Hill brings up a series of principles of autonomy and three specific cases of benevolent lies in order to show that how those principles of autonomy reject the benevolent lie in the specific cases. In the ideal of autonomy, it is against benevolent lies by claiming that benevolently lying restricts people to acquire the real information about their situation (Hill 264), so benevolently lying infringes the autonomy of the one who is deceived. Then, his lists out two possible objections of his claim. One of the objections is that an agent needs to lie in order to make the deceived one living autonomously. This objection implies that telling the truth can sometimes infringe others’ autonomy, so a benevolent lie is needed in these situations. I think that this objection successfully provides a reason to make benevolent lies permissible, since telling the truth can also infringe one’s autonomy.
…show more content…
This is the kind of benevolent lies which Hill wants to focus, and telling this kind of benevolent lies is life-affecting to the deceived, which means that the lie can deeply influence the life of the deceived one. Hill tries not to discuss the unimportant benevolent lies what he calls “little white lies” (Hill 253). By narrowing the area of discussion of benevolent lies, Hills can focus on how this specific kind of white lies can infringe the autonomy of the deceived
This is the kind of benevolent lies which Hill wants to focus, and telling this kind of benevolent lies is life-affecting to the deceived, which means that the lie can deeply influence the life of the deceived one. Hill tries not to discuss the unimportant benevolent lies what he calls “little white lies” (Hill 253). By narrowing the area of discussion of benevolent lies, Hills can focus on how this specific kind of white lies can infringe the autonomy of the deceived