good is human life and the equality of all people, as well as the inviolability of their life and safety. Thus, I choose to lie and hide the innocent people.
References
de Lazari-Radek, K., & Singer, P. (2017). Utilitarianism: A very short introduction. Oxford University Press.
Dimmock, M., & Fisher, A. (2017). Ethics for A-level. Open Book Publishers.
Kellenberger, J. (2018). Moral relativism. In The History of Evil From the Mid-Twentieth Century to Today (pp. 344-361). Routledge.
Scarre, G. (2020). Utilitarianism. Routledge.
Wreen, M. (2018). What Is Moral Relativism?. Philosophy, 93(3), 337-354.