Does Kant's categorical imperative really force us to tell the truth?

Question

Under the categorical imperative would you have to tell the truth if even if you knew it would lead to someone's death?

Answer 1

No, it doesn't.

Categorical imperative is not so unwieldy a tool. Simplistically, the maxim requires that you behave such that you would be fine if everyone *in the same situation* acted the same way. The scope of "situation" is what's at issue here.

If you take an overly-broad view, you would examine the categorical question as "should people lie?" The imperative asks whether you would be OK if everyone lied all the time; the answer (I assume) is no; and thus you should always tell the truth.

However, you could take a more nuanced view, and examine the categorical question as "should people lie in order to save an innocent's life?" I assume you would be OK with everyone lying *in that circumstance*, and thus the imperative permits lies, but only in the specific situation. (Well, there may be others, like lying to prevent an innocent from being hurt but not killed, but you get the idea.)

The categorical imperative actually *requires* that you examine the narrower situation rather than the broader one. This is caused by the existence of more that one imperative. "Don't lie" is an important moral, but so is "don't cause another's death." When faced with a situation where the imperatives appear to conflict, you need to look more closely at the details of that situation.

Answer 2

There is but one categorical imperative, according to Kant: "Act only on that principle which thou canst will should become a universal law." That is, you ought to be honest all the time, for example. But, you have a choice to make.

That imperative applies to concepts/actions that are good in themselves, says Kant.

In contrast, the hypothetical imperative says that "the action is good for some purpose, actual or possible." Hence, if you want to be on time for something, you ought to leave early. If you choose not to leave early, that's fine, but there's no duty to do so.

The categorical imperative, however, is a duty, according to Kant. Very few of us live by that, of course.

Answer 3

It would seem that that's the case. The categorical imperative does not work well with extreme examples, because it seeks to delineate moral principles, not by their effect on the world, but by their adherence to rules.
So if Nazi soldiers ask you if you know where a Jewish family is hidden and you happen to know, according to Kant, you have to tell them the truth, because truth prevails over lies.
I don't think Kant himself would have agreed to that kind of conclusion, though. He didn't check his theories against this kind of extreme case.

Answer 4

Eh, depends on the person.

Nothing is absolutely binding.
It may be truth for a majoity,
but there is always a minority.