Justice with Michael Sandel

Episode Seven

Share this content

Join the Conversation

The spirited classroom debate doesn’t have to end when class is over. Share your thoughts with other viewers from around the world. Join the ongoing discussion or start your own. Ask a question or respond to ours:

1. Is telling a misleading truth morally equivalent to lying?
2. When is telling the truth the wrong thing to do?

Public Discussion Circle

Comments (94)

(SPC) said:

Thursday 29, October 2009, 1:26 am

I disagree with the Sandel's defense of Kant's response to "the case of the murderer at the door". I believe the distinction between lying and deception is one of media. A lie is merely using words to deceive. Can one lie without using words? No. So is deceptive action then immoral? I believe the only response that is consistent with Kant would be "yes". If this is true, then any use of words to deceive is also immoral, according to Kant's own theories. This is why I believe "the case of the murderer at the door" exposes Kant's failure to conform to ordinary human reason. No response other than a lie would be moral under the hypothetical circumstances. Therefore, lying is morally justifiable given the right circumstances.

There's another fallacy to Kant that I think bears scrutiny. Are there any examples of universally-held self-imposed laws? It seems to me that every law we can name has conscientious objectors, making the idea of a universal reason that leads to universally-held self-imposed law impossible.
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Thursday 29, October 2009, 8:08 am

I guess you didnt get it, the problem with "the right circumstances" is that those conditions are only determinated by you and you alone, and that makes it wrong to do

(Unregistered) said:

Friday 30, October 2009, 2:12 am

The closest there may be to universal law is the UCC - Uniform Commercial Code and Maritime Law - which tends to be much more in force in every aspect of life than Common Law or the Law of the Land. This is about as close to the Matrix as you can get! Corporate/contract/business law governs everything we do. When we are born, our parents register us as new corporate assets - with a lien attached. Our birth certificates represent our assigned stock value and are actively traded on securities exchanges. The reason names appear in CAPITAL LETTERS on most identification and financial documents is because it refers to a "straw man" entity you may not even be aware of that was created for business purposes. It does NOT refer to you, but you are held responsible for this entity and all the obligations imposed upon it (unless you know the UCC well enough to separate yourself and become only an agent of that entity).
Look this up! The United States is a corporation, not a country. B.H. Obama is the president of a corporation, NOT a nation. We, as a country and individuals, are "owned" by the Queen of England - and the Rothchilds family. This is NOT "moral", but IS the result of a universally imposed and apparently accepted law.

(Unregistered) said:

Tuesday 19, January 2010, 5:47 pm

I do think there is a weakness in Kant's claim of universal moral law. First, it lacks a developmental perspective, i.e. that meanings of good and evil are in flux, despite an eternal foundation of transcend goodness. I would argue that this development can grow closer towards this goodness. Second, what about the law of mercy? Is there in other words, only one ethical law? I do think there is. The circumstances appeal to a certain ethical action, and our developing, fallible conscience perceives the best possible choice. We must face the possibility that we may be wrong, and failed to act ethically. The failure to save a life - this shows a reverence for life - through deception can be ethically wrong.

(Unregistered) said:

Tuesday 19, January 2010, 5:49 pm

apologies:
Is there only one ethical law? I don't think there is.

(Unregistered) said:

Saturday 27, February 2010, 7:22 pm

Lying and telling a truth to deceive are both immoral but telling a deceptive truth has principles as lying does not. With deceptive truth people can dig out the whole truth from the deceiver as lying their is no way to do this. Sandel's Clinton example shows this.

For universal-held self-imposed laws they're many; to murder, killing infants, rape, etc. These are all examples universal law. The only people who would object to these are irrational insane persons. Kant does excludes anyone who is not rational.

Billy

(Unregistered) said:

Monday 24, May 2010, 6:05 pm

please post a reply on the comments at the bottom of this discussion circle!

(Unregistered) said:

Thursday 21, October 2010, 10:40 am

Actually Kant used "deceiving words" at his time. He was told to stop criticizing religion in his book by a king at that time. What Kant said was as the king's loyal servant he would not write about religion but he knew that the king would pass away soon. After the king died he started to write his philosphy again and said that the promise was only valid when the king was alive. So I believe that Kant was aware of what Michael Sandel says in his lecture.

(Xerex) said:

Thursday 29, October 2009, 8:21 am

SPC,

I can ly and decieve you without words, and I am sure a lot of other people can. Just by acting in certain ways.
The problem here is Kants cathecorigal approach which lacks depth.

AC
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Friday 30, October 2009, 1:47 am

Deceit is possible in many ways - with and without words. Humans are not the only animals to deliberately deceive - or lie (with language). Telling the truth yet allowing someone to believe something that is not true is sometimes considering a form of "lying" - even though it's really the other person's perception that is wrong, not what was said. It is impossible to tell the "whole" truth and people often forget or confuse things and make unintentional mistakes - which often can lead to false conclusions, but deliberately "omitting" part of the known truth is usually considered a "lie" when it is intended to mislead others with the truth.

(Unregistered) said:

Thursday 29, October 2009, 11:02 am

Who has the right to say that lying is indeed wrong.
I believe it is an art form when it is used for the good, to improve the existing condition, if you will.
REGARDS
GENE STEINBROOK
2525 S. BAY ST.
EUSTIS, FLORIDA
32726
352-357-5901 OFF
352-728-8200 HM
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Sunday 1, November 2009, 12:16 pm

How very refreshing to find a man not afraid to give name, address and even 2 telephone numbers in a post! I am highly impressed. You are quite brave. I do not know you, but am proud of you none the less. I am not so brave, nor do I know for certain that I may find my way back to this place to read any possible response; so I leave you with my email should you decide to reply. Thanks again for your surprising inclusion of contact information. gary777g@gmail.com

(Unregistered) said:

Tuesday 3, November 2009, 11:41 am

Most of the time people lie, not to improve the existing condition, but to deceive, and to deceive where deception is neither necessary nor good. And not "bearing false witness" is also one of the 10 commandments, a moral guide many people use to live by. I am certain that the practice of lying is not something that should be promoted.

(Unregistered) said:

Monday 18, January 2010, 6:42 am

Leaving such specific contact information is a beautiful illustration of the art of deception, while not being registered. I just don't see what good it does.

For the discussion:
I find it strange that no one seems to argue if someone is obligated to tell a lie or report something considered even when morally wrong. We often refer to cases where others have done something that is already considered unjust or not moral. Than persons who are not directly involved have to make a decision which is forced upon them by moral 'law' or more often real law and rules.

As well as the case of the murderer at your door asking for your friend, reporting a relative who has committed crimes or your roommate for cheating (even if nobody asks).

Simply said: Is it moral, to act unmoral yourself as an answer to unmoral acts of others?

(Unregistered) said:

Thursday 29, October 2009, 11:44 am

The difficulty I have with the Kantian distinction between evasion and lying as presented here is that although evasion as opposed to outright lying does meet the standard of the categorical imperative by virtue of respecting the moral law, it seems to me that it may fail on other grounds.

Isn't it possible that, through "true evasion" with the intention to mislead, fails to respect the human dignity of the person one is hoping to mislead and doesn't the categorical imperative (in at least one of its formulations) also require us to respect the autonomy of our interlocutor by not providing true, but ultimately misleading answers to his or her questions?

I think this may point to a broader problem some have with Kant's moral system--are the different articulations of the categorical imperative offered by Kant truly equivalent (or at least concordant)?

--Tom Dodson
reply

(DanielAyer) said:

Thursday 29, October 2009, 12:21 pm

I still think that the details bear out importance here. If the categorical imperative were phrased as "Should everyone lie to a murderer who is seeking to kill a person they are hiding," we could answer "yes."

Since we can commit a falsehood without realizing we have done so, lying cannot be categorically wrong. Or rather, we can not hold everyone who has deceived another responsible for that deception. In the same way, since we can never truly know intent, we cannot hold that the intent of the action is grounds to weigh responsibility.
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Saturday 21, November 2009, 3:18 am

I think it doesn't matter if we truly know something or not.

Kant's reason the lying is categorically wrong based on the idea that the possibility of confidence based on a hearer's belief that a speaker tells not absolute truth, but what the later one believes to be truth. Lying disrupts such a confidence in a "rational world of morality" and makes impossible for a hearer to distinguish between truth and lie.

That's why "true evasion" morally to be a better decision than lying, even to a murder. It's just the chance to reconsile (1) moral reason to stay within moral law wiht (2) an intention to save my friend, which can be good reason but, being focused on and justified by some extensive result, not moral. Not telling full truth you saves the friend, but not telling lie you saves morality.

Yes, you can say "let morality be damned, if it increases the danger to my friend", but it's the action against morality. And against rational beings in you, in your friend, as far as in the murder.

(Unregistered) said:

Thursday 29, October 2009, 12:42 pm

In our court system, before testifying, a person takes an oath to "tell the truth, THE WHOLE TRUTH, and nothing but the truth". In law, "the whole truth" means including all relevant facts without intent of evasion or deception. Now, picture yourself in a Nazi courtroom. You are being asked, after swearing this oath, if a certain person is Jewish - knowing they will be murdered if you tell the truth. If you refuse to answer it will be inferred that the person is Jewish anyway. Only if you lie (and you are the only one who knows)will they be set free. Can anyone say they would tell the truth simply based on taking the oath and knowing its meaning? I think Kant has this wrong.
reply

(Xerex) said:

Monday 2, November 2009, 2:37 pm

I would never be swearing such an oath in a Nazi courtroom. I would encourage you not to do that either.

This reminds me that the example of the "murderer at the door" from prof. Sandel is not so hypothetical as it seems:

During the second world war a lot of people were hiding Jews to protect them from the Germans. Razzias were held by German soldiers. And they came knocking at the door to ask whether the Jews were in the house, so they could be deported to camps, like Terblinka. If you want to know more about this read about Anne Frank's house in the Netherlands.

AC

(Unregistered) said:

Thursday 29, October 2009, 1:34 pm

There is an additional solution to the "the case of the murderer at the door" that involves no moral jeopardy. If you accept the duty of protecting your friend from the murderer, and accept the potential consequences, you can be completely honest with the murderer, if you do not rely on 'security through obscurity' to protect your friend.

Tell the murderer your friend is present, and bar the murderer entry. By force if necessary.
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Thursday 5, November 2009, 5:45 pm

Bar entry? Even if you could, then what? You have also barred your own exit - and given a reason to kill you as well. What's your moral plan after being honest and attempting to bar entry?

(Jelle NL) said:

Thursday 29, October 2009, 3:34 pm

Can one categorical imperative (to tell the truth) be overruled by another (more important) one (to save a life)? Is there a hierarchy of categorical imperatives?
reply

(Xerex) said:

Thursday 29, October 2009, 6:43 pm

Jelle,

Yes there is, see my answer to your questions at chapter 6. The constuctive-destructive-hierarchy model is both cathegorical and consequential; that is one of the beauties of this model.

Kant and Mill are telling you just half of the story, that is why you run into problems with these situations.

AC

(Unregistered) said:

Thursday 29, October 2009, 10:30 pm

A lie is an act of deception. So is a magic show, or tall tales, or undercover work, and sometimes the act of negotiation. Having a standard such as Kant's to guide us should simplify the decision on how to act or when to tell the truth as a general rule, but there are times and positions that require us to think beyond that framework. For example, is truth more precious than life? Telling the truth, like most decisions boils down to values. We are moved to act by what we value and by what we value most. In the case of the big bad guy at the door, I would have to ask myself if lying or telling the truth make a difference and who would be affected. Personally, I prefer honesty as the better choice, and it makes life simpler.
reply

(Xerex) said:

Thursday 29, October 2009, 11:13 pm

Telling the thruth here is an immoral act.

This is because telling the thruth has the consequence here (consequencialism) that your friend in the house will be killed, because you help the murderer killing your friend in the house.

Although lying is an act which falls into a bad cathegory according to Kant. This just should tell us that lying shouldn't be taken lightly and is most of the time not the right thing to do.

Our life, or our existence is one of the most fundamental, contructive motives we have. We value this the most morally. Telling the thruth to a murderer we value much less.
Therefore lying in this case is doing justice to your friend in the house (and to the murderer) and is the moral most valued act and telling the thruth here is immoral.

AC
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Friday 30, October 2009, 12:12 am

In reality, unless you felt frightened or the murderer had you by the jogguler, one would never just reply to someone who asks a direct question with a direct answer. One would more than likely reply with another question and several questions down the road, the decision making flow of events will bring you to decide how and what the final answer, if any, would be. So, this scenario of for "a" there must be "b" is not complete. In reality, for "a" there are infinite "b's", depending on the follow up events. in a linear existence as ours, we tend to always naturally try to equate "a" with a "b", but that is not the how the law of fractal geometry and the law of the nature ever works. In reality, human thaught and reasoning is not linear, it is unexpected, random, and very much like the universe of nature and fractal geometry and depending on the situations that arise the outcomes are soooo different that not a single man can actually perdict it and/or try to identify it with absolute and definite commitment. This how Police officer's whom make a mistake during a tragic event are so difficult to prosecute.
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Friday 30, October 2009, 6:48 am

In my opinion, a misleading truth would be lying, but I also think a lie can be good or bad. Just like the example of "the murder at the door," it would be ok to lie for most people. But what if your friend was going to kill the murderer's family? Would the life of one person be better than many innocent people, just because he was your friend? would someone lie to the murderer even though the consequences might be worse? This is an interesting way to put it, and I hope other people can find other scenarios that we can reflect on.
reply

(Xerex) said:

Friday 30, October 2009, 11:03 am

If the friend is going to kill the murderers family, I have serious doubts whether he can classify himself as my friend; I would take every effort to talk to him and try to convince him that murdering a whole family is a bad thing to do; I would even try to prevent him from doing that. I will still be lying at the door to the murderer.

AC
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Friday 30, October 2009, 12:21 pm

Off the main topic, I was thinking about two of the examples given and wondering what others thought, too. First, the lobstermonger. If we say there was a good contract formed between the parties, fine. But, what is to say that a subsequent contract that benefits both parties can't be formed - one which acts to negate the prior contract? In the customer's case, the benefit is not taking on the liability of 100 lobsters that they have no good use for anymore. Although the lobstermonger loses revenue by nullifying the original contract, they can benefit in another way - by gaining a reputation of being agreeable, or operating an empathetic business. This whole idea seems to very much be the case of what happens in (some) retail today. Walmart figured out long ago that simply taking products back, (with receipt) no questions asked, gives more customer utility (and enhancement of store image) than they lose in sales, plus they save time by not making it a lengthy fact checking process. Sure, individuals will have different experiences when returning products, but in general the corporate stance is as described.

For the case of the overzealous car repairman, I was immediately reminded of (a serious point that comes from) Monty Python's Argument Sketch. If you've seen it, you will no doubt remember the line, "I could be arguing in my spare time." I think one thing that "Sam the Mobile Repairman" would do well to remember is that (at least for some people in such a predicament) I am perfectly willing to let anyone who happens by to examine my car "in their spare time," provided that the car is in no worse condition afterwards. In Sam's case, it so happens that not only is he able to look at cars in his spare time, but he also can do it in a professional capacity. The difference is that, being the owner of the car, I have some (not all, because I couldn't back out of an agreement later) say in what capacity he is looking at my car, and in lieu of an agreement, the default capacity is "in one's spare time."
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Friday 30, October 2009, 2:14 pm

I also found the case of the repair man suspect. First, what are the odds that a mobile repair man approaches a vehicle which was working properly when they left it, but now is somehow mysteriously unable to start. Personally, I think that Dr. Sandel was at fault.
Consider that once having explained the terms of his labor the repair man began poking under the steering column. How did he gain access to the column? Once he had explained himself he should have waited for approval. However, since nobody stopped him during the five minutes he spent under the column I believe he had reason to expect payment. If you doubt how long five minutes is, please sit right now for five minutes watching the clock.

(Unregistered) said:

Thursday 14, January 2010, 4:31 pm

Also what Sandel failed to comment on, is, he let the guy look for the problem for 15 minutes before discussing the terms. That is implied consent. The mech. had every right to expect they had an agreement

(djbeede) said:

Sunday 1, November 2009, 6:08 am

I'm new to this series but find it fascinating. My first thoughts...
Kant makes the case that to live by duty according to a moral law we “give” ourselves, we in effect remove ourselves from the ordinary sensory world of simple cause and effect, and end up being guided by a “categorical imperative” that flows from pure reason and is therefor universal.
At the beginning of this series Sandel warned of the consequences of engaging in philosophy, about the “lost innocence” of knowledge and how once known, we cannot “un-know” something. My question... in a state of innocence, that is uninfluenced by culture, would a human child self generate this “categorical imperative” that Kant finds so valuable and sacred and beyond cause and effect? What is the likelihood of a child even self generating language much less the “higher” ideas of philosophy?
If you're with me on the unlikelihood to near impossibility of a human primate generating these philosophical notions, than doesn't it follow that education, and more specifically education in philosophy is part of the causal matrix that leads a human to “self choose” the duty of the categorical imperative, and therefore demonstrate how even this seemingly “higher” “universal” truth is the result of a complex cause and effect series and we aren't as free of the ordinary cause and effect world as Kant claims we can be?
reply

(djbeede) said:

Sunday 1, November 2009, 6:09 am

Re: Kant's notions of freedom.
“in that case every act would be governed by the desire for some object of the senses, and we could not be free”

Why is a desire for an idea, or an ideal different? Why are the thirst for justice or a hunger for truth distinct, particularly if we acquired them thru acculturation and training... one might even say indoctrination? We are still expressing, out picturing a culmination of a long lineage of causes and effects even if some of them are in the realm of ideas or “memes”... why does that make us more free than choosing to do X to acquire food or water or safety?

“the idea of freedom makes me a member of the intelligible world.”

Is Kant's notion of freedom based on choosing the idea of the free will, potentially an act of self deception to escape facing the complexities of being a species of primate totally embedded in a causal world attempting to make sense of it and our place in it?
reply

(djbeede) said:

Sunday 1, November 2009, 6:10 am

Re: Is and Ought...
Is and ought – what is discovered in the world of science can't decide moral questions, according to Kant. The realm of what “is” does not dictate what “ought” to be. The "is" realm of science is "at a distance" removed from the moral world of "ought."
Is this true?
If we are a species of social primates given to co-creating a shared culture and therefore given to generating preferences and visions and missions... ie. “To create a world of safety and sustainable fulfillment for ourselves and all of those who share the planet with us.” [just as an off the cuff mission statement.] Than within those group generated guidelines it becomes possible to see if the “is” that we observe and measure will lead to the “ought” that we have envisioned for ourselves. Yes? Concrete example might be scientists measuring the “is” of global warming and recommending the “ought” of things we might do to avoid catastrophe.
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Thursday 14, January 2010, 4:37 pm

"It depends on what your definition of is, is" (Bill Clinton)

(djbeede) said:

Sunday 1, November 2009, 6:50 am

Re:Murderer at the door: “Lying is wrong” - is it categorical?

If Kant says it is still wrong to lie in such a framework, for fear of dismantling his sacred moral framework, than he demonstrates clearly how becoming so enmeshed in a world of ideas can blind us to the everyday truths of our sensory world. Kant would sacrifice the life of his friend in order to save a sacred idea... an IDEA... a wisp of a thought... a collection of neurons firing!!! He would trade the flesh and blood heart beating life of a friend he presumably loves and respects, a friend with family and obligations, and dreams and visions of their own. He would sacrifice for his sacred notion of morality?
Instead he would opt for a “misleading truth.”
Since, a misleading truth "pays homage" to moral imperative... and so is better than the outright lie??

Shift for a moment to the perspective of the friend hiding in the closet... as the potential "murderee", are you very concerned with “high falootin' notions” of paying homage to grand ideas or would you want us to use any assortment of words necessary to get the murderer to go look somewhere else for you?

Speaking for Kant, Sandel says....
“Yes, I hope the murderer will be mislead by my misleading truth... I can't control that...but I can pursue my preferred consequences in a way consistent with and with respect for the moral law.”

Hmmmm.... let's tweak the situation again. Now let's make it our Mother who is hiding and about to be murdered. Is commitment to our respect for the moral law greater than our desire that our own Mother not be murdered?

If the chances of success are greater for the “outright lie” of, say “I'm pretty sure I saw who you're looking for and she was running off in that direction.” than the “misleading truth” of “no I really don't know exactly where she is at this moment in time.” [exaggeration of misleading truth by poetic license] which tactic would you employ to stop the murderer from killing your mother?
reply

(Xerex) said:

Sunday 1, November 2009, 9:32 am

I would say I just lie in case of the friend and in case of the mother. I am aware that lying is in most cases not the preferred action, but here it is the moral thing to do.

Misleading truth leads to hypocrisy (this is ilustrated with the Clinton example).

The problem here with the example of the misleading truth is that you take the chances that your friend will be killed. You choose to not control the situation on behalf of your moral conviction, and you have every opertunity to control the situation. Very dangerous (to be your friend).

Though, also bigotry can sometimes be the moral thing to do depending on the situation and consequences.

AC

(Unregistered) said:

Sunday 1, November 2009, 4:18 pm

bullets

(djbeede) said:

Sunday 1, November 2009, 7:10 am

That house painting consent deal?
I guess I understand why Hume was made to pay the painter... but wasn't his real quarrel with the sublet-ee who arranged to have work done on property he didn't own?... or perhaps with his friend for subletting to such an individual? It was after all the tenant who gave consent to a contract he didn't have the authority to enter into. And he is enjoying the benefit of living in a painted house.
Being new to this series (though I have watched them all) and obviously "late to the party" of these discussion forums, it feels awkward to me to make so many posts in a row. If I've breached any forum etiquette please forgive me. I lack much formal education and make a living with my hands, making musical instruments. The opportunity to discuss these kinds of ideas are rare for me, and yet I'm naturally drawn to them. Many thanks to Dr. Sandel and to Harvard for making these programs and this process possible.
I look forward to session 8.
David
www.davidbeede.com
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Monday 2, November 2009, 11:26 am

To reply to your question, djbeede, I think you might be overdoing it when you add over 2 feet of comments to the post even before the episode has publicly aired. Stretch it out over time and over others' posts, and perhaps respond to what more people have to say. My suggestion, anyway.

(Xerex) said:

Monday 2, November 2009, 3:00 pm

David,

Lacking formal education doesn't have to stand in the way of thinking about morals. I respect you very much for having interest in moral thinking. Don't worry to much about lack of education, morals is in the first place about just being a human being.
I wish more people, also with not so much formal education, would do the same thing as you.
It is the job of mr. Sandel to make moral thinking interesting and for more people to understand, and he is doing a hell of a job.

AC

(Unregistered) said:

Sunday 1, November 2009, 12:36 pm

who is michael? I saw part of the show on PBS this morning. Is this a part of lectures that are being taught>
reply

(rogernovotny) said:

Sunday 1, November 2009, 1:39 pm

Xerex, Jelle, Keddaw and Mannacio:

I'd like to invite you to a private discussion group on postmodernism (Foucault, Lyotard, etc). You can't access it at present, except by invitation. You may look at the sample of comments (over 1400) by visiting the following site: http://blogcritics.org/politics/article/bye-bye-miss-american-pie-part2/

It is a focused discussion, so far between three participants, but I would like to enlarge on the group. We've still got a long way to go, and new and fresh minds are always welcome.

In case you'd be interested to join, please email me and I will answer whatever questions you might have.

Roger Nowosielski

rogernowosielski@yahoo.com (email)

http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/its_my_take/ (website)

The comments thread:
http://blogcritics.org/politics/article/bye-bye-miss-american-pie-part2/
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Sunday 1, November 2009, 7:58 pm

why can't i bring up the case of hume and the house being painted without his direct consent? i've used every possible combinations of words in my search?
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Monday 2, November 2009, 11:12 am

Telling a "misleading truth" is not the moral equivalent of lying, in my opinion, but in this situation, who would have the presence of mind to stop and weigh all of these considerations with a moment's notice? Practically speaking, the hesitation that would be required would cause the murderer to push right past you, if not kill you also. The murderer does not deserve to be told the truth, here. He/she would be a vigilante, and acting outside of the law. For strictly theoretical purposes, however, the misleading truth is better.
Does anyone else here share the idea I get that Kant seems to have been acting on behalf of some government, writing as if requested to come up with a moral justification that would convince a citizenry to submit their sense of morality to that of a higher authority, but yet still made to believe they were consenting from their own volition? His rationale seems a bit strained, and contrary to what my reason concludes. To completely exclude the welfare of individuals that would result from any of these decisions is cold and offensive. Perhaps the best system is one that would COMBINE categorical and consequentialist elements in some compassionate and compatible way.
reply

(Jelle NL) said:

Monday 2, November 2009, 11:35 am

“Kant seems to have been acting on behalf of some government”. Your impression is quite right (I think). As an Enlightment philosopher Kant was trying to limit the power of the clergy. Priests were no moral experts. Every human being (male) had a special faculty to make sound moral decisions. This “Pure Practical Reason” replaced God as a moral authority. If this is a good authority to "submit one's sense of morality" to is a different matter, of course.

(Xerex) said:

Monday 2, November 2009, 3:06 pm

A very interesting thought by this unregistered user.

For an example of a system that combines cathegorical and consequentialist elements in moral thinking see my answer to Jelle in the preceeding chapter.

This thought also raises another question:

Is Kant telling a misleading truth in his extensive writings? Was he aware of the consequences of telling people just part of the truth (and by this telling a lie, cause telling part of the truth can also considered to be telling a lie).

As you can see with the described example of the murderer at the door his thinking can lead to you turning in your friend to a murderer, an utterly imoral act, especially because he is making his system imperative. Is Kant (deliberately) deceiving his readers?

And furthermore, about the consequences I would like you to consider the following analogy:

Who do you consider to be more immoral:

a couple of rich bankers implementing an inherently corrupt monetary system with far reaching consequences (for the US that was being done at Jekyll Island in 1913) which make these bankers even much more rich and in fact in control of even the government,

or

the people who just make use of this system?

The consequences of Kants thinking seem to be potentially of the same proportions especially, because of the imperative nature of both systems.

Or was Kant just being ignorant? And is even the act of being ignorant in this case to be considered immoral or even offendable?

On behalf of Kant I would say that I find this hard to believe, but who am I to say?

AC
reply

(rogernovotny) said:

Monday 2, November 2009, 3:35 pm

Xerex,

Just read your comment in #6, explicating, I presume your, theory of the hierarchy of acts and the usage of "constructive" and "destructive" as better suited evaluative terms.

Very interesting and ingenious, I must say - I haven't really heard such an account before, so naturally I presume it is your own (can you provide some references?) Some food for thought.

Essentially, my view of morality (and of ethics) is that has to do, mainly, with our relations to others (our own species, animals, the environment, etc), which doesn't preclude of course one's relation/ship to oneself. In fact, one of the definitions that had stuck with me was one whereby a moral man was described as having "a love affair with themselves" - courtesy of my Wittgenstein teacher - so I'm definitely not about to dispute that except for saying that the main point of focus, it seems to me, has got to do with one's relation/s to others. (Aristotle might disagree.)

What I find somewhat troubling about your account - though I haven't given it yet much thought – is the idea of perpetuating the race, procreating, and notions of that sort. It’s not exactly that the notion/s of morality should run counter to those objectives, but you seem to conceive of those of objectives as constituting the basis of morality.

It’s one thing to say, I suppose, that morality probably evolved out of human relations that were at bottom functional in essence, but that’s making a point as to its derivation – which is to say, a genealogical account. But to claim that responsibility to ourselves as a species constitutes the basis of morality is perhaps another.

I am not disputing your notions – you may as well have something very strong and interesting going on in there. As I said, I haven’t given your view sufficient thought and I may eventually agree. So I present this comment as food for thought and as an incentive to further discussion.

Roger Nowosielski

PS: BTW, I answered your email and thank you for considering joining our discussion group on postmodernism.

I'm looking forward to fruitful future exchanges.
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Monday 2, November 2009, 5:23 pm

My concerns, Xerex, aren't over overpopulation. They have rather to do with the fact of morality as being "self-serving," if you carry your analysis to its logical conclusion. For regardless of your or mine views of how morality had come about, I'd like to think of it as something "transcendent," which is to say, something which has evolved beyond the original conception or intent - instrumental and beneficial as it may have originally been.

A case in point: Socrates taking the hemlock rather than escaping his captives, which he could do. Also, some of the Star Trek episodes hint at the possibility that "pure" self-preservation may not always be the highest and the most noble of motives. For if the species is "flawed," the idea of "self-sacrifice" may just be "the right thing to do."

Roger
reply

(Xerex) said:

Monday 2, November 2009, 6:09 pm

Roger,

It is not self-serving which is the logical conclusion, it is harmony.

Existence, procreation, being healthy are just the most constructive motives we have to ourselves, they give a fundament to our existence, but harmony remains the main objective imho.
If you think your species is flawed badly, I agree with you that the best or most noble thing to do is to self-sacrifice. I dont have any reasons thusfar to conclude that our species is flawed that much. (it needs some major twinking, though :))

AC

(Xerex) said:

Monday 2, November 2009, 5:26 pm

Roger,

Thanks for your reply. Some answers to your questions:

I can not give you any references, because this is a completely new theory. That is why you haven't heared of it before. What I can say is that this constructive-destructive-hierarchy model is part if a bigger theory called "the enclave theory".
In this "enclave theory" humans/humanity are/is seen as an enclave in theirs/its surroundings. For humanity this is nature. And the theory is much about how to achieve harmony with this nature (true sustainability). But also about how human individuals and organisations of humans are related with their surroundings and themselves. Here also the point of view is to achieve harmony.

This new point of view/theory has a lot of implications as for example the above mentioned model. Unfortunately, I can't elaborate on this any further in the context of this forum; it is just to comprehensive. (maybe you will read about it through other media in the future)

About what you said about your view of morality:
I dont think we differ that much, only I make it a bit more explicit.

About procreating as a fundamental motive in the constructive-destructive model I can say the following:

I dont know whether you have any children; but if you ask people with children which is the most precious in this world for them, it is their children, even more than themselves.
For animals: approach a mama bear with cubs too close and you are in for a treat (she will defend her cubs with her life, even against bigger male bears)) This has vast moral implications.
Though, I share your concern about human overpopulation.

Don't be afraid of challenging everything I say, I do that. I am just as an imperfect human being like we all are.

AC
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Monday 2, November 2009, 5:28 pm

Xerex,

I may have inadvertently erased you last comment - this format, unfortunately, seems to allow for deletions. It shouldn't be, but in any case, can you repost it.

I'll check with the Wiki in case we can have a proper forum for the exchange.

Roger
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Monday 2, November 2009, 5:33 pm

BTW, the idea of harmony seems very much on the right track - Aristotelean if I may say, recalling to mind the idea of arete.

Roger
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Monday 2, November 2009, 9:40 pm

I agree with your last point, We're not that much flawed. Still, the conceptual flaw remains. Morality has got to be more than what benefits the species. It has got to aim at universal consciousness.
reply

(Xerex) said:

Tuesday 3, November 2009, 2:59 am

Roger,

Why has morality got to be more than what benefits the species? Why does it have to aim at universal consciousness? From where come these imperatives? What do you mean by universal consciousness?

About the last concept:

"People understand that the Ocean contains many drops.
Less understood is the concept that a single drop contains the Ocean"

But this forum is not about my theories, this chapter is about Kant Rawls and Hume. In case you find my theories interesting and promising we should continue our conversation elsewhere.

AC
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Tuesday 3, November 2009, 11:52 am

Hello, everybody!! What about John Rawls? I really like his idea about an "original position", where people theoretically would decide, behind a "veil of ignorance", what the rules of society should be. They would set the principles and make the rules without any knowledge (any consideration) of their own physical characteristics, family position, place in society, etc. This really strikes me as being FAIR, a concept that should be eminently important in any society, but which does not seem to be spoken of much in our culture outside of the judicial system. Does anyone think the results of such a negotiation would not be fair/good?
reply

(rogernovotny) said:

Tuesday 3, November 2009, 3:52 pm

Xerex,

Regarding your last comment, I tend to agree with the remark of the "unregistered" immediately above: I think it has got to have something to do with universal consciousness, as he or she had put it; it pretty much captures what I had in mind. (Like the idea of the ocean and the drop, though.)

One reason: it presupposes the belief that the species is not flawed and therefore capable of grander things. I think this presupposition is a necessary one if morality is rid itself of all suspicion of "being self-serving," instrumental, or merely functional.

In the absence of some such presupposition, it's like a deck of cards or a house built on sand. Harmony is important, indeed, perhaps a critical objective, but in and of itself it is not enough. There's still a need for the foundation, and the belief in the possibility of human excellence is just what the doctor ordered.

I don't think there is any problem discussing these ideas on this forum - it does relate, however indirectly, to Kant's moral philosophy. If you're uncomfortable about doing this, however, we can move on to my private discussion thread, though I'd rather have it reserved for the postmodernism debate.

So let me know what you think.

Roger
reply

(Jelle NL) said:

Wednesday 4, November 2009, 3:54 am

@ Roger - To your phrase: “belief in the possibility of human excellence is just what the doctor ordered”, I like to add: “and this mere hope is enough”. We can always look for a “foundation”, but it will remain our foundation, i.e. the one we human beings agreed upon (and that is not what Kant had in mind).

You compare morality to “a deck of cards or a house built on sand” (a building), you could also think of it as a “flying carpet” (a fabric).

(Xerex) said:

Tuesday 3, November 2009, 5:20 pm

Roger,

I think you need to know more about the mentioned "enclave theory". In there you will find the answers you seek. The constructive-destructive-hierarchy model is just a small part of it.
As this is to comprehensive and complicated to discuss on a forum like this, I will contact you by email.

AC
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Tuesday 3, November 2009, 8:26 pm

Hold on Professor. If I want to buy a house from the owner, I could be asked to put up, let's say ,000.00 as good faith money in an escrow account. If I decide to back out of the deal, I loose my ,000.00 because the seller held the property for me based on my promise to purchase the house when he might have had the chance to sell it to someone else. In your example of the lobster "picker" or catcher, he might have gotten an offer from someone to pay him .00 each for the lobsters and he passes up that deal because he thinks he has a binding contract with the person offering .00 for each lobster. It is not fair to the lobster catcher or picker as you called him to loose both opportunities because the person offering the .00 backed out of the contract even no work has been done. As a footnote, I am sure you notice that when you put down a deposit on some exchanges, you loose your deposit if you cancel.
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Wednesday 4, November 2009, 7:29 am

The scenario of the murderer at the door may be more simple than the discussions so far suggest. Decisions are made based on duty (autonomy) or necessity (heteronomy). I necessarily lie to the murderer at my door in order to protect my friend hiding in the closet. No moral duty is required; it's a heteronomous decision.
reply

(sunxran) said:

Thursday 5, November 2009, 9:23 am

Well if u see ... its more difficult to tell a half truth to just speak a lie... and whatever the scenario may be a person should hold by his/her virtues and the principles of morality. This means our intent even though good should be attained through fair means.
reply

(rogernovotny) said:

Saturday 7, November 2009, 10:25 am

Good point, Jelle. I do agree that "this hope," or aspiration perhaps, is enough - which makes it a sufficient condition. I think you'd also agree that it's a necessary one as well - which is to say, we must believe in ourselves if we are to believe in morality as a kind of ultimate court of appeal.

As to the foundation idea, I think you're also right that it's not a Kantian one; so we're back to Wittgenstein's "form of life" notion.

What's interesting about this account is how the idea of functionality morphed into something akin to a moral/categorical imperative, not unlike, perhaps, the idea of skill as regards practice has eventually evolved into the concept of art: functionality had become replaced by aesthetic experience.
reply

(msb) said:

Saturday 7, November 2009, 11:50 am

like many i am having a real problem getting around the murderer question. i can only begin to get a glimmer of understanding if one completely takes out the emotional response and looks in pure terms.
a question is asked , a statement is made, that statement could be any one of an unlimited number of truths from the moon is not made of cheese to my friend is sitting in a chair in the back room by the window. my choice is to tell a truth that is not in conflict with my other requirements-ie to maintain the safety of my friend. this by the by i see as completely different from the clinton comment which is just a lie. his lawyers defence was that clintons idea of sexual relations was not what every one else believes those words to mean but we should not be changing the accepted meaning of words just to justify an action
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Thursday 14, January 2010, 4:58 pm

Although it appears to go back to the consequential morality to say this, but, You must think of the consequences. If your friend ask for your protection, you then must decided how far are you willing to go to provide this protection. If you believe you should not lie, then you cannot lie. If you believe you must defend your friend, then you must defend him. The only possible answer would be to tell the truth. He is here but he is under my protection and be ready to fight for him.
If you are not willing to fight for him then tell him so, and let him seek sanctuary elsewhere.

(Unregistered) said:

Friday 13, November 2009, 4:45 am

Were I a murderer rapping at your friend's door in search of you, would I be morally outraged if your friend did not answer truthfully, given that I am a known sociopath? I think not. So the universality condition seems to apply but that brings perceptions into it. What if what my friend says is a murderer is actually a duly appointed police officer? The universality principle suggests that we would all think it reasonable to lie to known sociopaths and murderers because they are outside the norm. So where one might generalize and say that it is always immoral to lie, there are implied exceptions that might qualify through universality.

Secondly, another problem with the murderer at the door scenario is that there is an implied contract having been made with your friend to hide him. Therefore you have already acted immorally by contracting to lie on his behalf.

Thirdly, I don't think Kant is saying that you can't lie to protect your friend, but that you can't claim to be moral in doing so. The moral man tells the truth, stares down the murderer and triumphs over the evil through the strength of his convictions.
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Saturday 28, November 2009, 4:30 pm

Conflicting values seems to be a problem for Kant.

What would he do with the M.A.S.H. type question? If you are in a truck with enemy soldiers around you and your baby is crying. It seems he would rather have everyone in the truck die than parent kill the baby.

How would he allow a president to send troops to a just war?
reply

(Kryssa) said:

Sunday 6, December 2009, 1:40 pm

Concerning the question of racial profiling, it's tough because, yes it is unjust to attack the dignity of an innocent citizen; but, because we don't live in a just world -- nature doesn't allow for that -- we must sometimes commit the very acts we abhor. The difference is the position from which the act arises. If the act is defensive, then it is justified.
reply

(Amarsir) said:

Friday 1, January 2010, 11:55 pm

Interesting. (The second part at least, I felt the argument of the first was just a post hoc justification.)

I would offer that a contract between unequals is only invalid if that inequality was acknowledged as part of the contract and the superior party assumed additional burden because of it. This covers the case of the ,000 toilet:

There are certain instances where inherent to the product/service is advice and information from someone more knowledgeable than ourselves. This would be the case with a doctor, lawyer, stockbroker, professor, and I would include contractor. The woman called a plumber because she knows and freely admits that she doesn't know anything about toilets. That was the whole point of hiring him. She wants a new toilet, and the service to install it, and the knowledge of someone with experience.

By grossly misrepresenting the price of the toilet, he has broken the contract because his honest assessment was an integral part of the service. And THAT is why he was wrong and she had no moral obligation to follow through. However, had the contractor been offering some simple and obvious service, such as shoveling snow off her walk, and she'd agreed to pay ,000 for that, then I would say she is (morally) obligated.

And this I think is a superior reasoning. The problem with insisting that a contract be "between equals" is that two different parties will never be completely equal, and thus no contract would ever have meaning. Furthermore, for whichever party is deemed more knowledgeable, they thus have an obligation to watch out for the other which is greater than other's obligation to watch out for themself!

If you made no effort to ascertain the value of sidewalk shoveling, why should all of the burden of your decisions fall to me? Doing so would rob us both of freedom, as I am now servicing an external obligation I did not accept and you are equally unable to make decisions for yourself. Again, this would be just if we agreed that I was obliged to watch out for you, thus turning over the responsibility specific to the instance. But as an inherent rule for all transactions I find it untenable.
reply

(Rothbard) said:

Thursday 7, January 2010, 10:00 am

I was surprised that nobody was prepared to stand up for the absolute sanctity of contract as long as there was consent on both sides and both parties are of sound mind.

It must be questionable that the old woman was of sound mind to pay fifty thousand to have her toilet repaired so I think the example is unrealistic.

In general, Who, if not the participants to the contract, is to decide what is fair?

If the average price for a toilet repair is fifty dollars, is fifty five dollars unfair, sixty, seventy, a hundred ?

What if the average price is based upon people who shop around and spend time negotiating the best deal. If I have plenty of money and little time is it unfair if the first person I call charges me twice as much as the average?
(I have gained the time from not shopping around).

What about if the average is for the state and in your town there is only one plumber who is in huge demand, does he not have the right to charge you more?

The idea that anything other than consent can determine a fair price leads to the nightmare of socialist central planning. Read Ludwig Von Mises - Economic Calculation in the Socialist Comonwealth for a detailed analysis.

What about the people who spend millions on "modern art" that looks to me like the finger painting of a four year old. Should these art lovers be protected from their own folly like the old woman, and who am I or anyone else to judge that it is folly if all parties to the transaction are happy.

If two people (of sound mind) agree to a contract then it is by definition fair, both sides were happy with the agreement when it was made. Nothing else is required.

Just because with more effort they could have got a better deal does not make a contract unfair.

On the other hand, reciprocity without consent is never a basis for a valid contract.

This amounts to giving people the ability to force obligations onto others.

I like the example of somebody painting the house in a colour you hate and then demanding that you pay them for their effort.

Taken a step further, how about somebody knocking down your house while you are on holiday and building you a different one, smaller, very ugly, but very expensive as the whole interior is covered with the wild animal furs !

(Unregistered) said:

Thursday 14, January 2010, 4:01 pm

Mr. Sandel is testing the limits of his creditability, By saying that "you can tell the truth in such a way as to mislead, but sill stay within the confine of being Moral". As an example, the quote by Bill Clinton. If this is true and he realy believes this, then I or anyone cannot believe anything he says. Because he may be deliberately misleading us, and if he says he is not trying to mislead us. That too my be an attempt to mislead.
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Tuesday 19, January 2010, 3:47 pm

The murderer at the door example reminded me of an indian story my grandma told me. A woman running away from a bandit hid behind a holy man who had vowed never to lie. The bandit asks the holy man where the woman went. The holy man says, "what saw cannot tell, and what can tell did not see" implying that the eyes can't talk and the mouth can't see. The bandit was impatient and just ran off in a random direction and the woman was saved. And there are discussions that begin with this story on what a lie is and whether an evasion or an obfuscation is acceptable and if so, when and so on. And also the implications of the holy man's sentence if it is accepted as the truth.
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Tuesday 26, January 2010, 7:34 pm

"Never let your virtue be used AGAINST all that you hold dear." -- No action (lying, etc.)can be judged without full understanding of the context.

"There are only two possible interactions : GIFTS and DEALS. Deals have strings attached in advance. Everything else is a gift." -- Life becomes filled with unreasonable expectations and resentments otherwise. Implied consent to a deal (as with Sam the auto repairman) should be avoided,
but also cannot be totally ignored.
reply

(RMax304823) said:

Sunday 31, January 2010, 2:53 pm

The Clinton example is an interesting one because it's so often used, especially in politics. It's the difference between "the truth" and "the whole truth." What Clinton left out of his response -- "I did not have sexual relations with that woman" -- was that he defines "sexual relations" as limited to intercourse. (It's a very lawyerly response.) When asked whether he'd smoked marijuana, his reply was, "I have never broken the laws of the country." No -- what he did was take a boat off the English coast and smoke grass there. (William F. Buckley did the same thing.)

Clinton may even have BELIEVED his own weasel words. We all have ways of convincing ourselves that we're telling the truth, which make our statement not a lie at all. Regarding the WMDs in Iraq, those in the Bush administration managed to trick themselves into believing they existed by means of selective perception.

But then we ALL pull these numbers on ourselves from time to time. In extreme cases, you wind up with paranoid delusions involving The New World Order or the Freemasons' plot to take over the world or something.

One can suppose Clinton would have been nailed as either a deliberate liar or a philanderer if his interrogator had pressed him and asked if he'd gotten head from Monica Lewinsky.
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Wednesday 3, February 2010, 5:30 pm

Is there a moral imperative to answer any given question? I would not answer. I would say "I do not wish to assist you in your search for my friend, and so I will not answer your question."
reply

(ergononassumpsit) said:

Saturday 13, February 2010, 1:00 pm

Withholding information is considered "obstruction"; however, the safe thing to say is always, "With all due respect, I have nothing to say without imunity and impunity in writing after my attorney aproves the wording. Thank you for asking, have a good day."

(Pedro) said:

Saturday 6, February 2010, 10:48 pm

I can't help to think that there's a huge difference between the "murder at the door" and the Clinton case.
Isn't there a clear moral distinction between telling a misleading truth so that you preserve a human life and doing so to save your political status and position? Isn't the former in line with respect for dignity of humanity, while the latter simply disregards this?
I mean, isn't Clinton doing exactly what the shop owner does in the hypothetical wrong change scenario? Choosing to mislead so he can save face?
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Saturday 13, February 2010, 12:27 am

Kant must have left open the possibility that his may not be the ultimate categorical imperative that humanity, by way of reason, will decide upon (does anyone know?). His defense of truth-telling at any cost seemed inadequate to me, and to others on this board. It creates moral ambiguity under a lot of circumstances, as Prof. Sandel demonstrated.

Suppose the imperative is broadened to "do unto others as you would have them do unto you". This would make malicious lies immoral, most white lies acceptable, and lies to save a friend honorable. I would be compelled to lie to the murderer at the door because that is what I'd like someone to do to me if I were to show up at their door in a murderous rage. You would not only be saving your friend, you would be saving me from the consequences of cold-blooded murder (jail, guilt, ostracism, etc...).

Is it possible that the old Golden Rule is "more reasonable" than Kant's categorical imperative? Can it be proven superior?

Jon B.
biostat@sbcglobal.net
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Saturday 13, February 2010, 10:29 am

Here are some laws that have been on the books for 2000 years:

Rom 3:4 God forbid: yea, let God be true, but every man a liar; as it is written, That thou mightest be justified in thy sayings, and mightest overcome when thou art judged.

Rom 3:19 Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law: that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God.

1Co 11:27 Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.

Jas 2:10 For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all.
reply

(ergononassumpsit) said:

Saturday 13, February 2010, 1:06 pm

Q1. Is telling a misleading truth morally equivalent to lying?

A1. NO, for a two part reason:
a) if you got the wrong answer then you asked the wrong question; or
b) you must be specific with your questions, to be able to discerned whether you received a conclusive answer.

Q2. When is telling the truth the wrong thing to do?

A2. Telling the truth is the wrong thing to do when it will intentionally cause harm; whether emotionally and/or materially. No one should run around being tale bearers of information. Even the truth can cause harm as much as a lie.

“When in doubt invoke the First
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Sunday 14, February 2010, 1:01 pm

Ergo,

Suppose we were to abandon the quandaries associated with misleading "truth" or harmful "truth" and simply ask: Is my response empathetic? Does my response obey the maxim "do unto others as you would have them do unto you"? Apply the Golden Rule in all situations. The rest is sophistry.

Jon B

(Unregistered) said:

Monday 15, February 2010, 3:47 am

I was struck by the argument of reciprocity as sole basis for legal contract. Moral ethics, implied or intended, must, or at least, should be involved to some degree. For example, taking the simple "100 lobsters for 0" example: SUPPOSE both parties FULFILL the contract and 100 lobsters are delivered, for which the agreed upon 0 is paid. Immediately upon conclusion of the exchange, the party of the first-part, who contracted for lobsters, opens the box, finds that the lobsters are blatantly rotten, and says to the supplier, the party of the second-part: "I want my money back! These lobsters are no good and inedible." The supplier responds: "I delivered 100 lobsters, as agreed. You paid me 0. The contract was fulfilled as we originally contracted." The receiver replies: "Either bring me an ADDITIONAL 100 FRESH good lobsters or give me my money back!" The supplier argues: "No! A deal is a deal. Nothing was mentioned in our contract about edibility quality for humans; for all I knew, you were going to feed them to a pet seal! I give no refunds!"
In my estimation, contracts are never really simple. Certain things may or may not be implied in a mutual agreement, but reciprocity as the total and only grounds for validity, in my estimation, can sometimes be unfair. There are always extenuating circumstances that parties to any contract better iron out before final agreement. The citizens of ancient Rome wore signet rings, which they used to "seal the deals" in their everyday affairs(e.g. political, business, shopping etc). Nowadays, participants should negotiate and work out details beforehand, which may involve much time and energy expediture before approving and signing a final contract. A simple verbal contract should contain certain implied moral implications, yet, as far as a later judgement of justice may find, "fairness" cannot always be expected to occur. The "Letter of the Law" always will contain elements of failure of fairness, as ALL possible circumstances cannot be taken into account! It can end up a conundrum: Is it possible to be "fair" in all ways to all parties? Was it fair or unfair for the provider of the lobsters to assume that quality of product was a non-issue towards the ultimate lobster usage requirements of the receiver? Was it fair or unfair for the receiver of the lobsters to assume he would be totally satisfied with quality of product, when no such expectations were originally contractually expressed?
Most likely, this type of contractual difficulty became the birthplace of the insurance industry as an off-set to contractual risk!
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Monday 15, February 2010, 8:18 pm

I'm reminded of the movie Esther who had to lie to her newly king husband Xerxes who beguiled him into thinking that she was not the Jew named Hadassah but was Esther from citadel of Susa. As it turns out she won the beauty pageant and became his new bride. While her new marriage was taking root Haman the Greek wanted to kill all the Jews and Esther was forced to a new expedition to save her people. Then exposing her true identity and finally winning the heart and trust of her beloved Xerxes once more. Kind of like the story of the women who had to hide the Jewish people who were being exiled by the Holocaust Communist leader or like Rahab who had to hide the spies in her home until Joshua and his army saved them by the red cord she hung out the window. I am not saying that lying is right, but we have to place value on principal. The principal of saving lives is much more important than telling a lie. Though I am a profound believer in keeping the statutes of Moses. I am one who tends to believe that honesty is always the very best and only policy. Not that I have always kept that policy. But I still truly believe that it is the very best policy. Truth will always lead to the right path. We just get tempted in situations such as the one in this class and feel pushed into a corner and forced to lie. But it is a trick from the adversary. There is never an occasion that I can see that lying would be the appropriate action.
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Tuesday 16, February 2010, 11:15 pm

It is certainly an interesting thought that to be a person of faith in the Judeo-Christian tradition, one has to subscribe to a moral imperative given by God above. But the bible would seem to suggest moral imperatives over situational ethics when there is an alleged conflict.
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Wednesday 17, February 2010, 2:41 pm

Speaking lies……

What’s the most important part of a ship? Hint: It’s the smallest part. The rudder.
That ship can’t be controlled without a rudder.

What could the ship’s rudder be compared to with humans? The tongue.
Speaking or what comes out of the mouth……

Mat 12:34 O generation of vipers, how can ye, being evil, speak good things? for out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh.

Mat 15:10 And he called the multitude, and said unto them, Hear, and understand:
Mat 15:11 Not that which goeth into the mouth defileth a man; but that which cometh out of the mouth, this defileth a man.

Mat 15:17 Do not ye yet understand, that whatsoever entereth in at the mouth goeth into the belly, and is cast out into the draught?
Mat 15:18 But those things which proceed out of the mouth come forth from the heart; and they defile the man.
Mat 15:19 For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies:

Col 3:6 For which things' sake the wrath of God cometh on the children of disobedience:
Col 3:7 In the which ye also walked some time, when ye lived in them.
Col 3:8 But now ye also put off all these; anger, wrath, malice, blasphemy, filthy communication out of your mouth.
Col 3:9 Lie not one to another, seeing that ye have put off the old man with his deeds;
Col 3:10 And have put on the new man, which is renewed in knowledge after the image of him that created him:
reply

(Figueroa) said:

Saturday 3, April 2010, 10:03 pm

The misleading truth is justified when it is used to protect a higher right that is my friends life. Then it takes a moral value itself....
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Tuesday 27, April 2010, 2:06 pm

Speaking in terms of the nursing field, lying to patients is definitely morally wrong. For example, not telling the truth about a procedure to a patient would break the Nursing Code of Ethics. Furthermore, the nurse and the patient will not benefit from the consequences of the lie. The nurse could possibly lose his or her license; even more so, the harm that the patient may receive could potentially be fatal.
In contrast, lying or telling a misleading truth can be seen as socially acceptable; especially if situation is similar to the example mentioned in Sandel’s lecture. His example was stated as, “If your friend were hiding inside your home, and a person intent on killing your friend came to your door and asked you where he was, would it be wrong to tell a lie?” The majority of society would not hesitate in lying the murderer of his or her friend’s whereabouts. To make it acceptable to Kant’s value, telling a misleading truth is morally acceptable because it “pay homage to the dignity of moral law” as Sandel’s worded it or protects the dignity of moral law.
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Monday 17, May 2010, 9:25 am

please reply!!
consider the situation of a man drowning in sea, and he has no chance of living. a ship comes along and the captain offers to save the man only if the man becomes the cabin boy for the rest of his life. except for the captain's offer there is no coercion whatsoever.
it seems to be an unfair contract but since the drowning man is fully aware of the unfairness, is it moral for the man to escape the ship after being rescued or not? in other words, the contract itself is unfair but the man is aware of the unfairness and agreed to abide by the contract however after he is saved, he mentiones the unfariness of the contract and nullifies it. According to John Rawls for a contract to be fair, the second qualification is reciprocy, and in the case of the rescued man running away, it is not only an act of breaching the contract but also doesnt satisfy the requirement
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Thursday 24, June 2010, 4:55 pm

WHAT IF:
There is no available "misleading truth" to be told in order to save your friends life. Would Kant rat him out or is there another way out of it?
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Wednesday 14, July 2010, 3:39 pm

On the one-hand, I can understand Sandel's argument that there might be some moral worth to telling the deceptive truth, where as the lie has no Kantian moral truth. However, I do not think it is the most ethical action in regards to Kant's own tests of morality.

The central feature of the argument seems to be the desire protect one's friend - which is an inclination or a desire, not in itself moral or amoral. Our behavior in this situation is moral only if we autonomously choose to act on this desire according to a self-imposed, reasoned moral law. Therefore, acting reflexively (and lying) to protect one's friend is amoral because it does not include any autonomous act. In telling a deceptive truth, one is at least acknowledging that there is a moral imperative to not lie, and so one's choice of action reflects not only innate desires but some autonomy in imposing upon one's self additional ethical restraints. There is some autonomy, there is some respect for the dignity of human beings (human beings ought not to be lied to, not even murderers). There is some morality in this action as opposed to a flat out lie.

However, I think when we apply Kant's tests of universality and human beings as an end in and of themselves, the deceptive half truth is shaky. I am tempted to say "if all men told deceptive truths, then communication would be worthless and the deceptive truth falls Kant's test." However, perhaps that is over universalizing. You could argue "if all men told deceptive truths in situations where they needed to protect an innocent friend from a murderer, the world would be a safer place, and so this fits Kant's criteria." I think the first test is a deadlock; you can argue both that universalization of the deception supports or refutes the behavior as a moral one, depending on how you phrase the universalization.

However, the second test is the one where the equivocation ultimately fails: you are deceiving the murder in an attempt to serve the end of protecting your friend. It is true, that you are using a bad man to serve a good end, but that is consequentialist thinking and fails Kant's definition of morality. It is true, that the way in which you are using the murderer is more moral than lying to him (at the very least you have autonomously chosen to respect is right not to be lied to). But you haven't respected his right not to be deceived. Arguing that you have not lied to the murder is equivocation in and of itself! As creatures dependent on reason for moral truth (according to Kant), and dependent on information for the proper exercise of that reason, each individual has a right not to be deceived. Inappropriate (but correct) information impedes the exercise of reason just as effectively as incorrect information. A correct map of Philadelphia is just a deadly as a false map of the Mojave to a man dying of thirst in the desert.

So the most moral action, in the Kantian sense, would be to tell the murderer the truth, and respect the human right to be undeceived. You could then try to give him additional, correct information that would help him to better use of his reason, and thus more ethical actions. And you could always physically attempt to stop him. Either action respects all individuals involved as their own end, while the deceptive truth gives a nod to the dignity of humanity without much substance.
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Thursday 16, September 2010, 4:29 pm

I am not sure that Sandel gets it right when it comes to defending Kant with regard to the difference between a lie and a misleading truth. Although I agree that using a misleading truth as a tool of evasion does has, as part of its motive, a certain reverence for the moral law, it also has, as part of its motive, the desire to deceive another human. As such, to deceive another, even through a misleading truth, violates the Principle of Humanity - I am now treating another human as a mere means, and not respecting his or her inherent moral worth. I have, through my deception, intentionally undermined their autonomy. As such, it would also have to be wrong to use misleading truths to deceive others.
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Sunday 24, October 2010, 7:05 am

I fail to understand why Hume's defense on the house painting case failed. Are there any links where I can get more information on this? Why do you think his defense failed?
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Monday 1, November 2010, 1:04 pm

kant is an idealist, humans just dont work this way, if you make your own moral laws, you start with autonomy in the choice of which you will follow, but from then on your moral responsibility is diminished because in the case of telling the murderer where your friend is, if you hold the law 'to never tell a lie' you are doing the right thing in telling the murderer where your friend is, you no longer choose your actions you simply rule worship. if you held the maxim to never break a promise because this is asmuch as lying then, when you told that friend you would protect them your duties conflict, kant also holds the law of benelovence which would conflict also with the scenario because who's benelovence is more important, the friend or the murderers? it sounds silly but the kantian has to admit that duties conflict.
duty never leaves room for autonomy, definition of duty, same as obligation really something you are required to do. if you are required to do something theirs no choice, its a 'you have to do it' situation.
kant also argues that our inclinations are not moral. i would say otherwise, granted, we do not choose our inclinations but we do choose what we do with them, that is what it is to be autonomous, if i were to walk down the street and see a homeless person, i'd give them some change because this would help to decrease pain and further welfare, thats my inclination and i chose to follow it. if someone else walked past this homeless person and was inclined to feel disgust but acted out of the moral law of benelovence, are they not lying to oneself, and lying according to the moral law is wrong, his inclination lead away from charity but to his concept of the moral law, so he still acted out of inclination but i would think that a rather backward way of doing the right thing, and further more it proves my point about duty restricting autonomy, he wanted to do the opposite of charity but because its a LAW he followed it.

end of rant, i could sit here and type a book on why i dislike kant
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Monday 1, November 2010, 1:41 pm

what is a lie, willfully misrepresentating the truth,

to tell a misleading truth is a lie of omission, if asked where is your friend, you say i dont know in a smart ass kind of way your misrepresenging the truth, what if the murderer were then to ask ok where did you last see him? what moral choice do you have then? how many misleading truths can you give under interrogation? the clinton case is very telling as it shows that by not telling the whole truth and withholding other truths which change the situation entirely peoploe will go down false alleys and feel lied to.

pretty much saying i didn't lie i just didn't say the whole truth is the same as saying i didn't tell the truth, because you hadn't.
reply

Add Your Thoughts

please enter the letters and or numbers contained in the above image

Post Comment

How to create a sane society. Discussion Circle

Comments (1)

(Unregistered) said:

Join the Conversation

Public Discussion Circle

Add Your Thoughts

How to create a sane society. Discussion Circle

Add Your Thoughts

U.S. Courts Library Discussion Circle

Add Your Thoughts

Hull CONLAW group Discussion Circle

Add Your Thoughts

Hull CONLAW group Discussion Circle

Add Your Thoughts

Yuanchao Chi Discussion Circle

Add Your Thoughts

SCCS Philosophy Discussion Circle

Add Your Thoughts

Synopsis

Voice Your Opinion

Pop Quiz

Readings

Discussion Guides

Up Next