Is Lying Under Any Circustances “Righ or Wrong”

Based on the doctrine of Immanuel Kant, I would constitute to disagree with his wrinkle t put on guile is wrong under any plenty. In this paper I give discuss my reason for disagreeing with the argument ground on the flaw stated in the argument, how evasiveness and telling the rightfulness both begin baneful consequences depending on the circumstances, and also how deterrent causa prevails deal non be absolute. In this paragraph I will be discussing the flaw that is stated in the argument, in which I absolutely agree with.The philosophy that Kant is stating is alone flawed because it is contradictory on what he base his reasoning on. job it was necessary to brood to yet someones life. Should you do it? Kant would construct us reason as follows We should do only those actions that conform to chemical formulas that we could will to be adopted universally. Second, if you were to lie, you would be following the rule It is okay to lie. likewise this rule could n on be adopted universally, because it would be self-defeating state would stop believing one another, and then it would do no full to lie, therefore, you should not lie. (Immanuel Kant). The problem would show in step two, on wherefore we would be adage if we lied that we would be following a rule that it is okay to lie, when as Anscombe stated if you changed it around to I will lie when doing so would save someones life. That would progress that rule not be self-defeating. Ancombes argument,shows that in order not to lie completely and boot out Kants philosophy you withdraw to show where lying would not have a good consequence behind it. But it clearly shows that depending on what you atomic number 18 lying for some lies can help more than hurt.Which leads me into my heartbeat point on how lying and telling the faithfulness both has bad consequences. In Kants philosophy telling the truth leaves you blameless no press what the outcome of the truth. And lying leaves you being held responsible for the outcome no take good or bad. This to me is not a good philosophy because you cannot be blameless if telling the truth gets someone killed, but lying helps save his or her life. Because you had to lie in order to save that someones life does that take in you less heroic? No. To me it shouldnt matter as long as you did what you had to do to help hat person stay alive. A lie can have damaging consequences you can get someone hurt by lying and saying that a person did something can get them fired from work. But you can also tell the truth about a person and her actions and let off get her fired from work. Both have bad consequences and it doesnt make that person belief any better about whether the outcome came from lying or telling the truth. And that shows how lies and truths both have bad consequences. A moral rule cannot be absolute to me because we dont live in a society that makes decisions based on morals.Because there is some circumstances t hat make it hard to say that when this person lied it doesnt matter that the outcome helped someone it was near a lie and nothing else matters. That is not the reality of things morally you cannot let a person die and feel good about yourself just because you told the truth. Making a moral rule absolute would be contradictory to Kants philosophy, tell the truth no matter what but morally, is it right to let someone that you can help with a lie fall by the waste side?You may have morally told the truth, but you also feel responsible morally no matter how righteous telling the truth may have been. If you require me if a moral rule was absolute there would be awed consequences to telling the truth and not lying in certain circumstances. If such(prenominal) dilemmas occur, then doesnt this disprove the existence of absolute moral rules? Suppose, for example the two rules It is wrong to lie and It is wrong to facilitate the murder of artless people are both taken to be absolute?The Dutch fishermen in Kants argument would have to do one of these things therefore, a moral view that absolutely prohibits both is incoherent. (Immanuel Kant) In conclusion I feel that Kants philosophy as I stated in my thesis is flawed and I disagree with it completely. You cannot in my opinion say that as long as you tell the truth no matter what the consequences are would leave you blameless, if when telling a lie would help someone. But just because it is morally wrong to lie it doesnt matter of that consequence you are still wrong even though lying saved that persons life.If you ask me it would be morally wrong to let a person die and not do everything in your power to save that person. Which is why I dont feel like a moral rule should be absolute and why in both circumstances of lying or telling the truth you really never know what outcome you are going to get. It is a choice that you make based on the situation that you are in, and even when telling the truth the outcome can still be bad. Kant had a good argument to me, but as the readings say it was limited. Works Cited Rachels, James ( 1941-2003) The Elements of virtuous Philosophy