Lying, in general, is something that we chastise and place a negative valence upon. To tell the truth is considered the morally correct thing to do. Much ink has been spilled on the nature of truth and its importance. For instance, Kant thought that it was an imperative to tell the truth. To do otherwise, he considered, is a violation of the categorical imperative since one could not will lying to be a universal law. “This means that when you tell a lie, you merely take exception to the general rule that says everyone should always tell the truth” (Groundwork 24). Objectively, a universal law cannot permit any exceptions; else a contradiction ensues. Thus, Kant brings out both the excusatory nature we often place on lying as well as
…show more content…
As a major Enlightenment figure, Kant thought that reason could prove to any person the necessity of telling the truth. In spite of Kant’s best efforts, human beings continue to lie, and the question is even raised whether or not it is advisable to always tell the truth. For instance, in response to Kant’s ethical theory, Benjamin Constant published an article in the periodical FRANCE in which he stated that “The moral principle stating that it is a duty to tell the truth would make any society impossible if that principle were taken singly and unconditionally” (p123 of FRANCE and pg 63 of Groundwork, Supplement). Put simply, Constant thought that no society could ever survive on the pure truth. One might consider Moliere’s MISANTHROPE as a comic example of a man obsessed with truth to the exclusion of societal mores. Constant, however, was more concerned with serious matters, such as harmful effects that might follow from always telling the truth. A debate ensued. The purpose of this paper is to analyze that debate in more detail, as well as its aftermath, particularly as noted by Alenka Zupancic in her book, …show more content…
In this essay he clearly states his position, “Truthfulness in statements that cannot be avoided is the formal duty of man to everyone, however great the disadvantage that may arise therefrom for him or for any other” (64). Kant felt so strongly about this position that he backed it even in the face of Constant’s extreme example. The example, nonetheless, is this. If someone were at your door to murder your friend who was hiding in your house and if asked if he was there, what would you do? Kant answered that you still had a duty to tell the truth. Constant claimed contrary to this that while “To tell the truth is thus a duty, but it is a duty only with regard to one who has a right to the truth. But no one has a right to a truth that harms others” (64). Kant took issue on several counts. He tells us that:
the expression “to have a right to truth” is meaningless. One must say, rather, that man has a right to his own truthfulness (veracitas) i.e. to subjective truth in his own person. For to have objectively a right to truth would be the same as to say that it is a matter of one’s will (as in cases of mine and thine generally) whether a given statement is to be true or false, this would produce an unusual logic
As a major Enlightenment figure, Kant thought that reason could prove to any person the necessity of telling the truth. In spite of Kant’s best efforts, human beings continue to lie, and the question is even raised whether or not it is advisable to always tell the truth. For instance, in response to Kant’s ethical theory, Benjamin Constant published an article in the periodical FRANCE in which he stated that “The moral principle stating that it is a duty to tell the truth would make any society impossible if that principle were taken singly and unconditionally” (p123 of FRANCE and pg 63 of Groundwork, Supplement). Put simply, Constant thought that no society could ever survive on the pure truth. One might consider Moliere’s MISANTHROPE as a comic example of a man obsessed with truth to the exclusion of societal mores. Constant, however, was more concerned with serious matters, such as harmful effects that might follow from always telling the truth. A debate ensued. The purpose of this paper is to analyze that debate in more detail, as well as its aftermath, particularly as noted by Alenka Zupancic in her book, …show more content…
In this essay he clearly states his position, “Truthfulness in statements that cannot be avoided is the formal duty of man to everyone, however great the disadvantage that may arise therefrom for him or for any other” (64). Kant felt so strongly about this position that he backed it even in the face of Constant’s extreme example. The example, nonetheless, is this. If someone were at your door to murder your friend who was hiding in your house and if asked if he was there, what would you do? Kant answered that you still had a duty to tell the truth. Constant claimed contrary to this that while “To tell the truth is thus a duty, but it is a duty only with regard to one who has a right to the truth. But no one has a right to a truth that harms others” (64). Kant took issue on several counts. He tells us that:
the expression “to have a right to truth” is meaningless. One must say, rather, that man has a right to his own truthfulness (veracitas) i.e. to subjective truth in his own person. For to have objectively a right to truth would be the same as to say that it is a matter of one’s will (as in cases of mine and thine generally) whether a given statement is to be true or false, this would produce an unusual logic