Is it moral to lie to a murderer?
Not sure why my post was deleted. I'm new here. If my post is not up to standard, please let me know where or how it should be improved.
Suppose a murderer is at your door and asks you where your friend is. Your friend is hiding in your house, but the murderer is going to kill him. Should you tell the truth?
Kant argues that you should tell the truth because the maxim of lying can't be universalized. A lie is always wrong regardless of the circumstances, your intention (even if it is a good one) and the person to whom you lie. We should not create even a single exception to this rule, Kant argues, as it would make all moral duties uncertain and useless.
But what exactly does it mean for something "to be universalized"? Suppose universalizing "do A when condition B exists" means to turn it into "do A at all times under all circumstances". Then consider the question "should you drink water when you are thirsty?" Clearly, "don't drink water" will lead to death, so it shouldn't be the moral thing to do. But by the universalization test, "drink water" wouldn't be moral too, because if it were, then you should "drink water at all times under all circumstances, even if you are not thirsty." But if you drink water in this manner, you would also die.
In any case, if Kant believes that one should ascertain whether an act is moral or not not by its consequences but by the motive or the intention of the actor (since two people may do the same act but with different intentions), then shouldn't he not judge the act of lying itself but the intention of the liar, to be logically consistent? Shouldn't he judge that the liar who intents to save his friend as moral, and the truth teller who intents to kill his friend as immoral?
Suppose a murderer is at your door and asks you where your friend is. Your friend is hiding in your house, but the murderer is going to kill him. Should you tell the truth?
Kant argues that you should tell the truth because the maxim of lying can't be universalized. A lie is always wrong regardless of the circumstances, your intention (even if it is a good one) and the person to whom you lie. We should not create even a single exception to this rule, Kant argues, as it would make all moral duties uncertain and useless.
But what exactly does it mean for something "to be universalized"? Suppose universalizing "do A when condition B exists" means to turn it into "do A at all times under all circumstances". Then consider the question "should you drink water when you are thirsty?" Clearly, "don't drink water" will lead to death, so it shouldn't be the moral thing to do. But by the universalization test, "drink water" wouldn't be moral too, because if it were, then you should "drink water at all times under all circumstances, even if you are not thirsty." But if you drink water in this manner, you would also die.
In any case, if Kant believes that one should ascertain whether an act is moral or not not by its consequences but by the motive or the intention of the actor (since two people may do the same act but with different intentions), then shouldn't he not judge the act of lying itself but the intention of the liar, to be logically consistent? Shouldn't he judge that the liar who intents to save his friend as moral, and the truth teller who intents to kill his friend as immoral?
Comments (42)
Does the degree of the immoral act I am willing to do, with the intent of saving my friend matter ?? What if i don't think I am a very good liar, or I don't think there is a very good chance the would be murderer will just walk away ?
Telling a lie is never a moral act, and I and Aquinas and others would agree with Kant. To me the issue is not a choice between a moral and an immoral act. It is, as above, only a choice between how immoral an act am I willing to do and does the end actually justify the means.
My pragmatic Catholic answer, would be save the innocent from the evil with all that is needed to do that, understand that the act is sinful, head to confession.
And I would recommend adapting this to whatever world view you happen to subscribe to.
I couldn't more strongly disagree with that. I believe that everyone lies, and that they do so rather frequently. I also believe that a significant percentage of lies are neutral if not positive.
So you probably won't be surprised to learn that I think there's no the slightest question re whether one should lie to a murderer in the scenario.
I think the moral act is to save your friends life. First, why is lying immoral? In this case, a lie is exactly the moral thing to do. If you follow Kantian ethics as you have laid out, this will certainly lead to horrors easily equal to the acts of evil men, and for what? To uphold a principal? Is human life worth a principal of not lying?
Imagine Nazi Germany, where someone is hiding Jews from extermination in thier hidden basement. A Nazi officer asks them if they are hiding Jews, they say no. The Jews live.
You want to call the lie immoral? Id say its the exact opposite. That is the problem with uncompromising principals, they will inevitably lead to tragedy and suffering.
Well then - where exactly is the line between moral and immoral lying ? Is it always depended on the purpose? Is there some universally accepted list of acceptable reasons to lie for ??
Often we don't get to chose between good and bad, We only get to chose between bad and worse. The worse does not make the bad good, it is still bad. Just the lesser of evils.
Not directed at me but Im curious why you mention that everyone lies. Is that meant to be a good reason to lie?
Also, doesnt your positive/neutral/negative (presumably negative as well, you didnt mention negative) stance imply a scale for acts, meaning that in principal the acts themselves are neither moral or immoral? Is that your intent?
I ask because my own take is that actions themselves are neither immoral nor moral, that morality only comes into play with context and intent, with the moral reasoning of the instance. Ive never thought of it as a scale, but it seems similar to what I have in mind.
Your post is fine. IF there was any reason for your post to be deleted, it might be that a moderator remembered another thread on exactly the same topic. I'm not a moderator but I don't consider different people writing similar posts to be terribly problematic, unless there are close together in time.
Telling the truth, in this case, would result in at least one murder: your friend's murder first, and then yours next (you would be a witness). There is no good in such a decision. Lie, by all means. Cheat and steal, if need be, to protect a person in your care from harm. [and in my argument I am assuming your friend is as innocent as a lamb]
The trouble with moral formulae is that they are too rigid. They may have positive consequences here, but immensely negative consequences there. I think we have to account for circumstances and consequences.
Would it be moral to preemptively shoot the would be murderer? If you couldn't get him off your front step by lying, and if you had the means at hand, perhaps. At some point the situation would evolve where you could predict what was going to happen. For instance, if the murderer barges past you into your house and begins searching, the negative outcome is predictable. At that point, it seems to me, you would be more moral in killing the killer than standing by gripping your copy of Kant.
In this world, we all have "dirty hands"; we are all implicated directly or indirectly in immoral acts, if not outright immoral acts. We may be called upon to do good with those dirty hands. So, you might have to kill or crudely disable the murderer to save your friend. (we are assuming the friend is an innocent fellow.
It gets more complicated if you know your friend isn't innocent. Maybe he also is a murderer. Maybe the murderer on your front step is the husband of the woman your friend killed. I still say lie, because in this case your friend owes the State a confession, or exculpatory evidence. If you let the murderer in, justice will be forfeit, since carrying out justice is the prerogative of the State and not individuals.
Quoting Rank Amateur
Good. You will protect the innocent through sin and then seek absolution. You are willing to dirty your hands (if they weren't already dirty) to carry out good.
If hating your brother makes you a murderer (according to 1 John) we have to recognize that the bar of goodness has been set very, very high, and that killing the murderer, we would fall into sin.
I would say the line is in the moral reasoning, in the purpose of the lie. I view a lie like a tool, to be used for morally or immorally. An analogy might be a gun or a knife, not evil or immoral in itself but in how its used.
I agree, but I think that principal would be misapplied in the case of a lie vs allowing a murder. Lie isnt the lesser of evils, but the only moral act.
Depends on the act. I don't feel it's the same for everything. Most lying I don't have a problem with. I primarily think that lying is only a problem re contractual fraud.
I suppose you, Tom, Manny, et al think that a lie is a lie is a lie? That there is no variety of lies? That intent has no bearing? That a lie about whether one likes cats, and a lie about where the Jews are hiding have equal gravitas?
A lie of convenience - "Mom, there's somebody at the door -- let me call you back." (Nobody at door. You just didn't want to continue listening to your mother complain about her sister) surely is not the same as lying about one's income to the Internal Revenue Service?
A protective lie - Is it better to lie about your one night stand, or tell your spouse the brutal truth which will be very painful for her to hear? The event in question is now a year in the past, you transmitted no infections, there was no bastard birth, or other consequences?
An enhancing lie - Is it better to not exaggerate (lie) about how much one did in one's Peace Corps job in Nigeria--and get hired, or should one be frank and tell the interviewer that your 2 years in Nigeria was a total waste of everyone's time? You have a family to support, and there aren't many jobs in your field?
A diplomatic lie - also called diplomatic influenza - is it better to tell the Russian ambassador that you personally hate his guts and wouldn't hesitate to run over him, should your limo have the opportunity; or should you tell him that you won't be able to attend the reception because your are ill--cough cough; everyone at the State Department has been sick lately?
Conversely, the truth as betrayal: Your best friend reported that he arrived at work on time the previous night. He was on duty for the whole shift. You know, for a fact, that he was 2 hours late, left an hour early, and was badly hungover for the entire time he was getting paid. He wasted the whole shift. You report him to his supervisor and he gets fired. You've lost a good friend; your friend was an otherwise very good employee. What good did your truth-telling accomplish?
So how do you decide which things?
Also, Not having a problem with and not being moral/immoral are two different things. Are you saying you only think lying is wrong in the case of contractual fraud?
This is like claiming that if one person counterfeited a few coins, the entire system of using money would collapse through lack of trust. It wouldn't. There would have to be extremely widespread counterfeiting for that to happen, and there would have to be extremely widespread lying for the institution of moral duties to collapse.
And there is a problem with your analogy because if there is a murderer at your door you should not answer the door. You should get your shotgun instead, make sure it is loaded, then call the police on your cell phone.
So while at one time or another I would have to plead guilty to all those kind of "white" lies. It is important to me to understand that it is still wrong. And in most cases, most of the time, it was really about me. It was easier, or more expedite or the path of least resistance.
But as above, on occasion we face the dilemma of a choice of evils. This being human stuff is hard sometimes.
Quoting tim wood
Yes I was arguing there is nothing intrinsically right or wrong with the act of lying. But on second thought, I find that lying is different from other acts. To lie is to intentionally give false information. So unlike many other acts, we cannot separate the act and the intention for the case of lying, according to its very definition.
In this light, Kant is consistent. Lying is wrong however good your reason may be, because the intention to provide false information is wrong; you are not respecting the dignity of the person, be it a murderer or otherwise, and his rights to truth, when you lie. (The act of providing false information may not be wrong though, for example, when you are acting unintentionally.)
I was, but now on second thought I agree with Kant that lying is wrong. For the case of lying, unlike many other acts, we can't separate the act from the intention, because by definition, to lie is to intentionally give false information. If you do so unintentionally, then that's not lying. So while the act of unintentionally giving false information may not be wrong, lying would be, because you are not respecting the dignity of the person to whom you lie, be he a murderer or otherwise, and his rights to the truth.
So whilst lying is immoral, in this case one lies to prevent oneself from committing an even more immoral act that would be ratting out one's friend. Or one could choose not to speak at all.
And that's fine. Even if I am much more tolerant of "socially appropriate lying" or white lies than you are, and won't be availing myself of the confessional when I do lie, I do think it is important that the liar know within his own head whether he is telling the truth or not. I might be willing to lie, cheat, and steal, but I think it essential that I be clear in my own head that I am lying, cheating, and stealing, to whom, about what, and why.
Pagans and heathens, like Christians, Jews, and Moslems, want peaceful orderly societies. "Following the rules" helps achieve peace and order. Sometimes though, peace and order can be better promoted by not uttering inflammatory truths, but instead by uttering misleading lies. So, "I deeply regret that I will be unable to attend the reception in honor of your visiting Prime Minister. Unfortunately, I am indisposed with a very unpleasant virus." IS BETTER THAN "I wouldn't attend your gathering of liars, thieves, knaves, and scoundrels under any circumstances, and the sooner you are all put out of business, the better." The latter might be the truth, but the former will maintain peace and order better.
(Even as a pagan / heathen who doesn't have to go to confession, I generally avoid lying, cheating, and stealing; as well as arson, rape, and bloody murder, to mention a few. These activities complicate one's life too much, what with investigations, prosecutors, grand juries, buying off witnesses, arranging for jail breaks, bribing judges, and so on.)
I decide by introspection --looking at how I feel about a particular scenario. I think that ethics/morality is purely a matter of subjective dispositions, and I'm not drawn to an "overarching principle" approach . Some things I'm consistent enough about that I at least seem to be following a principle, but I'd never have a principle as a trump card, so that just in case I feel differently about a scenario, the principle has to win. I don't think that approach is a good idea.
Of course, we need something that resembles a principle-approach when it comes to law, although even there I prefer leaving a lot of room for judgment calls. But legally, yeah, I'd only have a restriction against contractual fraud.
Easy example when lying is ethical: your wife asks you, "Do I look fat in this" and you think she does, but not unusually so. (In other words, when an honest answer would be, "Yes, but you look fat in everything.")
When the choice is forced between two evils, It is not at all unethical to choose the lesser evil. In a vacuum I would agree lying is immoral, but context changes everything.
Alright, I understand.
^(For The Example) Kant won't support "Lying", but he would support "Misleading Truth". You can lied, of course, it's easy. But you choose to spin your brain and think of an "Misleading Truth" because there is a sense of Duty in your motivation that is "But I don't want to lie".
I think The concept of universalizing is hard to understand, if we take Kant's Idea at face value (May be that's why people said Kant is maybe the most hard to understand, like the Bible). (It's good when to learn Kant and also learning about Jesus Golden Rule). Your Example, for example
"You Can Drink Water if you are thirsty"
let's universalized it - > You can drink water any time > Is it good? Yes.
"You can lied to customer IF it result in profit for you"
let's universalized it - > You can lied to customer every time > Is it good? No.
"You can kill if it mean to save a person"
let's universalized it - > You can Kill every time > Is it good? No
Get the gist of it? :D
Shouldn't he judge that the liar who intents to save his friend as moral, and the truth teller who intents to kill his friend as immoral?
— Happiness
^Kant is REALLY Interesting, it is as if he judge the situation like this (Lying is not moral, Killing is also immoral, Letting friends died is the same as killing, and that is immoral), as he consider those 2 act (Lying and Killing) as equal, like SIN :D :D :D :D. That's why Kant is hard, so hard that only few people can actually do it. Because to be moral with Kant Idea mean.
Act so that, You wouldn't be in that situation, in which you have to choose between 2 evil
Because, when you already in a situation like this. You're fuc**d. (Maybe that's why Batman who are LIKE (but not) a kantian, focused on preparation)
^ The H with that tradition, if a man SO DIRE IN NEED TO DRINK, suddenly found himself in a church at mass, and at that time you only have holy water, won't you giving him a drink?.
let's try to CI it
"It is wrong to drink holy water when at mass"
let's universalized it - > It is wrong to drink holy water at any time > Is it good? No
it is morally not good, that's why people don't drink holy water for the purpose of "I don't want to become weird here dude" > w <
What you should do when you encounter something like the categorical imperative is not just assume that it's correct but challenge it. Why is Kant saying it? Does he have a good support for it? Does it work well under various challenging scenarios? Kant was just a guy thinking and saying stuff, just like any of us. He can easily be way off base, he can easily be overlooking things, he can easily be basing ideas on personal biases he's not sharing, etc.
As if I hadn't written "not unusually so."
I'd add "that particular individuals have in mind, where different individuals can value the same situations very differently."
So when you're dealing with someone who you think is simply fat, or ugly, etc., and you know they're very sensitive, self-conscious, etc. about it?
^Wait, what's this about zombie virus, and what are you trying to say with the zombie virus, I fail to grasph hahaha
^Yep
In the context of ethics, I don't agree with him about that. I'm not sure I'd agree with him about that in any context, actually.
There's no problem that some preferences lead to preservation overall and some lead to extinction overall.
The problem is that that doesn't imply that universals exist.
If you have 1,000 individuals, and 999 of them have preferences that lead to preservation overall, while 1 has preferences that lead to extinction overall,then nothing is likely to be impacted, overall, whether (a) the population survives, or whether (b) there are mostly individuals that have preferences that lead to preservation.
But in that case we don't actually have a universal. And it wouldn't matter for survival if we had a universal rather than one outlier.