Immanuel Kant's philosophical contributions and legacy

Immanuel Kant

Reasons for Kant's Belief that there are No Exceptions to the Duty Not to Lie

Lying involves making a statement that is largely untruthful. Kant believes that there can be no exceptions to the duty not to lie - regardless of the consequences. For instance, he argues that it is wrong to lie to a would-be murderer, in order to save the life of an innocent child. In this case, the would-be murderer has set out on a murder course, and hence forfeited his own right. Lying to him would amount to violation of his rights. Kant's view is that any lie, regardless of circumstances, disregards goodwill, goes against the motive and principle of duty, and is not in conformity with the universality principle.

With regard to lying and goodwill, it should be noted that in life, "we have to struggle against unruly impulses and desires; a good will is manifested in acting for the sake of duty" (Kart, 2012). Human goodwill is best manifested in a person's ability to overcome the obstacles presented in his/her way by such unruly desires and impulses. A perfect will is driven by duty and would face no difficulty in overcoming such obstacles (Kart, 2012). Lying keeps us from being duty-driven and consequently, from achieving a perfect will. When it comes to the duty motive, an action is considered "morally good, not because it is done from immediate inclinations, still less because it is done from self-interest, but because it is done for the sake of duty" (Kart, 2012). In order to determine whether our actions are immediate-inclined or duty-driven, Kart advocates for action-isolation. A lie driven by generosity, or sympathy "may be right and praiseworthy, but that nevertheless, it has no distinctively moral worth" (Kart, 2012). As per the duty principle, an action's moral worth isn't measured "from the result it attains or seeks to attain, but from a moral principle or maxim -- the principle of doing one's duty, whatever that may be" (Kart, 2012). Our will is dependent on our maxims. We should weigh the maxims behind our actions to determine whether or not they align with duty, since actions are only considered morally acceptable (good), if they are done for duty's sake (Kart, 2012). The universality principle calls for the weighing of maxims behind our actions to determine whether or not, they can "be willed as universal laws - that is, as laws valid for all men, and not as special privileges of our own" (Kant, 2012). Lying does not qualify as a universal law.

Lying and the Categorical Imperative

Kant's categorical imperative forms the basis for all moral judgment and is formulated by two major principles: universality and reciprocity. Universality requires that you "act only on that maxim which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law" (Poel & Royakkers, 2011). Universal implies that it can be applied to all people. I may lie, at some point because it is convenient, but the categorical imperative requires that I should then wish that everyone lies, at their own convenience. If lying becomes universal law, no one would trust another to tell the truth.

Agreement/Disagreement with Kant's View on Lying

I do not agree with Kant about lying, because he disregards the concept of human reason and logic. Humans should be guided by reason in decision making, and not solely ethics and morality. If Kant's view on lying were to be adopted, then the whole philosophical concept of critical and creative thinking would lose meaning.