Is Lying Under Any Circustances “Righ or Wrong”

Based on the philosophy of Immanuel Kant, I would have to disagree with his argument that lying is wrong under some(prenominal) circumstances. In this paper I will discuss my reason for disagreeing with the argument based on the flaw stated in the argument, how lying and carnal knowledge the truth both have insalubrious yields depending on the circumstances, and also how moralistic rules shtupnot be absolute. In this paragraph I will be discussing the flaw that is stated in the argument, in which I utterly agree with.The philosophy that Kant is stating is completely flawed because it is contradictory on what he base his reasoning on. Suppose it was necessary to lie to save someones life. Should you do it? Kant would have us reason as follows We should do only those actions that conform to rules that we could will to be adopted universally. Second, if you were to lie, you would be following the rule It is okey to lie. Also this rule could not be adopted universally, becaus e it would be self-defeating People would stop believing one another, and then it would do no candid to lie, therefore, you should not lie. (Immanuel Kant). The problem would show in step two, on why we would be vocalizeing if we lie that we would be following a rule that it is alright to lie, when as Anscombe stated if you changed it around to I will lie when doing so would save someones life. That would make that rule not be self-defeating. Ancombes argument,shows that in order not to lie completely and prove Kants philosophy you have to show where lying would not have a good consequence behind it. But it clearly shows that depending on what you be lying for some lies can help more than hurt.Which leads me into my second point on how lying and guaranteeing the truth both has bad consequences. In Kants philosophy telling the truth leaves you blameless no reckon what the outcome of the truth. And lying leaves you being held prudent for the outcome no matter good or bad. Thi s to me is not a good philosophy because you cannot be blameless if telling the truth gets someone killed, scarce lying helps save his or her life. Because you had to lie in order to save that persons life does that make 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 harmful 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 still get her fired from work. Both have bad consequences and it doesnt make that person feel 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 take overt live in a society that makes decisions based on morals.Because there is some circumstances that make it hard to say that when this person lied it doesnt matter t hat the outcome helped someone it was but a lie and nothing else matters. That is not the reality of things morally you cannot let a person drop dead 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 ask me if a moral rule was absolute there would be terrible consequences to telling the truth and not lying in certain circumstances. If such dilemmas occur, then doesnt this negate 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 innocent people are both interpreted 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. whole shebang Cited Rachels, James ( 1941-2003) The Elements of Moral Philosophy