Categorical Imperative
From Mill to Kant two distinct schools of thought in the ever ending search for the root of morality.
According to Kant, the supreme principle of morality lies in the notion of “Categorical Imperative” which is summed up with the following: Act in such a way, that you could will your maxim into universal law.
Let’s take lying for example, in following Mill theory of utility, lying would be acceptable for as long the end result of a lie promotes more happiness than harm. In other words the consequences of our actions take precedence over the intent of our deeds.
For Kant, the consequences are immaterial. Good will or rationale not inclination establishes the morality of our actions. There is no room for deviation or exception with Kant. Lying is wrong because the purpose of lying fundamentally serves someone’s selfish need since nobody would lie out of duty.
Lying as a universal law is not acceptable in society at large, so therefore telling a lie for personal gain could not be willed into a universal. As we have seen in our classroom discussion, it is not feasible for someone to go around telling false promises to obtain money. The moment someone catches on to the false promise, it will become known that the intent behind the promise is false and no money will be loaned out.
Telling an ugly person for example that he or she is beautiful can not be willed into universal consensus, since no two individuals will see the individual in the same light. Therefore telling that lie to make the person feel good is an action that is executed in accordance to duty. The duty is performed based on the individual in question. The lie is told to please a wife, a family member, or a friend to avoid hurting their feelings.
Since it is impossible to re-train the world in accepting lying as a means to end, we can say that it is immoral to tell lies.
Cindy B. said,
thUTCp30UTC11bUTCTue, 06 Nov 2007 00:35:13 +0000 22, 2007 at UTCam1330UTCTue, 06 Nov 2007 00:35:13 +000011 1330am1106amTue, 06 Nov 2007 00:35:13 +000006 303511UTC
I agree with you that lying is done out of selfish reasons not duty, at least most of the time, there are those other cases we have discussed in class, where you may lie to save your grandma’s life from the potential murder at the door who says “Where is your grandma?” Lying of course is never done out of duty.
Boone B. Gorges said,
thUTCp30UTC11bUTCTue, 06 Nov 2007 14:02:12 +0000 22, 2007 at UTCpm1230UTCTue, 06 Nov 2007 14:02:12 +000011 1230pm1106pmTue, 06 Nov 2007 14:02:12 +000006 300211UTC
The example of lying to the ugly person is a particularly interesting one, and you come up with a novel justification for why this lie is permitted by duty. I might offer the following amendment. If it really is the case, as you suggest, that “beauty is in the eye of the beholder”, then it’s not a lie to tell an “ugly” person that she’s beautiful. That’s because the truth of “x is ugly”, on your view, is either ambiguous or indeterminate. So the issue of whether it’s moral to lie doesn’t really appear to arise, and other duties–like “be nice to others”–come into play.
crowdedumbrella said,
thUTCp30UTC11bUTCTue, 06 Nov 2007 17:12:17 +0000 22, 2007 at UTCpm1730UTCTue, 06 Nov 2007 17:12:17 +000011 1730pm1106pmTue, 06 Nov 2007 17:12:17 +000006 301211UTC
It seems that you are dealing with white lies when it comes to telling a lie to avoid hurting someone’s feelings. I would say white lies are best reserved for closed doors and between family members or close friends. This is the reason why I think it cannot be made into universal law. Because when extrapolated into the general public, white lies are no different than regular lies.