Constant feels that it is okay to lie to some who injures others. He feels they don't have the right to the truth. So he's saying it is okay to lie to a mass murderer who comes to your home looking for you brother so he could kill him. Kant feels telling the truth would be best because what happens if your brother escapes once he finds out the murderer is at the door but not to your knowledge and your lying may cause the murderer to leave and run into your brother as he's escaping and murder the brother. Do you agree with Kant or Constant? If you were the brother in this situation would you stay put or try to escape?
2007-10-21 05:51:36 · 8 answers · asked by ms.l_thoms 1 in Arts & Humanities ➔ Philosophy
Dishonesty is assumed to be an act of the will. If I am compelled to lie, then it isn't dishonesty in my estimation. Threatening to kill someone is a form of compulsion.
2007-10-21 06:00:01 · answer #1 · answered by Matthew T 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I'll go with Constant. Kants situation is far more unlikely. The chances of your brother encountering the murderer as he is leaving the house are slimmer then his being found if you tell the murderer where he is. Its a matter of taking the course where the odds are more inclinated towards a lack of harm.
And if I was the brother I'd stay put, grab something heavy, and go help my kindred with the murderer.
2007-10-21 05:58:59 · answer #2 · answered by Rafael 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Constant. Honesty is overrated. I don't believe that being consistently hoest is necessarily moral. In this situation, lying to an evil person to protect a good person is the most moral stance. Kant's possible situation is highly unlikely. If I were the brother, I'd stay put knowing that I will be protected.
2007-10-21 07:07:45 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
This situation is better handled by the Indian Philosophers, tens of thousands of years ago.
"Satyam Vada, Priyam Vada" is a norm, meaning, to speak the truth is also to speak pleasently. What is the good in speaking unpleasent, even if they are truths? What harms, even if they are truths, are to be avioded, atlest for the context of harmfulness.
Speaking truth is not a 'homogenous' norm unlike western moral philosphers want it. It is also contextual, heterogenous, and depnds on the desederatum. Why truth is spoken and what for truth is spoken is also to be considered.
We do not have an Indian moral philosophy, as all Indian Philosphies are moral, this way or the other.
There is no unconditionaity with speaking the truth is a virtue.
2007-10-21 06:02:31 · answer #4 · answered by Dr. Girishkumar TS 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Cops often lie to suspects, in order to get them to admit to something they think the cops already know.
But how do you know the man at your door is a mass murderer. If I knew that, I would not lie, I would slam the door and lock it, and call 911.
When there is no means to fight evil but to lie to it, lie. Evil does not deserve the truth. In that case, the means justify the end.
2007-10-21 05:56:47 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
Constant.
2007-10-21 06:25:51 · answer #6 · answered by nosy old lady 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Go with Constant. Evil doesn't need to know the truth.
2007-10-21 06:02:46 · answer #7 · answered by I'm Chris Hansen 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
definitely constant
2007-10-21 07:17:08 · answer #8 · answered by sara 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋