1. Re: Christine Korsgaard
What’s Wrong with Lying?

2. 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

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

4. 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

5. 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

6. 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

7. 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

8. 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

9. 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)

10. 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

11. 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

12. 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.