Questions:

Guidance

Task:
Write a critical account of Kant’s short text “On a supposed right to lie from philanthropy”. A good translation of this text is in Kant’s Practical Philosophy, a volume edited and translated by Mary Gregor and published by Cambridge University Press in 1996. There are several copies available in the library, some on 1-day short loan. Alternatively, if you find it really difficult to find a copy, a decent translation is freely available online. If you have any problems, let me know

Format:
Short essay of approximately 500 words (up to 700 words not including Bibliography and, if applicable, footnotes)

What to do:
• read Kant’s short text;
• try to identify Kant’s argument against a right to lie;
• do further research on the basis of secondary literature (some texts are suggested below);
• explain your answer to the question whether or not there should be a right to lie from philanthropy.

Good luck and let us know if you have any questions!

Suggested secondary literature:
1. Michael Cholbi (2009) “The Murderer at the Door: What Kant Should Have Said”, in Philosophy and Phenomenological Research. 79(1): 17-46.
2. James E. Mahon (2006) “Kant and the Perfect Duty to Others Not to Lie”. British Journal for the History of Philosophy. 14(4): 653-685.
3. Elliott Sober (1994) “The Primacy of Truth-Telling and the Evolution of Lying” in From a Biological Point of View. New York: Cambridge University Press.
4. Christine M. Korsgaard (1986) “The Right to Lie: Kant on Dealing with evil”, in Philosophy and Public Affairs. 15(3): 325-349.

Answers:

Immanuel Kant is one of the most celebrated German philosophers who had argued that the source of the morality of a person is dependent on the reason that exists within the mind of the concerned person. The following essay deals with the arguments put forth by the eminent philosopher Immanuel Kant on the matters that pertain to the arguments put forth by Immanuel Kant against the right of the concerned person to lie.

The celebrated German philosopher opines that speaking the truth in any matter is a moral duty that should be maintained by the concerned person. It should be considered to be a duty on the part of the person to tell the truth to the people who are entitled to hear the truth. The philosopher further opines that no person might be granted the rights to any truth that might pose to be harmful to other people. Immanuel Kant argues that lying should not be considered to be a moral action since the act of lying might hamper the moral capacity of the human beings as well as prevents the other members to act in a free and rational manner. The act of lying is known to undermine the dignity of the other members. The Kantian ethics tend to refute the conditions of a lie.

However, the other believers in the Kantian theory tend to put forth certain circumstances wherein the Kantian theory that claims that lying is an immoral act does not hold good. Cholbi (2009) argues that there might arise situations wherein a person has to lie in an act of self-defense or in situations wherein the concerned person might have to lie in order to save the life of another innocent person. This is found to be in opposition to the theory put forth by Kant which states that the lying in any form is an immoral act. Korsgaard (1986) differs from the Kantian philosophy on the fact that the dealings with the evil might be manipulated in order to respond to the various situations that might arise within the given time frame. The author tends to throw light on the various implications of the categorical imperative that was stated by the German philosopher, that states that the duty should be performed for the sake of the performing of the duty. Mahon (2006) puts forth the question as to what should be given much priority, the sense of the moral as well as the ethical duty for the speaking the truth or the performance of just completing the duty at hand. Sober (1994) argues that the philosophers have also postulated the modal asymmetry in the matters that pertain to the telling of the truth. The author states that the quality of telling the truth might be universalized.

Thus, from the above discussion, it might be pointed out that the arguments put forth by the celebrated German philosopher, Immanuel Kant in the matters that pertain to the act of lying might not be considered to be universalized due to the various different contradictions that have been put forth by the successive researcher and philosophical thinkers.

References

Cholbi, M., 2009. The murderer at the door: what Kant should have said. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 79(1), pp.17-46.

Korsgaard, C.M., 1986. The right to lie: Kant on dealing with evil. Philosophy & Public Affairs, pp.325-349.

Mahon, J.E., 2006. Kant and the perfect duty to others not to lie. British Journal for the History of Philosophy, 14(4), pp.653-685.

Sober, E., 1994. The primacy of truth-telling and the evolution of lying. From a biological point of view, pp.71-92.