Discussion on whether it is Morally Permissible to Lie Someone and Deontology Theory

  • Uncategorized

PHILOSOPHY 1

Discussionon whether it is Morally Permissible to Lie Someone and DeontologyTheory

InstitutionAffiliation

Discussionon whether it is Morally Permissible to Lie Someone and DeontologyTheory

Morality defines whether an action is right or wrong. Philosophershave developed arguments that are used to explain what is right orwrong. The paper will discuss if it is morally permissible to liesomeone, reference Immanuel Kant argument and discuss thedeontological theory.

In my opinion, there are cases that permit lying. Some lies can havesome positive results. We lie to avoid the repercussion of sayingthe truth. In addition, lies help to evade a compromising situationthat will maintain peace between people. For instance, during acampaign, aspiring leaders gives almost unachievable promises totheir voters. Later after they are elected, they do not fulfill thepromises. Hence, they lie for personal gain without considering theimpact on their voters. The fact that they used lies to convincetheir voters to vote them means, people are happy and convinced bylies. It is morally wrong to lie for self-interest.

According to Immanuel Kant, it is morally wrong. Kant support thatyou act only what you know can become a universal law. It means thatif you opt to lie then, it should be universal to everyone where eachperson will be lying, and we get it morally right (Sreekumar,2012). Kant`s ethics applied equally to all people.Kant argued it is wrong to lie, even if it could save someone`s life.

I fully agree with Immanuel Kant. If lying is not universal, then theact is irrational and morally wrong. However, in one way I woulddefer with his ethics. If you are lying for a good intention, likesaving a life, the act is morally right though it cannot beuniversal.

Aspectsof Deontology

Deontological ethics are theories that relate duty and morality ofhuman actions. The ethics consider an action morally good accordingto its characteristics (Sreekumar,2012). They also argue that we have moral duties to dowhat is right and moral duty not to do what is wrong.

PositiveAspects of Deontology

Deontological ethics allows people to be consistent as they canperform an act frequently and in a similar way that satisfies them.In addition, if a person had public duties, the ethics place theirduties and priorities on families, friends and other people that arefamiliar. Deontological ethics allow followers to be supererogatory(Sreekumar,2012). Someone can exceed his duties to protect thosewho are close to him.

Negativesof Deontological Ethics

The ethics do not violate a duty to prevent several duties caused byothers. We have no moral obligation to make the world worse than itis. However, the duty may result in harmful consequences.

Theethics do not provide good bases to deal with situations where dutiesconflict with each other. It lacks a ranking system that willdetermine which violation is worse than the other. In addition, theethics do not provide a reasonable evidence for following it.

Contrastwith other Theories.

Utilitarianism. The ethics of utilitarianism believes that allactions should produce the best good and for all people. Unlike thedeontology that focuses on the moral characteristics of an action andnot its consequences.

Virtue theory. It emphasizes character traits than theconsequences of an action. It does judge someone as right or wrongdue to one action but uses several actions. Unlike, deontologyconsiders the adherence to duties and obligations only when arguingan issue (Sreekumar,2012).

In conclusion, deontology considers an action itself rather than theoutcomes of the action. It favors those seeking to have moralattraction as it is based on commanding rather than commending.

Reference

Sreekumar,S. (2012). Ananalysis of consequentialism and deontology in the normative ethicsof

theBhagavadgītā.&nbspJournalof Indian Philosophy,&nbsp40(3),277-315.