John Clark
Bryan Russell
PHL 105
Thursday 1pm → 3:44pm
A Supposed belief, “The truth will set you free”
“Do you swear to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth so help you god?”A select few such as Immanuel Kant will Always hold uncharacterized Rule for lying his words were:
“Lying under any condition is The obliteration of one’s dignity as a human being!”(Book pg130)
However One major prosecutor of this Philosophical argument is Gertrude Elizabeth Margaret
Anscombe, whom was immediate to Identify a fault using Kant's own imperative, asking the question what if “I will Lie when doing so i will save someone’s life”.(Book pg130) So Today I will be your guide as we embark on a quest of a lifetime, This journey begins by understanding Why lying is wrong according to both formulations of the categorical imperatives. After their presentation, i will continue to
Revise the thesis by Anscombe where lying Has a supposed belief to be permissible as well as discussing Anscombe's objection. Furthermore, i will be explaining how Kants extreme view on some cases don’t fit our intuitions, and why that might be a problem when learning how to administer them through explore multiple scenarios.
The ability to grasp these concepts of laws and completely register why Kant had Insistence on the importance for Absolute Universal laws & obligations as a human being are challenges that take a bold consideration to find their true value. This is sad to say, Although many will fall short of this divine reasoning. Lets grant Anscombe does Appreciate these duties that manifest within her, because after all
Clark 2
Elizabeth is all on board for Kant’s conclusion that “You should never lie”, but the fact of problem is every point of interest stems from the imperfections within the reason of Kant’s so called solution, more specifically kant’s strong hold beliefs on lying even as it applies to the vital need of saving someone’s life. Opponents of Anscombe’s argument might present The Universability test: 4 Steps(1)Consider the maxim upon which you are acting. (2)Recast that maxim as a universal law of nature governing all rational agents. (3)Consider whether your maxim is even conceivable in a world governed by this law.
(4)Ask yourself if you would rationally will to act on your maxim in such a world.(Chapt. 910
Powerpoint ) This analysis could precisely place a better understand when to lie and when to tell the truth. It would be interesting to weld this factor. Mrs.Anscombe presents a change to Immanuel's Imperatives which could be accepted astronomically to saving someones life. Consider the following changes pursued by Miss Elizabeth to
Mr. Kants reasonings: (1)Kant We should do only those actions that conform to rules that we could will to be adopted universally.(2)Kant If you were to lie You would be following The rule “it is okay to lie.”(2) Anscombe: I will lie in doing so would save someones life. (not self defeating) (3)Kant the rule could not be adopted universally because it would be self defeating: people would stop believing one another than it would do no good to lie. (3)AnscombeIf you are lying in order to save someones life this is Not contradicting and could be adopted universally.(4)Kanttherefore you should not lie.(4)
Anscombe It would be alright for you to lie.(Book pg130) One review of kant's work initiated a challenge based upon Elizabeth's perspective to kant's reasoning Entitled: The case of the inquirer murder
…...Imagine that someone is fleeing a murderer and tells you that hes going home to hide. Then the murderer comes and asks you where the man is. you believe that, if you tell the truth, you will be aiding in murder. Furthermore, the killer is already headed the right way, so if you simply stay silent the worst result is likely. What should you do?
(Book pg131)
