Why is it ethical to tell your friend's location to the
murderer according to Kant?
The dilemma or case study we are discussing here is about
the “right to lie for benevolence” that gained popularity with Kant. According
to Kant, although some philosophers saw telling the truth as a virtue, they
argued that in exceptional cases the subject has “right to lie”. To them, these
exceptions included giving the murder suspect a friend who took refuge in your
home. Because the truth can only be told to those who “have the right to know
the truth”. If a person aims to harm others, he has no right to know the truth.
It is useful to put forward Kant's critique of the idea of
“having the right to know the truth”. According to Kant, such an attitude makes
the right to say the truth depends on one's own will, which makes the "right to know the
truth" subjective from the very beginning. However, "search for
objectivity" lies at the heart of Kant's understanding of ethics.
Rather than morality that varies according to our
experience, it contains codes that require the same behavior in all
circumstances. The main purpose is to stick to the laws guided by reason, with
no exceptions. In the eyes of Kant, if telling the truth is a law of mind, or a
responsibility, in some cases, lying is a "mistake" against
humanity and honesty. In this case, according to Kant, it is ethical to
tell the murder suspect the truth.
That was how Kant understands the ethics/morals from his
view. But I sincerely don't think that his vision of ethics is the way to go
for me. Because the world we live in, is full of exceptions.
Hiç yorum yok:
Yorum Gönder