Deontology suggests that morality is based on universal rules defining bad or good. As a supporter of this theory, Kant, in Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals and On the Supposed Right to Lie From Benevolent Motives, argues that lying is always a wrong action. The philosopher explains that a lie violates justice and harms all humankind; therefore, it should not be a universal law of nature and a maxim of behavior. On the contrary, acting on the basis of a categorical imperative, a person must always tell the truth in order to maintain it as a universal rule. The utilitarian view espoused by Mill contradicts this assumption, allowing for falsehood in certain circumstances. However, the deontological view is more convincing since lying can lead to unforeseen negative consequences that are difficult or impossible to predict.
Kant’s concept of falsehood and truthfulness is primarily related to his concept of the categorical imperative. The philosopher developed a principle that prescribes that a person should act in such a way that the maxim of this behavior becomes a universal law of nature. The maxim reflects both the action and its intention, which together describe the behavior of a person. Kant argues that people should make a choice in favor of moral actions, regardless of circumstances. Human behavior, including actual deeds and intentions, must be such to become a universal law of nature. In other words, a person should act in the way he or she would desire all people to act. Most notably, the categorical imperative prescribes evaluating the morality of behavior regardless of the situation and circumstances.
With regard to lies, Kant maintains an account that is consistent with his concept of the categorical imperative. In Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals, the philosopher gives an example of a person who intends to borrow money, knowing that he would not be able to return it. Kant explains that “such a maxim could never hold as a universal law of nature and be consistent with itself, but must necessarily be self-contradictory” (Kant, Grounding for the Metaphysics 36). The philosopher suggests thinking about what would happen if such behavior became a universal law of nature, that is, if all people allowed lies because of the perception of their situation as difficult. Kant concludes that in this situation, no one would lend money to such a person, knowing for sure that the promise was a lie. Thus, lying is contradictory, as it leads to the impossibility of achieving the goal and improving one’s position.
The philosopher is quite unambiguous in his perception of lies and morally justified behavior. Kant argues that falsehood, regardless of the circumstances, has the potential to harm individuals or humanity as a whole, being a violation of justice (Kant, Critique of Practical Reason 1). The philosopher underlines that “truth in utterances that cannot be avoided is the formal duty of a man to everyone, however great the disadvantage that may arise from it to him or any other” (Kant, Critique of Practical Reason 1). Thus, he unequivocally asserts that a lie is morally unjustified in any situation and regardless of circumstances. A person has a duty to tell the truth, so as not to harm others and humankind as a whole. This representation is also related to the concept of the categorical imperative since if a lie becomes a universal law of nature; then it allows one to contradict the laws “founded on contract, the laws of which would be rendered uncertain and useless if even the least exception to them were admitted” (Kant, Critique of Practical Reason 2). The philosopher is convinced that a lie in any statement undermines the foundations of society as it is an injustice towards humanity as a whole.
Kant also suggests that lying is contrary to the basic principle of considering a person always as an end and never as means. The philosopher claims that “the man who intends to make a false promise will immediately see that he intends to make use of another man merely as a means to an end which the latter does not likewise hold” (Kant, Grounding for the Metaphysics 37). Kant argues that such behavior is unacceptable since the other person does not have access to the result of their actions. In other words, a lie violates the dignity of a person, as it uses him or her as a tool and does not provide an opportunity for conscious action. In terms of the categorical imperative, treating the other person as a means through a lie is self-contradictory since the liar would not want to be used in this way.
In contrast to the deontological view, utilitarianism allows lies depending on the circumstances. Mill’s notion of lying is based on the assumption that morally justified actions should bring the greatest benefits to the greatest number of people than alternative options. Thus, falsehood is justified in conditions where it achieves the common good effectively. Mill argues that there are circumstances in which lies are more beneficial to people than the truth. In other words, Kant does not approve of lying regardless of the situation, while Mill suggests that lying for good is acceptable. Deontology suggests that lying always has negative consequences since it always involves harm to others, though unintentional. Kant gives an example of the fact that lying to a murderer about the location of the victim can lead to unforeseen consequences for which the person is responsible (Kant, Critique of Practical Reason 2). Whereas the truth, regardless of the circumstances, relieves a person of responsibility for the consequences and, as a lie, can lead to unforeseen results, negative or positive ones. Thus, Mill and Kant have opposing views on lying and its ethical foundations.
The deontological view of falsehood that Kant advocates suggests that lying is always wrong regardless of circumstances. The philosopher explains that, first of all, a lie contradicts the categorical imperative and also allows people to be used as means rather than ends. Thus, lying is a violation of justice in relation to all humankind. Additionally, Kant argues that falsehood can lead to unforeseen negative consequences for which a person would be held accountable. The utilitarian view held by Mill argues that lying is permissible in circumstances where it brings more benefits than the truth.
I find the deontological perception of lying more convincing because it offers more universal rules. In the case of the utilitarian view, it is difficult to determine the criteria by which it is necessary to evaluate the positive or negative consequences of a lie or truth. One should not also forget that, as Kant noted, falsehood can lead to unforeseen negative consequences that otherwise might not have arisen. Thus, deontological assumptions are more convincing in that they offer a universal paradigm rather than a situational one. As part of Mill’s view of lies, it is necessary to evaluate the consequences of lying, which is often extremely difficult or even impossible to do.
Works Cited
Kant, Immanuel. Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals. Translated by James W. Ellington, Hackett Pub. Co, 1993.
Critique of Practical Reason and Other Works on the Theory of Ethics. Translated by Thomas K. Abbott, Green and Co., 1889.