Topic 1 The Lying Promise by Immanuel Kant
Topic 1: The Lying Promise by Immanuel Kant
Is lying permissible? This is a question that many grapples with daily as life presents endless opportunities for dishonesty with friends, with family, on taxes, in games. Lies co-exist side by side with the truth, and human beings lie routinely, knowingly, and unknowingly. People lie for various reasons; some lie for personal gain, while others lie with deliberate intent to conceal the truth to protect others. In a complex situation, honesty seems second best to values such as justice, compassion, and respect. However, various philosophers believe that lying is morally wrong. One of such philosophers is Immanuel Kant. He argues that human beings have the moral responsibility to be truthful as lying corrupts human qualities and takes away people’s ability to make free and rational choices. Although lies form an integral part of human nature, Kant views them as morally wrong and fundamentally unreasonable acts that deprive dignity.
Deontological ethics plays emphasis on the relationship between the morality of human actions and duty. This perspective evaluates human activities from the characteristics of the act itself and not the consequence of the action. Kant constructs the basis of morality from the concept of duty; it requires individuals to follow the rules and do their duty without considering the cost and benefit of the situation (1785/1993, 390-391). He bases the morality discussion under categorical imperatives; morality commands individuals; one cannot opt-out of it or claim it does not apply to them. He argues that the only good that can be unqualifiedly virtuous is good will; no other goodness has this status as individuals can use the other acts of goodness to achieve immoral ends (1785/1993, 391). Good will is always good and maintains moral values even if it does not achieve honest intentions. Kant argues that good will stems from duty and overcome hindrances to keep the moral law; this implies that only acts performed with regard to duty have moral worth (1785/1993, 394). In regards to Kant’s morality perspective, a morally upright person is someone who always does their duty because it is their duty regardless of whether they enjoy doing it or not. For example, individuals who keep their moral duty of paying taxes irrespective of what the government does with taxation and whether they enjoy it have moral worth.
The first formulation under categorical imperative is the formula of the universal law of nature that operates under the principle “Act only in accordance to rules or principles through which you can and at the same time will that it should become a universal law (1785/1993, 399-402).” This implies that all rules and principles that individuals act on must be such that they are willing to make it the case that everyone else always operates on the same rules and principles when in the same situation. For instance, if an individual borrows money and promises to pay it back even though they have no intention of paying. In this case, the guiding principles and rules are such that; when an individual is short of money, they borrow promising to return although they are aware this will never happen. Therefore, the individual should be willing to accept this as a universal law where everyone else’s short of money can borrow and promise to pay back, knowing they have no intention of paying back.
According to this formulation, the permissiveness of moral reasoning undergoes four steps. First, individuals formulate the rules and principles they propose to govern the action. Second, develop the rules and principles into universal law governing everyone. Three, consider if the rules and principles are conceivable in a world governed by this law of nature. Fourth, individuals question whether the rules and principles will rationally govern their actions (1785/1993, 402). An act can only be morally permissible if it passes all four steps. For instance, the rules that allow individuals to commit suicide to escape life’s misfortunes cannot be accepted as it will fail step three; the action is impossible in the world.
According to Kant’s morality perspective, there are ways of acting that are always wrong; wrong for any individual, society, and anytime. For instance, it is morally wrong to make a false promise that you have no intention of keeping (1785/1993, 421). Kant’s Lying Promise is a case where an individual makes a lying promise to achieve something they need. It presents a scenario where an individual borrows money promising to pay it back even though they have no intention of paying it back (1785/1993, 421). The guiding rule and principle in the case are when an individual is short of money; they borrow promising to pay back although they are aware they will never do so.
Kant argues that the Lying Promise is immoral because if an individual makes a promise they do not intend to keep to others, they treat others as a means, not as ends. Individual is lying to benefit themselves, using the other person as a means (1785/1993, 421). Secondly, Kant argues that lying promise is morally wrong as individuals use others in ways they might not consent to if they knew the truth. Individuals should respect other people and not manipulate them in ways that benefit them (1785/1993, 422). People should treat others with dignity. Additionally, Kant argues that the lying promise is morally wrong because every individual in society can’t adopt the act of making false promises. Thus, when individuals lie, they lie to people who might honestly keep their promises, treating themselves as an exception in the process (1785/1993). People should universally accept the maxim of an act; if individuals expect others to keep their promises, then it is their obligation to keep their promises.
In the case of a lying promise, the individuals should accept the universal law of nature that individuals who are short of money can borrow with the promise of returning even though they have no intention of paying it back. From the Formula of Universal Law of Nature, lying promises present a case where the guiding principle and rules are; anyone in a difficult situation can make any promises they deem fit for the problem with no intention of keeping the promises (1785/1993, 422). According to the Formula for Universal nature of law from permissible reasoning, this guiding principle fails the Universal Law of Nature test. First, the maxim is inconceivable as a universal law of nature. Promises and truth are a significant part of society; therefore, guiding principles and rules that make promises and truth meaningless are irrational (1785/1993, 421). Secondly, the maxim is self-defeating and inconsistent, and the only way it can work is if the person telling a lie is exempted from following the guiding principles and rules. The maxim provides that individuals lie to get what they want; if this becomes the case, then the individual in the society will not believe one another; therefore, the lie will not work.
Kant’s view on the morality of the lying promise has elements of good and bad arguments. Making a promise to an individual with no intention of keeping to reap benefits is a case of manipulation that robs someone of dignity. The individual in need is using people as instruments to achieve something. Using lies to manipulate and disrespect others is morally wrong (1785/1993, 423). However, there are some aspects of the arguments that raise concerns. For instance, lying promise falls under imperfect duties; the act limits its pursuit practically. Therefore, the view that everyone can adopt making promises they cannot keep making the principle of borrowing by pretense unsuccessfully in the community is limited (1785/1993, 422). Moneylenders have alternatives of dealing with those not keeping their promises of repaying them. Therefore, everyone in society can’t adopt borrowing by pretense (1785/1993, 422). Secondly, the argument that the moneylender might not consent to making promises they have no intention of keeping; therefore, the loaner lying to him is using him as a means to an end presents a limited scope (1785/1993, 422). The scenario can fall under an individual’s violation of imperfect duties to others compared to the breach of perfect obligations such as individuals’ rights. The issue is not as grave as Kant puts it.
Additionally, in the case of a lying promise, the guiding principle is “when an individual is short of money, they make a promise they have no intention of keeping.” This implies that the loaner successfully gets the money from the moneylender, revealing the lender’s trust towards the loaner (1785/1993, 422). This trust might have been built by other people who were in the same situation as the loaner. This implies that not everyone is making a false promise, or else the moneylender would not have given the loaner money. This negates Kant’s argument that the false promise will be universal.
Lies form an integral part of human life and co-exist side by side with truth. Kant view lies as morally wrong and fundamentally unreasonable. He constructs the basis of morality from the concept of duty and presents different formulas to explain moral reasoning. The Formula of Universal Law of Nature advocates for individuals to adopt guiding principles that others can adopt if in the same situation. Kant uses the lying promise to present his argument on the morality of lies. However, the views do not incorporate the broader scope of the ethics of lies.
References
Kant, I. (1993). On a supposed right to lie because of philanthropic concerns. Grounding for the
Metaphysics of Morals, 63-7. Hackett Publishing Company, Inc. Indianapolis/Cambridge.
