University Essay: Kant's 'On a Supposed Right to Lie' Argument

This essay critically analyzes Immanuel Kant's argument against a right to lie, as presented in his text "On a Supposed Right to Lie from Philanthropy." The essay begins by outlining Kant's core belief that truth-telling is a moral duty, rooted in reason and the categorical imperative, and that lying undermines human dignity and rationality. It explores Kant's rejection of any justification for lying, even for philanthropic purposes. However, the essay also acknowledges and discusses criticisms and alternative viewpoints on Kant's stance. Specifically, the essay considers arguments presented by various philosophers, such as Cholbi, Korsgaard, Mahon, and Sober, who offer different perspectives on the potential exceptions to Kant's rule against lying, such as in situations of self-defense or to save innocent lives. The essay concludes by highlighting the ongoing debate and contradictions surrounding Kant's universalized view on lying, suggesting that the strict application of his principles may not always be feasible or morally justifiable in every circumstance. The essay underscores the complexity of ethical decision-making when considering the act of lying and its implications.

Running head: ON A SUPPOSED RIGHT TO LIE FROM PHILANTHROPY – A RESPONSE
ON A SUPPOSED RIGHT TO LIE FROM PHILANTHROPY – A RESPONSE
Name of the Student
Name of the University
Author Note

1ON A SUPPOSED RIGHT TO LIE FROM PHILANTHROPY – A RESPONSE
Immanuel Kant is one of the most celebrated German philosophers who had argued that
the source of the morality of a person is dependent on the reason that exists within the mind of
the concerned person. The following essay deals with the arguments put forth by the eminent
philosopher Immanuel Kant on the matters that pertain to the arguments put forth by Immanuel
Kant against the right of the concerned person to lie.
The celebrated German philosopher opines that speaking the truth in any matter is a
moral duty that should be maintained by the concerned person. It should be considered to be a
duty on the part of the person to tell the truth to the people who are entitled to hear the truth. The
philosopher further opines that no person might be granted the rights to any truth that might pose
to be harmful to other people. Immanuel Kant argues that lying should not be considered to be a
moral action since the act of lying might hamper the moral capacity of the human beings as well
as prevents the other members to act in a free and rational manner. The act of lying is known to
undermine the dignity of the other members. The Kantian ethics tend to refute the conditions of a
lie.
However, the other believers in the Kantian theory tend to put forth certain circumstances
wherein the Kantian theory that claims that lying is an immoral act does not hold good. Cholbi
(2009) argues that there might arise situations wherein a person has to lie in an act of self-
defense or in situations wherein the concerned person might have to lie in order to save the life
of another innocent person. This is found to be in opposition to the theory put forth by Kant
which states that the lying in any form is an immoral act. Korsgaard (1986) differs from the
Kantian philosophy on the fact that the dealings with the evil might be manipulated in order to
respond to the various situations that might arise within the given time frame. The author tends
to throw light on the various implications of the categorical imperative that was stated by the

2ON A SUPPOSED RIGHT TO LIE FROM PHILANTHROPY – A RESPONSE
German philosopher, that states that the duty should be performed for the sake of the performing
of the duty. Mahon (2006) puts forth the question as to what should be given much priority, the
sense of the moral as well as the ethical duty for the speaking the truth or the performance of just
completing the duty at hand. Sober (1994) argues that the philosophers have also postulated the
modal asymmetry in the matters that pertain to the telling of the truth. The author states that the
quality of telling the truth might be universalized.
Thus, from the above discussion, it might be pointed out that the arguments put forth by
the celebrated German philosopher, Immanuel Kant in the matters that pertain to the act of lying
might not be considered to be universalized due to the various different contradictions that have
been put forth by the successive researcher and philosophical thinkers.

3ON A SUPPOSED RIGHT TO LIE FROM PHILANTHROPY – A RESPONSE
References
Cholbi, M., 2009. The murderer at the door: what Kant should have said. Philosophy and
Phenomenological Research, 79(1), pp.17-46.
Korsgaard, C.M., 1986. The right to lie: Kant on dealing with evil. Philosophy & Public Affairs,
pp.325-349.
Mahon, J.E., 2006. Kant and the perfect duty to others not to lie. British Journal for the History
of Philosophy, 14(4), pp.653-685.
Sober, E., 1994. The primacy of truth-telling and the evolution of lying. From a biological point
of view, pp.71-92.