Mike Geary wrote:
"If Kant was serious in his condemnation of lying for any reason, then
the man was an idiot whose moral compass was quite shallow."
It is a bit more complicated than this. In the essay that contains
the example of lying to the murderer, Kant distinguishes between the
moral axiom that lying is wrong and the political considerations that
go into establishing harmony in a society based on freedom and
equality. It seems to me that Kant wants to argue that, as a moral
act, lying is always wrong. There are no situations that alter this
fact. That is, no set of circumstances changes the fact that lying
undermines our duty to truthfulness.
However, Kant then goes on to distinguish between the moral axiom
'Always tell the truth', the manner in which this axiom is translated
into laws for the sake of freedom and equality, and the political
administration of these laws that aims for harmony in society. He
understood that moral axioms cannot be directly turned into laws and
social mores.
If I were to try and develop a 'Kantian' response to the problem of
the murderer, it would be that lying to the murderer is always wrong,
but that for the good of society, one should act on one's duty to
protect the innocent. In this case, 'political' considerations lead
us to focus on the freedom of the innocent. Even though one may act
in this way, lying to the murderer is still morally wrong.
Sincerely,
Phil Enns
Indonesia
------------------------------------------------------------------
To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
