"Every one wears a mask to support their imaginary self esteem/ego" There is not one single person on this planet that does not pretend to be something other than who they really are. It is part of lifes challenge for some to achieve self acceptance and drop the charade or the lie so to speak. So every one is lying every moment of active day. Why? Because others are incapable of accepting them for who they really are and usually when exposed for the truth they suffer extreme abuse so up goes the mask again. To me it is not the lying that is immoral but the reason why the lying is necessary in the first place. [ however if we go deeper into growth and evolution it becomes clear why this is not quite true in a more profound sense [ that being this need for the mask being immoral ]
That may be your experience. It is not mine. The road to heaven is paved with bad intentions. A friend expressed disappointment that someone she knew lied about his mate being his son. I said he probably felt he had no choice.
A sin is bad because it supposedly goes against God's will or commandments. Humanists would say that the primary evil in lying is not the injury done to God, but to the human victim(s) of the lie. One problem with religious ethics is that in their original form they don't usually allow much room for grey areas. If God says "Thou shalt not lie", that's the end of it. A "white lie" is just as bad as any other lie. --- Wouldn't Kant ask whether we could wish it as a general principle that we ought to hide innocent people from evil fascist regimes that want to kill them? If the answer to this question is "yes", then the categorical imperative would hold that the Anne Frank lie was moral.
And yet, look how many people here will bring up all kinds of justifications to lie. And those same people will bitch n' moan if someone lies to them! Just because a lie might accomplish some short-term goal, and one that might even be considered a good goal, doesn't change the fact that the lie was immoral. Lots of things can be immoral, yet have good, short-term results. But they're still considered immoral actions. Baron Max
I don't think lying is good. You don't know what people do with the information. We shouldn't have to worry about trusting someone. Those things that brings about bad things are wrong. Lying brings about distrust and being uncertain.
So when the armed fascists come for your kids/mother/father, you'll tell them where they're hiding if they ask? Baron Max
so which is more immoral? a) The lie to hide your children or b) being forced to lie to protect them?
Ah, I get you. Fair enough, I would take that approach too. If there is something about my behaviour people don't like I want to know about it, not be told 'It's not you it's me.'
Well, I don't think we have a measure of moral or immoral in pounds or inches or centimeters or such. But to answer your question, both are immoral. Now that that's out of the way, one must make his decision based on something else ....like emotions or logic. Most "normal" people would accept the immoral lie to protect their children. But it's still immoral. Try this one; Your family are carriers of a new, horrible, highly contagious disease. Burning the bodies is the only known cure/effective treatment. Is it moral to lie to protect your family ...even if it means 10,000 people will die? Baron Max
I don't think so. Kant, in his On a Supposed Right to Tell Lies from Benevolent Motives specifically answered the hypothetical about the now famous "inquiring murderer" scenario and that tracks the Anne Frank case pretty much spot on. The murderer is seeking his next victim and asks if you know the victim's whereabouts. You know where the victim is hiding. Kant's conclusion was that it was immoral to lie under those circumstances. He mentioned no duty to hide people from murderers. Kant requires that we generalize the principle to that it is independent of factual contexts. "Murderers" do not ask us questions, people do. They do not seek "victims", they seek "information." Of course one could generalize his principal into complete uselessness (there are no "questions" only "words") and I personally think Kant's system was deeply flawwed in its ignoring consequences, but Kant was clear about the "Should we hide people from murderers" rule. I can't imagine why the tags "evil" and "fascist" (or "regime") would change his answer. "Murderer" is probably a brader category that includes most, if not all evil fascists, and he green lighted them.
I agree with Kant ...the simplistic ideal of morality is ...lies are immoral, plain and simple. But what people seem to miss is that sometimes immoral actions might be necessary in life - the difference between idealism and reality. In this case, for example, there are two immoral acts being used to make a determination about morality ...and two immoral acts don't add up to one moral act! Morality just doesn't work that way. Something is either immoral or it's not. Lying is immoral. But in life, in the realities of the world, some immoral acts are a necessary part of living. Even from a purely philosophical standpoint, if we don't know that the person is a murderer, then we can't make any judgements about the issue. Kant fucks up when he inserted that little "detail" - it changes the entire concept of that particular lie. I.e., the lie has no known consequences. But even so, lying is immoral ...knowing the consequences of not. But remember, in reality, some immoral acts might be deemed necessary for the greater good. However, necessary lies are still lies .....and are still immoral. Baron Max
There's no such thing as immoral. Lying needs to be seen mathematically; will lying in a specific instance work to your benefit? If so, that's the logical choice.
What a load of absurd stinking crap! It is immoral to tell the truth when 1 knows it will probably lead to innocents being killed. It is good morals to lie to prevent innocents being killed. THAT IS the way morality works.
No, lying is still immoral. In some instances, lying might prove to be beneficial to the society as a whole, but the lie is still immoral. It's not much different to killing someone. Killing people is generally wrong, yet to kill to protect your family, etc is something that is necessary. But that doesn't make it a moral act ...only a necessary one. Baron Max
You contradict yourself. You essentially say X is good yet you insist on terming it immoral. NONSENSE.
I think the immorality of the fascists outweighs the immorality of lying about where they're hiding. Or you could tell them that you won't answer, being possibly tortured and such. Refusing to tell is not to lie.
