Have you ever felt that telling the truth is morally overrated? There are certainly many situations where total transparency could trigger disastrous outcomes for all parties involved. Wouldn’t lying then be a moral duty in order to mitigate such negative consequences? These questions are at the heart of the debate between moral absolutists and moral relativists.
To Lie or Not to Lie?
Well, it depends. Kantian philosophers would tell you: “Absolutely not!”. Advocates of ethical egoism would say: “Lie, but only if it serves your self-interest!”. Proponents of utilitarianism would encourage you to lie if it increases general happiness and decreases overall suffering. Each school of ethics has a unique foundation for issuing moral judgments. While there are countless formulations of what constitutes a right or wrong action, ethics is broadly divided into two main paradigms – moral absolutism and moral relativism.
Moral absolutism maintains that morality is based on universal principles that apply in all contexts. On the other hand, moral relativism approaches morality from a situational perspective, considering contextual differences and nuances. We can visualize moral absolutism as a black-and-white checkerboard, where actions are strictly defined as right or wrong. Moral relativism, however, is like a watercolor painting of all shades of grey, representing a wide spectrum of moral interpretation.
Why Is Lying Always Wrong To Moral Absolutists?
Get the latest articles delivered to your inbox
Sign up to our Free Weekly NewsletterLying is always wrong to moral absolutists because their moral judgment is based on universal principles rather than situational variables. Lying is considered an inherently wrong action, irrespective of the particularities of each case of lying. A quintessential example of moral absolutism is Immanuel Kant’s moral philosophy. Kant severely critiqued moral relativism, accusing it of “obliterating the difference between virtue and vice” (Kant, 1785).
He argued that a moral law must be an apodictic practical rule of “unconditional practical necessity”, meaning that its applicability can’t be conditioned on any hypothetical factors (Kant, 1785). Kant’s Copernican revolution in morality was to establish a method of deriving universal, a-priori, moral laws. In his Groundwork Of The Metaphysics of Morals, he encapsulates it as follows: “Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law” (Kant, 1785).
Kant’s formula, known as the Categorical Imperative, outlaws actions that result in contradiction when universalized. Let’s put lying to the test. Imagine you’re late for work because you overslept but you find a better excuse, such as heavy traffic, to explain your tardiness to your boss. Following Kant’s formula, let’s consider lying as a universal law.
If we live in a world where everybody lies, nobody would trust anyone to tell the truth. Lying would then be ineffective, since it relies on deceiving someone’s trust in your truth-telling. To follow our example, you wouldn’t be able to lie to your boss because she wouldn’t expect you to tell the truth anyway. According to the Categorical Imperative, lying is a self-defeating and contradictory act, which is why it is universally impermissible.
Why Can Lying Be Permissible to Moral Relativists?
Lying can be permissible to moral relativists because their moral judgment is based on the situational context of an action rather than on the action itself. An action is not inherently right or wrong – it can be right under certain circumstances and wrong under others. One of the most famous examples of moral relativism is utilitarianism. Envisioned by philosophers Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill, utilitarianism is a school of ethics derived from consequentialism.
As the name suggests, consequentialism judges actions based on their consequences. In the utilitarian tradition, the standard of evaluating the consequences of an action is hedonistic. As Jeremy Bentham explains in The Principles of Morals and Legislation: “Nature has placed mankind under the governance of two sovereign masters, pain and pleasure. It is for them alone to point out what we ought to do, as well as to determine what we shall do” (Bentham, 1823).
In utilitarianism, the ethical permissibility of an action is determined by the extent of harm or benefit it causes to all parties involved in the situation. Hence, lying in certain contexts may be considered praiseworthy. Imagine, for example, the common case of lying to someone about your true opinion of their appearance. You think they look hideous, but instead, you complement them. Such white lies are morally appraised in a utilitarian context as they mitigate the pain of social embarrassment and instigate the pleasure of validation.
Compared to Kant’s Categorical Imperative, utilitarianism certainly seems quite simple and straightforward. However, utilitarian ethics are also the source of the most perplexing moral dilemmas when used to assess more complex situations, such as the famous Trolley Problem. Having considered both ethical routes, which would you choose to render your final verdict on the permissibility of lying?
