Re: Christine Korsgaard What’s Wrong with Lying?

Why do we feel that lying is morally wrong? Why are we asking this question? Lying is not always viewed as wrong There must be a reason why lying is morally wrong in some cases and not in others What’s the point? Why do we need to find out the reason? We can look for that reason to help determine whether a statement is morally wrong or morally justifiable

Why do we feel that lying is morally wrong? Analyze three approaches: Intuitionist approach Consequentialist approach Kantian approach

Methodology: What kind of lies should we analyze? Paternalistic lies Form of benevolent lie Typically told out of benevolence or to protect privacy Why focus only paternalistic lies (in two person case)? People are often tempted to tell these kinds of lies Clear of morally complicating factors

First approach: Intuitionist approach What is intuitionism? Moral truths are obvious We know them through our own intuition So basic they do not even require reasons How does this explain why we feel that lying is morally wrong? Lies are wrong because they just are If we intuitively feel they are wrong, then they are wrong

First approach: Intuitionist approach PROS Comports with common sense Model seems intuitive Preserves feeling that even excused or justified lies still seem wrong-ish CONS Does not distinguish justified lies from impermissible lies No method for resolving conflicts of moral duty Makes task of comparing moral duties superfluous Gives no reason why we feel lying is morally wrong

Second approach: Consequentialist approach What is consequentialism? The morality of an action is determined entirely by its consequences How does this explain why we feel that lying is morally wrong? Lies are wrong because they do more harm than good

Second approach: Consequentialist approach But why do we feel that even paternalistic lies are wrong-ish? People are the best judges of what is good or bad for them and paternalistic lies deprive them of the agency to choose Consequentialist approach is based on two assumptions: There is an objectively determinable notion of what is beneficial (good) and what is harmful (bad) People are the best judges of what is good or bad for themselves

Second approach: Consequentialist approach PROS Gives us definitive guidance CONS Does not comport with feeling that even excused or justified lies still seem wrong-ish Determining what is objectively beneficial (good) and harmful (bad) is impossible Its two assumptions are incompatible (one is objective, one is subjective)

Third approach: Kantian approach What is the Kantian approach? Not about whether an act is good or bad, but about giving each person the right to decide how they should act Respects people’s autonomy (ends not means) Does not consider the consequences of an act How does this explain why we feel that lying is morally wrong? Lies are wrong because they deprive people of their right to decide how they should act

Third approach: Kantian approach Two examples (of our emphasis on self-determination): Right to vote Jury system Exception when paternalistic lies are permissible: If hearer is not autonomous (unable to use reason) Best justified when aim is to protect them or restore their autonomy

Third approach: Kantian approach PROS Consequentialists also agree this is important basis of why paternalistic lies are wrong Comports with feeling that even excused or justified lies still seem wrong-ish CONS It is intimidating to defend opinions on the basis of moral theories rather than empirical facts It is frightening to think we must allow people to make uninformed and harmful choices END.