↪Cheshire No. The hazards of reading Banno or Verda(?) when it's easy enough to read the man himself, quoted by me about 26 posts above. The way I read it, lying is always wrong, but defensible under a narrow set of conditions. — tim wood
"In Kant's legal sense." I'm not sure what that means. Kant certainly refers at times to law, but as incidental. Always I find him finding his ground on moral consideration, underlying the legal, even if contradicting the legal.Saying it's always wrong to lie (in Kant's legal sense) is the same as saying it's always wrong to commit fraud. — Cheshire
The subject: quit lying — TheMadFool
A point about Kant's permissible/defensible lie: he says you can't assure someone that you are telling the truth, and then lie to him. And I get it. I presume you do too.
And "defensible" because Kant seems to say that all lying is bad. From that I infer never permissible, but defensible. Like using gun to defend a home: not permissible but defensible, and all manner of evils befall the homeowner whose use is not defensible. — tim wood
I've heard varations of this argument over the years. One professor claimed that failing to give a movie a bad review would somehow lead to the fall of civilization. I like to think of myself as honest as the next person, but I think we omit, temper, and rationalize plenty of information. If you've never been served food you'd rather not eat by some one you care about that can't cook then you are as fortunate as you are honest.More than that, it would damage our marriage because she would learn that I will lie to her when faced with some tension, discomfort, or desire to spare her from the truth. — gloaming
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.