Analysis Of Kant On Lies, Candour And Reticence

Apart from the inability to be applied universally and with absolute necessity, Kant’s rigid theories on lying are hard to apply to the complex reality of everyday situations, especially when malicious encounters occur. Therefore, it is important to distinguish elements pertaining to lies. Professor James Mahon highlights a couple key distinctions of lying in his article “Kant on Lies, Candour, and Reticence,” which help explain why lying can be morally permissible when its purpose is to save someone from grave danger. The first notable distinction Mahon makes is the difference between a lie and an untruth. He states that an untruth is when a person “makes a statement that does not correspond to what [he or] she believes to be true” and does not force anyone to believe such statements (Mahon, 109). …show more content…
Additionally, Mahon distinguishes that a lie is not always a deception. This component directly relates to the preceding statement because the individual being lied to may not believe the lie to be true (Mahon 112). When put into practice, the act of equivocating to someone to save a friend from danger can actually be regarded as an untruth rather than a lie because the purpose is not to deceive the perpetrator. Additionally, the perpetrator is not being forced to believe an individual’s statement regarding the targeted victim. Thus, based on Mahon’s distinctions, lying is morally permissible when its objective is to avert malicious intentions because the perpetrator is not forced to believe anything the individual claims about the potential victim, nor is the criminal expected to be deceived by the individual’s