Kant’s reasoning takes him to some very strange places, however – places where we might not wish to follow. For example, in his short essay On a Supposed Right to Lie Because of Philanthropic ConcernsKant seems to draw up a case where obedience to the moral law and the good of others do not coincide. What is so interesting about this piece is that Kant deliberately takes as his position the most drastic and caricatured example possible to argue his point.

The situation in a nutshell is this: you are cornered outside of your house by a bloodthirsty madman who is looking for your friend. You know that this friend is inside of your house. The madman tells you in no uncertain terms that he will kill this person as soon as he finds him, and demands to know his whereabouts. For some reason or other, you do not have the ability to remain silent but must answer this villain with truth or falsehood. Is a lie in this case morally permissible? (On A Supposed Right to Lie 611).

Kant’s answer, of course, is that not even this horrific circumstance would validate a deliberate falsehood; lying is a priori wrong because it is not an action that can be universally enacted according to the moral law, representing a contradiction in nature.

For a further essay on this click on the link below.
http://neohumanism.org/c/ca/categorical_imperative_1.html#The%20Enquiring%20Murderer

After you have honestly answered the murderer’s question as to whether his intended victim is at home, it may be that he has slipped out so that he doesn’t come across the murderer, so that the murder is not committed. But if you’d lied and said he wasn’t at home when he’d really left the house without your knowledge, and if the murderer had then met him as he went away and murdered him, you might fairly be accused of causing his death. For if you had told the truth as far as you knew it, perhaps the murderer might have been caught by neighbours while he was searching through the house, and so the murder might have been prevented. Therefore, whoever tells a lie, however well-intentioned he might be, must answer for the consequences, however unforeseeable they were, and pay the penalty for them….
To be truthful (honest) in all deliberations, therefore, is a sacred and absolutely commanding decree of reason, limited by no expediency.

Questions:

1. What problems can you see with Kant’s argument?
2. Kantian ethics is accused of being inflexible. Does this criticism stand?
3. “If we lie, we are responsible for any bad results”. Is this true? What about motive?
4. Are there ways of answering the crazy knifeman that don’t involve lying?
5. Does W.D. Ross’ theory (intuitionism or deontological relativism) provide a way out when principles conflict?