One of the most famous defenders of the absolute prohibition of lying in the history of Western philosophy is Kant. According to the categorical imperative, he argues that falsehood is forbidden not because a lie is directly immoral but rather due to the fact that fiction cannot be universal; as a consequence, it becomes amoral. The philosopher emphasizes that dishonesty has always been morally wrong. He argued that all people are born with an internal value that can be described as human dignity. Therefore, all people possess a rational power that enables them to have the ability to make a free choice. At the same time, according to the philosopher’s doctrine, individuals can be ethical and respect themselves and those around them. Thus, lies have a negative effect on a person’s nature and dignity.
I partially agree with Kant, but there are cases where dishonesty can be valuable. I consider that a lie can be helpful for the benefit of the individual or of society as a whole. In other words, lies that, if disclosed, would cause harm to the human who is listening and to a third party can be justified. For example, for a seriously ill individual, doctors should not tell an unsatisfactory prognosis in order not to worsen his condition through stress and anxiety. Instead, they need to discuss the patient’s state of health with the person’s family. It also seems that if a person has promised to maintain secrecy, they will potentially have to lie to preserve it. The situations in which it is necessary to lie are not many, but they are. I believe that one should rely on one’s own internal guidelines when choosing between truth and falsity.