Deontologists deem it impermissible to lie because it completely strips someone of their autonomy and is irrational. Central to the core of this school of thinking, nothing supersedes a person’s right to choice as it is a key factor to the source of morality: rationality and autonomy. Deontology follows a system of absolute laws, one of which is that lying is absolutely not acceptable no matter the situation.
Lying is irrational when considering Deontology’s Categorical Imperative: “Act only on that maxim you can will to be a universal law”. In a world where everybody lies, it would make no rational sense to lie as no one would believe you. This in and of itself would mean that a Deontologist would arrive at the maxim that lying is impermissible …show more content…
For example, a situation presented is one of Kant’s Murderer - should you tell the murderer the truth and reveal the location of the victim or should you lie to protect them? Here it is easy to say that lying is the right decision because you feel it is in the victim’s best interest to help them avoid the murderer. If you lie, you would be protecting the victim from sure death by turning the murderer in a different direction. According to Kant, lying even here is an impermissible choice because it still establishes the maxim that lying is …show more content…
On the other hand, misleading someone doesn’t completely strip someone of their autonomy and therefore is more permissible in this school of thought. When someone lies to another, they offhandedly make the person's decision for them. For example, if someone lied to you and told you that a store was closed when it really wasn’t, they made the choice for you about whether or not you should go to the store. You wouldn’t go out to check if it was open because they very clearly told you that the business was closed. Misleading someone, on the other hand, still allows a person some choice in the matter. If someone told you that you drove by the store and it looked like it may be closed, you may still be obliged to check the hours to make sure. In my opinion, there is a difference between lying and misleading, however, I don’t feel there is a vast moral difference - they are both wrong in most situations. Lying to someone means that you assume control in some capacity over their decisions and actions - they are not afforded the opportunity to make a decision based on their own thoughts. Misleading certainly allows for a person to have more choice in a matter, however, they cannot make a fully informed decision because they are lacking potentially vital facts. Thus, they arrive at a similar solution that
Lying is irrational when considering Deontology’s Categorical Imperative: “Act only on that maxim you can will to be a universal law”. In a world where everybody lies, it would make no rational sense to lie as no one would believe you. This in and of itself would mean that a Deontologist would arrive at the maxim that lying is impermissible …show more content…
For example, a situation presented is one of Kant’s Murderer - should you tell the murderer the truth and reveal the location of the victim or should you lie to protect them? Here it is easy to say that lying is the right decision because you feel it is in the victim’s best interest to help them avoid the murderer. If you lie, you would be protecting the victim from sure death by turning the murderer in a different direction. According to Kant, lying even here is an impermissible choice because it still establishes the maxim that lying is …show more content…
On the other hand, misleading someone doesn’t completely strip someone of their autonomy and therefore is more permissible in this school of thought. When someone lies to another, they offhandedly make the person's decision for them. For example, if someone lied to you and told you that a store was closed when it really wasn’t, they made the choice for you about whether or not you should go to the store. You wouldn’t go out to check if it was open because they very clearly told you that the business was closed. Misleading someone, on the other hand, still allows a person some choice in the matter. If someone told you that you drove by the store and it looked like it may be closed, you may still be obliged to check the hours to make sure. In my opinion, there is a difference between lying and misleading, however, I don’t feel there is a vast moral difference - they are both wrong in most situations. Lying to someone means that you assume control in some capacity over their decisions and actions - they are not afforded the opportunity to make a decision based on their own thoughts. Misleading certainly allows for a person to have more choice in a matter, however, they cannot make a fully informed decision because they are lacking potentially vital facts. Thus, they arrive at a similar solution that