Is it Ever Okay to Lie? | Philosophy Tube

Is lying ever okay? Not according to philosopher Immanuel Kant, who said that we should always tell the truth no matter the consequences!
Thanks to ContraPoints for being the voice of Maria: tinyurl.com/mcatyyk
Subscribe! tinyurl.com/pr99a46
Patreon: / philosophytube
Paypal.me/PhilosophyTube
Audible: tinyurl.com/jn6tpup
FAQ: tinyurl.com/j8bo4gb
Facebook: tinyurl.com/jgjek5w
Twitter: @PhilosophyTube
Email: [e-mail]
Google+: google.com/+thephilosophytube
realphilosophytube.tumblr.com
Recommended Reading:
Dale, “Fuckable Bowser E32017,” Podquisition 135
Kant, “On A Supposed Right to Tell Lies from Benevolent Motives”
bonevac.info/f325/KantLies.pdf
Korsgaard, “The Right to Lie”
Langton, “Duty & Desolation”
Music by Epidemic Sound (Epidemicsound.com)
If you or your organisation would like to financially support Philosophy Tube in distributing philosophical knowledge to those who might not otherwise have access to it in exchange for credits on the show, please get in touch!
Any copyrighted material should fall under fair use for educational purposes or commentary, but if you are a copyright holder and believe your material has been used unfairly please get in touch with us and we will be happy to discuss it.

[@hbomberguy]

Wouldn't the truth be "I don't want to tell you, because you're a murderer?"

[@robertrowland1061]

It would be a truth but not the truth in question. For myself, I would not cooperate. As a rule I am honest but there are exceptions. Kant is honest to a fault.

[@Freakinawesome333]

That would be an example of what Olly called “strategic speech” at 6:58. It’s not a direct lie, but by not telling them you are denying them the choice to kill or not kill your friend. It doesn’t matter that you’re not really lying, or that the person you are supposed to give this tremendous amount of respect to is a MURDERER. All that matters is that you’re treating another person merely as a means to an end and not as an end in themselves, and Kant says that action is wrong.

[@lucasvanderwalt82]

Just Tell the Murderer The truth. Yes the one whom you seek does currently reside in this very house , although to tell the truth if you take one more step my gun will decorate my porch with your innards. In other words i leave you with a simple choice, Stay alive or be a Christmas decoration?( maybe just a non fatal wound) I told the truth and was very open about my means And ends. Also assuming he wants to live . . . nobody got killed or lied to and if he did die by my hands wouldn't the alternative have been that my friend who trusted me to keep him/her save was also killed by my actions and in all likelihood myself included, because the murderer would most definitely kill me as well. I prefer the scenario were nobody gets hurt ^^ ( My Apologies if this was not very philosophical)

[@lights473]

Kant said to solve the murder scenario, then say nothing.

[@2cleverbyhalf]

lights473, if you say nothing you are still being strategic in your speech. A lie by omission is still a lie.

[@ShawnRavenfire]

If we're willing to risk someone else's life in order to achieve a moral imperative and be "guilt-free," then aren't we still using other people as merely a means to an end? If lying makes me less moral, and I'm willing to risk my friend's life to be more moral, then I'm holding myself as more important than my friend.

[@IXPrometheusXI]

Upholding the categorical imperative isn't a means to the end of "being moral," it is, by definition, the thing you ought to do. Period. I don't think "being moral" is properly understood as an end one has. Rather, Kant sees it as a duty, something you have no choice about. Regardless, Kant wouldn't characterize the situation as you putting your friend at risk. Rather, the murderer is putting your friend at risk.

[@rickpgriffin]

Right, the murderer is putting your friend at risk and it would be immoral to impede them

[@alicekalita5333]

But the murder itself is obviously against the Categorical Imperative, right? And in this example you are basically the murderer's accomplice. Your friend doesn't want to die, so telling the truth to the murderer means that you are not respecting your friend's goal (to continue to live).

[@rickpgriffin]

Except according to Kant you are not responsible for the actions of anyone other than yourself and therefore the only wrongdoing you can commit in this instance is to withhold the truth from the murderer (meaning you are now responsible for their actions). Your friend will just have to die knowing you maintained your moral superiority, and if he's a Kantian like he ought to be he will respect you for it.

[@mitchelldavis482]

"I don't think "being moral" is properly understood as an end one has." According to Kant, because otherwise his imperatives become problematic. We can reject Kant's imperatives as not being valid, or we can accept them and be left being forced to be accomplices to murder and excusing at least some of the Holocaust. Another problem with Kant's imperatives is that while one must tell the truth to avoid depriving others of agency (ignoring that lying doesn't deprive them of agency), one must still tell the truth even if it leads to others being deprived of their agency, even if there would be less deprivation through a lie. If it's an either-or situation, then you might as well not assist the murderer. Further, if you side with the murderer against the interests not just of your friend, but your own interest to preserve the friend and their agency, then lying brings one closer to the conditions Kant laid out as justification for always telling the truth than always telling the truth does. Kant might pretend at avoiding consequentialism, but he employs consequentialism in the justification for his imperatives -- bugger that excuse! Kant's imperatives come into conflict with themselves because they are too broad and require one to make assumptions that are not necessarily valid. It's bad to lie because it deprives others of agency? If the reason one should should tell only the truth is because it deprives others of agency to do otherwise, then it also stands that one should lie when not doing so would lead to a greater deprivation of agency. Kant doesn't seem to have thought his imperatives through very well, else he might have noted that they would come into conflict or make worse the conditions the imperatives were intended to prevent. Perhaps I'm missing something; it seems astounding to me that people took these particular notions of Kant's seriously before trying to smash them into each other and see if they held their ground. That's the first thing one should do in coming upon new ideas.

[@voodoofairy]

Clearly Kant has never enjoyed a surprise birthday party. I lied my ass off for a friend's surprise party and the result made her so happy she talked about it for y e a r s.

[@aurora3840]

That's so sweet! What was the party?

[@paulmitchum8658]

Imagine Kant in a Tarantino film: "Yes, your intended victim is in the next room, but I'm also categorically motivated to prevent you from murdering them."

[@Hazel-xl8in]

Paul Mitchum *epic, 10 minute bloody fight ensues*

[@andrewridgway]

Note to self: if being chased by a murderer, do not go to Kant for help. I think that Kant raises some valid points about why lying is bad, but I'm more consequentialist: actions are not merely meritorious in themselves, but also in their consequences. Thus, it *can* also be evil to tell the truth, forcing us to choose between evils. I would absolutely lie to a murderer (or to a Nazi) searching for someone that I was hiding, not because lying is necessarily all right, but because I was choosing between evils and that is the lesser.

[@jaredsmith7258]

"where is your friend? I am going to murder them." "I disagree with what you are doing, I value my friends life and do not want them murdered. I will not tell you where my friend is, but I will tell them, and the police, you are planning to murder them." No part of this is a lie, and still respects the autonomy of the murderer, and allows them to continue working towards their end (my friends murder), while it allows me to work towards my end (the preservation of my friend's life). This doesn't put me above the murderer, nor does it put the murderer above me by making me give them an answer that runs contrary to my ends. Kant wants to force a false dilemma, and I'm not having it.

[@MasterAdam100]

"I will not tell you where my fri-*BANG!* you're dead. Should have disarmed them first before explaining what you were or were not going to do.

[@mle1872]

If you don't cooperate you really think the murderer is going to let you go? Wouldn't he tie you up until you tell him otherwise lol

[@jaredsmith7258]

@@mle1872 Nowhere in the original thought experiment did it say he was interested in murdering you. This is not a question of duress but of honesty.

[@RobertJones-pj2jk]

Clearly someone lied to Kant when he was a lad and it really hurt his feelings.

[@olymyster]

On the murderer at the door scenario; surely telling the murderer where your friend is violates the categorical imperative on your friends part. When you tell the truth to the murderer, you give them information that will allow them to murder your friend, you give the murderer the means to kill them, meaning you are at least partially responsible for the murder. In this way you have used your friend as a means to achieve your end, of avoiding moral guilt, while ignoring your friend's end: of staying alive.

[@TheLaughingOut]

The thing about putting myself above a murderer, acting as though I was better or more important than them, is that I am.

[@jacobdriscoll8276]

In the murderer-in-the-house thought experiment, I wonder what Kant would think of replying with something like "I refuse to tell you." or "I can only tell you if you let me tie you up and lock you in my closet so that you can't murder them." No omission, no lie. An attempt to manipulate things, yes, but an honest assertion of your own ends, and an honest acceptance of theirs - but a desire to change theirs. Maybe the truth is that if we respect the autonomy of people, we kind of have to accept that someone breaking into our hose and wanting to murder our friend isn't just doing this spur-of-the-moment, but there's a history and context to that action that make such an action seem reasonable. So we're kind of stretching the "thought experiment" to the breaking point. But, still, I wonder if there's room in Kant's philosophy for resisting/influencing the ends of others, without necessarily deceiving them. To respectfully oppose another's desire.

[@duncancaldwell2915]

Not true, in one of his lectures he said that in extreme cases, such as the axe murderer example, that 'my lie is my last defense' therefore saying that you can lie. I believe he supported this by arguing that as the murder was, to an extent, deceiving you (he doesn't know that you know he is a murderer) therefore making it okay to lie back and protect yourself

[@claramartins4774]

But remember, Kant thoufht we shoulf always tell the WHOLE truth so we would still be not telling the truth

[@haydenbarnes5110]

Duncan Caldwell How is his first formulation ‘categorical’ then?

[@EmoBearRights]

The fact that it wasn't hypothetical for a lot of people who hid Jewish people from the Nazis, including the Queen's mother in law who was a hider not a Nazi though a lot of Prince Philip's family were Nazis, shows the real flaw in this idea. It's also based on a santimonous idea that you own conscience is more important than someone else's welfare. I can appreciate he didn't want to go down a slippery slope and the principle behind it as there are whose who will justify that kind of lying and not telling as in the service of a greater good many two timers do but saying you must tell the truth to keep your conscience clean wouldn't have stopped Jewish people being murdered by Nazis.

[@gnouveli]

You put negoitation in that situation.

[@onsennoodles7461]

I am someone with Aspergers, and I detest lying in most of it's forms. However, with regard to the scenario, the value I place on the life of a person (my friend no less) is much greater than the objectification of a person who wants to kill them. Similarly, in a more realistic situation, if one of my friends asks me if they look good in an outfit, and I don't think they do, I won't tell them a lie. At the same time I won't say "no you look like crap," I'll probably say, "maybe try a different colour, I don't think that one works for you, etc." Just thought I'd give my 2 cents on the matter 😅. Love your videos, keep up the good work. P.s. Yessssss Mother Contra 😍😍😍

[@TheBeatle49]

Back in the McCarthy days, when the House Un-American Activities Committee came for my father, my mother lied and said he wasn't home. This was my introduction to some brutal truths about life.

[@BirdKeeperToby]

Ahhh I know Laura! She kicked my butt at Pokemon Cards back in February :') and yeah I'm only mildly on the spectrum but I hate hearing lies and I hate keeping secrets. I hate the withholding of information and the worst time this affected me was when not revealing to my girlfriend of the time what her birthday presents were even though it was supposed to be a secret. Is there a moral distinction for Kant between telling a lie and keeping a secret?

[@bluesqure9826]

Yes. A big distinction.

[@justinrivera1618]

The lie would be anything other than the truth. The truth in this case is that it’s a secret.

[@mynameudste]

Regarding the murderer, telling the truth would be putting your own perceived morality before the life of your friend

[@techTVids]

the example of telling the murderer the truth reminds me a bit of the "i was just following orders" excuse from nazis

[@samuelwoods6648]

But the orders do not come from others. They come from yourself and your own ability to reason. Part of the philosophy is not to obey the murder, simply not to deny them the truth. Olly says In a previous video about Kant that they'd be nothing in the philosophy which permits you cannot slam the door and call the police. Although, now I've said that, by shutting the door you wouldn't be respecting the murder's ends and It said something about that in metaphysics of morals. @philosophytube how does Kant address that?

[@ThePaddymike]

i don't think following orders is imperative if the orders mandate a moral wrongdoing. in fact, orders as a concept may violate the humanity formulation since they necessarily treat humans as a means to another's ends. one might be able to extract a kind of anarchism from kant's moral philosophy.

[@ThePaddymike]

"Kant cant be taken seriously." lol but what? kant has, in my opinion, the best moral philosophy out there. consequentialist ethics allow for wrongdoing in the service of a net gain of happiness (see my pal nozick's utility monster). i admit i don't know much about virtue ethics, so i will have to look into that. anyways, while i would say that telling the truth in chinese is still wrong because you are trying to hide the truth, you bring up a good point that telling the truth as a categorical imperative may actually violate the universalization formulation. telling the truth constantly may contradict itself, although i am a bit skeptical of this. and yes, just because you should tell the murderer the truth doesn't mean you should let them murder your friend.

[@damienlocutus]

+Soybeans "consequentialist ethics allow for wrongdoing in the service of a net gain of happiness" No, consequentialist ethics says that's a contradiction in terms.

[@mathymathymathy9091]

If such a utility monster did exist, acting for the net gain of happiness (even if it causes suffering to all but the utility monster, provided their utility outweighs everyone else) is not wrongdoing from a Utilitarian perspective. Likewise, punching Thomas Hobbes in the face is the right thing to do, provided the happiness you would gain is more than the suffering he would receive. However, I do see one problem with Utilitarianism. I came up with this argument on my own (although it may have been stated by others; I do not know whether this is the case) but I think that watching PhilosophyTube has certainly helped so thanks! (I hope that Olly finds this comment and responds to it). Suppose the choice is between killing someone or not (and suppose you gain no pleasure but they suffer). The butterfly effect states that tiny changes in initial conditions can have massive, unpredictable impacts after a sufficient timescale. If you kill that person, there is, at first, a net loss of happiness. However, fast-forward a thousand years. The world is completely different from what would have happened if you hadn't killed that person (if not in terms of society then at least the people would be completely different). Maybe overall the total happiness throughout that time period would be greater than if you hadn't killed that person. There is no way of knowing. Does that mean that, short of actions such as mass human extinction, there is no way of knowing whether an action actually is moral from a Utilitarian perspective? A flaw with Utilitarianism doesn't mean we must adopt Kant's Categorical Imperative, though. From an evolutionary perspective, groups with some moral systems would be more likely to survive and spread than groups with other moral systems. For example, a group that believed that there was nothing wrong with killing would be much more likely to die out as a group that believed killing was wrong. (This is essentially the spread of memes which benefit their hosts). Indeed, it is likely that we evolved empathy in order to be more likely to survive as a group. Now consider what would happen to a society that adopted Kantian ethics. The society may be Kantian, but you could not force every person to follow Kant. There will be people who will not follow Kant. These people may indeed be the murderers who ask where everyone is hiding or something similar (they would exploit the fact that most people are Kantian and thus would never lie or violate any Categorical Imperative). Once that happens, such a society could fall very rapidly. By contrast, suppose a society was founded on Utilitarianism. Suppose you were that murderer, looking to exploit the system for your own gain. If you tried to ask someone where everyone was hiding, they would lie to you. The reason for this is that a Utilitarian would, in this case, minimise suffering, regardless of whether deception is necessary. Utilitarianism would limit the damage done by non-Utilitarians who want to exploit the system, whereas Kantian ethics would not. Thus it would seem that a Utilitarian society is more likely to survive. Kantian ethics is (mostly) self-consistent, which makes it hard to rebut. If you point out the murderer example to a Kantian, they will just say that there is no problem there and it is indeed wrong to lie to the murderer. However, self-consistent does not mean correct. In order to demonstrate that their moral system is absolutely correct, they must back up all of the premises on which Kantian ethics rests with certainty, without invoking Kantian ethics in itself while doing so. The same must be done in Utilitarianism, and I must admit that I cannot prove that Utilitarianism is absolutely correct. However, the same goes for every other system of ethics. Thus, I would look to which system of ethics is the most workable. Ultimately, Utilitarianism is a much more workable society than Kant. I wouldn't immediately dismiss Kant by saying that it can't be taken seriously, but it is ultimately impractical.

[@doughboydevito4529]

0:35-0:41 She never told him before that she actually liked Hawaiian pizza.

[@cedricwublin9306]

Turns out she was AMAB.

[@cedricwublin9306]

(Also, Hawaiian pizza is the best.)

[@doughboydevito4529]

Cedric Wublin I also like Hawaiian pizza and don't really get the hate.

[@cedricwublin9306]

I know, right? The internet is weird about it.

[@dixieslav1274]

Hawaiian Pizza is, in itself, a lie. A truthful name would be Canadian Abomination, as that is where it originated.

[@IXPrometheusXI]

I haven't read much Kant directly, so I don't want to talk out of school, but I don't see the "murderer at the door" thought experiment as being that problematic given the categorical imperative. I don't see how the imperative to be honest necessitates that you share all of your secrets. The problem for Kant seems to be that, by disguising your motives, you rob other people of an opportunity to decide for themselves if they will help you achieve your goals. Rather, by your deception, you compel them to facilitate your own ends unknowingly and unwillingly. But keeping secrets need not involve deception. For instance, imagine I have a door that can only be opened by speaking the magic word, and only I know what it is. If someone asks what it is, I don't see why Kant would say I'm obliged to tell them. Too see why, imagine the same scenario, but the door is opened with a simple key. If someone asked me to hand them the key, the categorical imperative would surely not require that I do so. I don't see the magic word situation as being so different, nevermind that the "key" in this case is not physical. What the categorical imperative *does* seem to prohibit is pretending that you don't know the magic word, or telling the person it's something else. In the case of the murderer at the door, I would suggest that what the categorical imperative really demands is that you make it clear to the murderer that you are aware of his intentions, and you are opposing his goals by withholding any information that you have. This is hardly deceitful; the murderer is totally aware of how his subsequent decisions relate to my goals. What Kant really seems to have a problem with is manipulation, not keeping secrets. I'd be interested to see if he was responding specifically to the idea of *lying* about where the friend is, or if he meant to include the scenario where you tell the killer you know, but you're just not going to say.

[@cocok.291]

"Lying is the worst form of objectification" sounds like someone who has never been meaningfully objectified

[@sisekzjedenactedimenze]

Well obviously he was a huge racist in 18th century prussia

[@jimtuv]

What if you say to the murderer at the door; I chose not to tell you where my friend is because I think that you are a murderer. Then you both protect the friend and tell the truth. You in effect become another door. He can kill you and enter to check for himself or decide it isn't worth the effort so you haven't removed his choice you have only added a new one.

[@chloezaffran3552]

Oh my, this intro, Beethoven's 7th's second movement and Contrapoint. I've got chills.

[@shadowseal22]

I am shocked nobody has made the Kantrapoints joke yet.

[@Fluxus_Lux]

I'm an aspie and viewing lies as inherently bad is something I consider myself to have grown out of.

[@Amy-zb6ph]

I have aspergers too but I see the value in lying and certainly the value in not telling someone all the information. I have gotten myself into a lot of awkward and even dangerous situations by telling people too much information. I also see the necessity of lying to protect someone. I would lie to a murderer at the door and then promptly call the police on him when he leaves. The closer someone is to you, however, the more you should try to be absolutely truthful to them.

[@alexanderbolton81]

If I tell the murderer where my friend is just to make myself feel moral then I'm using my friend as a means to an end. Also the 'ends' of my friend and the murderer are in conflict here, surely I have to think about my duty to protect my friend? Also, is simplifying wrong since you are not telling the whole truth?

[@damienlocutus]

This is a great exploration of the whole "Kant wants us to sell out Anne Frank" idea; it's helpful to see the line drawn all the way from the underlying principles to the conclusion. One thing that bothers me is that the hypothetical with the murderer always portrays the moral person as kind of feckless and uninvolved. I imagine Kant would *also* argue that, if someone is trying to murder your friend, that it would be moral (or at least acceptable) to try and stop them.

[@cassiapalladium2921]

I have asperger's and my hatred of lies is more of a practical than a philosophical thing. I have a really hard time telling even sarcasm from truth and that has gotten me into some really bad situations before. One time at the factory, a boss told me I had to build an extra day's worth of parts and I didn't realize he was being sarcastic. I had been building on the clock for an extra hour doing work that wasn't necessary, costing me both time and the company money. I had to tell that boss not to be sarcastic with me, he said he would stop, and he never stopped, so I stopped listening to him entirely, which caused its own range of problems as well.

[@MasterAdam100]

I have Autism too. Telling the truth too much lead me to become an anti Capitalist. Now, I feel much better about telling people how I feel. But I will still lie about what I believe so I can keep a damn job because managers and owners usually hate Lefties and unionists.

[@djh0591]

Does this square with being upfront about withholding information? What if I told the murderer "I do know where my friend is, but I'm not going to tell you because I think you're going to murder them"? Or is Kant saying that it doesn't matter what someone else's goals are, actively impeding them is wrong? If that's the case, what if the murderer is after you? Is hiding from the murderer a kind of lie to them?

[@RedFangXIX]

+

[@IXPrometheusXI]

Kant isn't saying that impeding the goals of others is wrong. He thinks it can be perfectly moral to impede someone else's goals, for instance if you are playing a basketball game with them and you're trying to prevent them from scoring. The problem he has is with not giving others a choice about what goals to pursue. This can happen if you put a gun to their head, of course, or in this case, if you disguise somehow what the facts of the situation are, or what your goals are, such that their options are unclear. Weirdly though, yeah, it seems like hiding would do that. If I hide in a bush and someone shouts "Taylor Bennett! Where are you?" and I act like I don't hear them, that's dishonest. I'm trying to trick them into thinking I'm not around when I am. I think. Meh. I think the categorical imperative thing is kinda stupid. I'm not a fan of Kant.

[@Seinglede]

I think the biggest problem here is his ambiguity in saying that we should always do the right thing for the "right reason." The example of the murderer at the door is an interesting case that exemplifies this. If I refuse to lie knowing it will result in the death of my friend am I really doing the right thing for the right reasons? If I know that because I told the truth another person will exploit that information in order to use me or another person as a means to their ends, to violate Kant's morality, can I really be considered to be doing the right thing for the right reasons? How can doing something I know will result in the violation of a categorical imperative be done for the right reasons? If every person in the world was perfectly rational, if everybody followed Kant's systems of morality, then his system would be absolutely functional, but people aren't always rational. They often act in ways that aren't in the best interests of other, or even themselves. In my opinion this leaves Kant's philosophy as something that is theoretically correct, more or less, but nearly impossible to practically implement. I like Kant's philosophy as a basis and I've integrated it within my life to a decent degree, but it's just not particularly usable in its purest form.

[@ExtraordinaryJem]

Matej K how would you know the aftermath after every single human being followed Kant's categorical imperatives? Society can be worse off because of this

[@Seinglede]

Matej K I realize now that I should have phrased that differently. It didn't get my point across very well. It's more that the subjective nature of human perception means that implementing Kant's framework is more or less impossible as honesty doesn't equal accuracy in any way. The only distinction between a lie and a falsehood is intention, but in most cases they have completely identical consequences. This is why Kant rejects consequentialism, to avoid the problem crated by people who tell a "truth" that is completely false. If I tell somebody that the world is going to end tomorrow because I actually believe it and the world doesn't end I haven't told a lie, but I have perhaps influenced somebody to do something that isn't in their best interest by giving them false information. Additionally people don't always even have accurate information about themselves. If I say I love somebody but discover later that the feeling I had wasn't actually love but some other emotion that I falsely attributed to love did I lie to them? No. Did I perhaps unfairly influence their choices through false information? Absolutely. If everybody had perfect information, was an objective rather than a subjective being, and implemented Kant's system it would be functional. Universally implementing it within a system filled with unreliable participants isn't good enough.

[@shiron222]

...Holy balls Podquisition! Now that's a thing I never thought I would see mentioned on this show... In regards to the Kant being too idealistic...I'm not sure. I think it's important to take into account all parts of a lie...the intent of the liar and the person being lied to as well as the consequences of a lie...For example, lying to your friends for any reason (even to spare their feelings) is far worse than lying to somebody else in order to protect them. In order of the things I mentioned: Intent - to protect (good) Target - mentally unstable murderer (person of bad intent) Consequences - variable (if you can coordinate with friend or lie in such a way that they can't guess where friend would run to the risk is low. If you don't coordinate or can't keep calm then risk is high). With these answers I feel that lying is far safer. I also have a theoretical question. If someone were planning a surprise party for a friend and the only way to assure the surprise isn't lost was through lying would Kant still say that it's morally wrong even if you aren't treating the friend as a mere means to an end and you know they love surprises?

[@streq9199]

There is simply no way to salvage or reinterpret anything Kant ever said to make it useful or less impossible to agree with. His stance on lying is akin to saying "never ever make a bet unless you have 100% odds in your favor because otherwise you are risking a loss and that is wrong".

[@considerthis768]

You and Contra should consider more collaborations in the future. You two are great.

[@Sam-lq7qi]

I agree that lying is wrong insofar as it takes away the agency of the person being lied to. In addition - and perhaps on a less philosophical note - I think it unnecessarily complicates social engagement, which is already a difficult thing to navigate. I'm not sure that I agree with Kant on lying by omission, though. If a murderer comes to my house to kill my friend, I don't think it's a lie to tell them I am unwilling to cooperate with their search.

[@yogsothoth7594]

Surely someone's agency to be alive is more important than someone's agency to kill them.

[@TaylorjAdams]

+Sam That wouldn't be a lie of omission and I'm pretty sure Kant cited that exact response as the way more reasonable and likely one someone would give without breaking the categorical imperative. A lie of omission would be to say something like "I don't know where my friends are right now" making friends plural which might technically be true since you could be referring to any number of friends even though you know the murderer is only looking for one specific person and you know who and where that person is. And yes Yog Sothoth that is true, but according to Kant so long as you aren't doing the killing you aren't responsible for the agency that's being taken away. You're only responsible for the agency that you do or do not take from the person to whom you do lie or truth tellings. If you do take away their agency by lying though, then that means they are acting in part from your agency, so you are then responsible for what they do with the information you give them. But if you tell only truths (even if they are truths about knowing where the friend is but refusing to tell them) then they are still acting entirely of their own accord and bear full responsibility.

[@AlanKlughammer]

I agree that omission should not be considered a lie. A flaw in Kant's reasoning is the assumption everyone is obligated to be "moral". If you refuse to give a Nigerian Prince your bank account number, are you immoral?

[@TaylorjAdams]

Kant does account for that in some different papers. He separates things into different kinds of right/wrong. He believes that ethically one should always be honest and forthcoming, legally one should never be in the wrong for being honest and forthcoming but the forthcoming part is pretty much never necessary and there are some situations where the honesty part can slide as well. He also puts things in terms he simply refers to as "what is right." where the categorical imperatives are judged against other parts of the foundation of his morality like the dignity of humankind. He does believe that we have a duty not just to ourselves but to all of humanity to try to defend ourselves if someone tries to take advantage of us and while he would still consider it wrong to lie to someone who is trying to steal all your money he accepts that in emergencies it may be necessary to do the wrong thing (though he only considers this to be the case when the information is extorted physically or otherwise). If you wanna look into some of the details he discusses what I'm talking about in and around here: "Hence there is no case in which a necessary lie should occur, save where the declaration is wrung from me, and I am also convinced that the other means to make a wrongful use of it" - Kant's Lectures On Ethics 27:449 He does go on from there to talk about how even in that case the lie is evil in nature because the wrongfulness of lies isn't about who we tell it to, it's intrinsic to every lie itself and the crime is against the dignity of humanity, but things that are necessary aren't always consistent with things that are morally good.

[@AlanKlughammer]

In this "angels dancing on a pin" discussion, I am not sure how you can be "moral" without acting morally.

[@andreilixandru212]

Hey Olly! I think you do a very good job at making phillsophy seem so fun and easy to understand. You are in my top 3 favorites of intelectual youtube content and if I wouldn't be 16, I would donate to you with all my hearth.

[@RelativelyBest]

See, I'm more of a deontologist than a consequentialist, but it's stuff like this that keeps me from siding with deontology completely. I think it's problematic to say that consequences are all that really matters when making moral decisions, but things also start breaking down if you decide that consequences do not matter at all. Kant strikes me as the kind of thinker who spent _way_ too much time reducing his moral theory down to the most absurd logical extreme possible without stopping to consider if it can or should be applied in practice. I suspect he mostly cared about keeping it all very neat and consistent, and that stuff like actually being a good person or, you know, _common sense_ was sorta incidental to that. Reminds me of how Zeno of Elea used logic to "prove" that nothing can move from one point in space to another, meaning motion is impossible. (To which Diogenes the Cynic replied by standing up and walking away.)

[@adrianfridge]

I was pleasantly surprised when autism got mentioned. I’m on the spectrum and it hurts anytime I try to lie. However, as I’ve gotten older, I’ve learned that it’s better to suffer through a white lie than to constantly face the truth that people can’t handle the whole truth. I was called rude when I was younger because I wouldn’t sugar coat anything, and it impacted the quality of my social relationships. Nowadays I use faerie logic to go around telling lies wherever I can without revealing the entire truth. If a known murderer came to my house while I was sheltering a friend from them, it would heavily require context for how I’d react. Most likely I’d say “I don’t know where my friend is at this very moment. Why are you inquiring?” If the murderer admits to wanting to murder, that’s ballsy and I’d ask why again... maybe there’s a legit reason. If the murderer lies, I’d be like “Okay I’ll let my friend know when I see them again and they can get in contact with you :)”

[@HermanVIII2]

Wooo, great vid and awsome on collaborating with Contra Points. Regarding the duties incured from the categorical imperatives, it might be a good idea to expand with W.D. Ross's idea of Prima Facie Deontology as a way to deal with conflicting C.I.'s.

[@nickgeffen8316]

I feel like your music gets better every episode :D Which is saying a lot, because it's always been awesome!

[@Xidnaf]

I wonder, would Kant have been ok with lying to someone because you know they want you to lie to them? Say I overhear my father say "I desperately want to believe that my child is getting straight A's in school, even if it's not true." What would Kant say if I then lied to my father and told him what he wanted to hear? Would I not then be treating him as ends and not means?

[@rickpgriffin]

I suppose that depends on Kant's stance on fiction in general

[@BernardoPatino]

Xidnaf come bacc

[@alejandroalva5502]

Nope, because you would be treating him as a mean to your own happiness, you'd be happy because you made your father happy instead of telling the truth. Maybe you could have told him the truth and he would have payed extra classes and you two would be happier in the end instead of him knowing the truth at the end, you never know and therefore you should put the truth before anything.

[@billqm7675]

@@alejandroalva5502 But what if lying to your father makes you feel horrible and you only do it for his happiness? I think thats a perspective worth considering. If the fathers ends are to believe in the As, then denying him those ends is putting yourself over him. Or maybe Kant would just call the father an idiot.

[@catcomputer]

He would still say it is completely wrong

[@terrlaw328]

A lie is always a lie, however I believe we , at times have a moral duty to lie. Yes, I would lie to save someone from getting murdered. I would also lie to protect myself from evil doers. (Including governments). If someone would ask me if I am gay, and I am, and If I was fairly positive they would use that knowledge to harm me in some way, it would be okay for me to lie. In fact it would be my moral duty to lie. Kant needs to get out of his head and get down to the practical issues of living in this absurb world !

[@nikolademitri731]

Great video. This is one of my favorite of Kant's philosophical positions. I know you, and many others are not fans of his, but I'd like to highly recommend Sam Harris's essay, "Lying", which you can get in book form, audiobook (which I suggest, as it's available on Audible), or download as a free PDF online. It's easily digestible in one sitting, and I believe the audio is an hour long. No question that Harris' views on lying are more influenced by Kant than any other thinker, but he also takes some input from Buddhism in his theory of lying, which he also says is absolutely never acceptable. His argument is actually very powerful and thought provoking, and has been incredibly influential on me and my own ethical/moral thoughts and practices. I agree with Kant and Harris, lying is an extremely serious offense, no matter how big or small the lie, and it's never acceptable. I have struggled to apply this to my own life, and found it to be extremely difficult to follow through with. Still, I try, because I do think that ultimately always telling the truth will get you further in life, and you'll be more respected for it, at least by reasonable/ethical people (even in the "does this shirt make me look fat/look good, etc" situations). At the very least, one can have a much cleaner conscience. Again, great video, and thanks for the content, as always! Cheers 🍻✌🏼

[@Thesogggybottoms]

I’ve been binging your videos. Thank you ever so much

[@42laxer84]

A very interesting response I saw to the axe murder dilemma once was that in order to give meaningful testimony you must be in a position to make a declarative statement. In order for a statement to qualify as declarative you must be at liberty to convey without risk of harm to yourself. If you're at gunpoint or axe edge, then you're not in a position to make a declaritive statement. So if the axe murderer threatens to kill you if l don't tell him where your friend is then you can tell him an outright falsehood because my testimony is under duress and therefore not declarative.

[@sal8527]

42 Laxer Yes - without making Kant's distinctions between a) duties to self vs duties to others and (maybe) more importantly, b) perfect duties vs imperfect duties one can't (ouch) really make his theory clear. (But there's only so much one can do in one video, so this is no fault of Olly's) I also think the use of the "don't use people" version of the CI, while helpful, doesn't get at certain things that the "universalize your maxim" version (which I think Kant gives first but I could be wrong about that) does. That version allows you to show how for Kant violations of perfect duties at least ultimately reduce to logical contradictions. This connects to your "speech act" approach: If everyone lied always, no one could could ever actually lie, because they'd never be believed. A lie isn't simply stating something false. It's stating something false and having another accept it as true. I could go out into the forest and yell that the earth is flat without lying, on the speech act approach. Lying can't (ouch) actually be made a universal law because it destroys the system of speech acts that it assumes.

[@42laxer84]

Sal Perhaps it's extremely arrogant to focus on agreement and disagreement in a discussion, but you seemed to agree with me at the start of your reply while I felt the content disagreed. This concerns me since I think I understand all you said and I want to make sure I actually did. Also, the Kant can't joke was extremely appreciated.

[@sal8527]

42 Laxer Ah! I didn't mean to be disagreeing - perhaps I misspoke. I did change gears partway through, but then my object (ouch) was not you but Olly's video overall. And I didn't even mean to "disagree" with him but just to underline some ways in which, in a brief video, one can't (ouch) really capture all of the aspects of Kant's views. Now I'm concerned, though, as to what made you think I was disagreeing with you, since I didn't mean to. I. Wondering what I said that gave that impression. Hmmm. Was it the stuff about speech acts? Because I meant to be using that to amplify your point rather than object to it.

[@42laxer84]

Sal Thanks for clearing that up. I thinking mixing the talk about "speech acts" with why you can't universalize lying got me mixed up.

[@sal8527]

42 Laxer Yeah, sorry. I was making a number of separate points without making it clear which related directly to your comment and which were tangential. I did think your comment was quite good, and that the speech act way of thinking about things can be useful in responding to Kant in general.

[@yasminazaadeh4177]

I Kant lie

[@BakaBaka8146]

i know someone is going to make this pun

[@AlbertoAntonio6]

apa aja yeah, what a Kant.

[@cedricwublin9306]

Internet gold. Bravo. *applauds*

[@badasunicorn6870]

beutiful

[@Urchak]

I remember never getting a satisfactory answer to the Kant lying problem (even from Barbara Herman who was teaching the class), because the context of the categorical imperative was couched in terms of pure reason with no ability to call consequences into the decision process. I wish that i had then the understanding i have now of the neuroatypicality spectrum. It wouldnt have made "Pure Practical Reason" any less difficult to read but i would have had a much greater understanding of the probable context for what seemed to me to be an ethical system doomed to negative outcomes. I dont want to assume that Kant was neuroatypical, but his life certainly seems to make that a strong possibility. Given that if we look at three of the most common traits of autism spectrum and find parallels in the Categorical Imperative in the context of lying. The people-as-ends formulation: "If you lie you are treating another person as a means to your end, and not as in independent actor with their own ends". The more severe forms of autism can result in a diminished theory-of-mind, an inability to recognize that others have complex thoughts and intentions. Kant, for all his weirdness (so many other authors words, not mine) was reasonably high functioning. This means he either had a well developed theory of mind, or. . .had derived a logical theory of mind in the absence of the instinctive theory of mind that neuro-typical people seem to possess. If the latter is true, it would be obvious to Kant when other people acted in contrary to the logical system he had developed to allow him to process the behavior of others. The maxim-universal law formulation: "if you lie, you do so expecting the other person to believe you. If people lie, no one can believe what others say. Therefore lying is self defeating." This formulation accepts no calculation of probability, gradation or the inclusion of factors like facial expression or body language as indication of falsehood. Which makes perfect sense if Kant were neuroatypical in a way that made those factors extremely difficult to understand. The third trait of autism spectrum i wanted to highlight is a bit more messy and combines two or more traits into one, for which i apologize but in this case i think they are related. Specifically ritual and rule-rigidity. We know from the stories of the philosophengang that Kant was strongly ritualistic in his behavior. People on the autism spectrum often find comfort in ritual, in predictability, in collapsing complex problems into smaller more easily managed ones. As a result breaking ritual, creating an unanticipated outcome, or setting up a task without clear instructions can be a cause of distress. The same distress ties into a rigid approach to rules and concepts of fairness. Someone breaking a rule, or acting less than fair can be a source of distress the same way interfering with ritualized behaviors can be. Apply that understanding or ritual and rigidity to the very concept of a categorical imperative. I am not in any way demeaning him, but if Kant fell on a spectrum of ritual and rigidity the idea of a "must follow" rule would be a logical outgrowth of that rigidity. In the context of lying, a lie is a clear violation of the rules. It would be an unanticipated outcome. It would be unfair. How this applies to murder at the door is harder to manage, but i can see where the issues of a diminished theory of mind could feed back into that hypothetical. Sorry for rambling but its a fascinating topic.

[@McJaews]

The categorical imperative breaks down as soon as you're tasked with telling a murderer where to find their victim. Murder is wrong, according to the Golden Rule. Murder - like lying - is not allowed. The murderer is also using you as a means to an end by asking you to divulge information about the whereabouts of their victim. the Golden Rule can only be absolutely upheld provided no one ever breaks it, and no one ever desiring to do so. Pragmatically, we can allow for exceptions to the rule in situations exactly like the one with the inquisitive murderer, for social situations where being cordial is more important than being strictly honest, and when striking an attacker in self-defense. We should call it the "Nearly Categorical Mostly Imperative".

[@DrumWild]

I have High-Functioning Autism [previously known as Asperger's]. As a result, I am in Cognitive Behavioral Therapy. One of my big social issues is that I am painfully honest. As it turns out, our society does not value honesty, and typically prefers the lie. I'll be honest when there is a separate implied question that is hidden within the verbalized question. For example, if a girlfriend asked me about her outfit, "Do I look fat in this?" I will answer with a yes or no. However, she may not be asking that question, and instead is looking for some type of validation. I say, if you have a question, then ask the fucking question. This might sound strange, but in my therapy *_I am learning how to lie in the way that is socially expected._* It's hard to describe, but it involves me holding back honesty, pausing for consideration, and then possibly having a response that has nothing to do with the situation. Most of the time, I can say, "I'll give that some thought and get back to you," which helps me to avoid a lie, so long as they aren't demanding an on-the-spot honesty. I'm about as good at lying as HAL 9000, so I may have to kill the entire crew so that I do not have to struggle with keeping a lie to myself for their benefit.

[@davyjones3319]

There are cases when you should have a moral right/duty to strip someone of their agency. Self defense, defense of your property and people important to you are all such cases. Does it matter if you stop the killer physically blocking his way or tricking him (lying)?The difference is that in one case the killer knows that his agency has been violated and in the other he doesn't. Why is it so crucial that the person would know when his agency has been violated? Maybe so he could reevaluate his actions and decisions and would be able to act in accordance. But then it is perfectly fine to just refuse to tell the killer where the friend is as the killer would know that his agency has been compromised.

[@leviswranglers2813]

Brings up the question of what is truth. It's possible that "your" truth and "my" truth are two very different things.

[@alaskaface7147]

Hey Olly! In response to your video, I wanted to mention that I'm on the Autism spectrum (Aspergers), and I too deeply hate lying. Like many Aspies, I have strict rules about lying. However, I WILL lie if I need to: - Protect my own survival (food, safety, shelter) - Protect my friend's survival - Protect someone's feelings For example, if me or my friend is in serious threat of losing a job/home/etc if I were to tell the truth, I may decide that it's best for me to tell a protective lie (I still hate doing it, though). However, I'll only lie in cases like this when choosing to lie causes the MINIMUM harm out of all my possible choices, as my fundamental ethical rule is that I must try to make choices that cause the least amount of harm possible to the people around me, whether they're enemies or friends (as with lying, I also have a lot of rules when it comes to morality and ethics, because I really, really care about other people). Depending on the context, I'll also tell white lies like "no, your butt doesn't look bad in that skirt" provided that being dishonest is the choice that brings my friend the most benefit/least harm. If it would be more helpful for me to say "that skirt doesn't look so good on you, try another," I'll choose to be honest rather than lying to spare their feelings. The rules I have about lying have saved me and those around me from serious trouble more than once (and have spared a lot of hurt feelings, lol) but thankfully, I rarely have to use lies at all! Morally muddy situations where lying is the best choice seem to arise rarely, so for the most part I'm very, very honest lol. I can honestly say that most of the time I won't lie so much as once a day, or even once a week. Thankfully, I've found lots of people who like that honesty and have no issue with the fact that I can be a little "too real" sometimes, lol. On a related note, after I watched your video on mental illness (great work btw, I thought your openness was wonderful, and I too understand how you feel

[@montycantsin8861]

I could argue that, in telling the murderer the location of my friend, I have lied to my friend, about being their friend. It is implicit in the notion of friendship that I mean them no harm, much less that I would allow them to be murdered. If I tell the truth to the murderer, I have lied to my "friend" about our friendship, removing their agency (they could have hidden elsewhere). Unless Kant believed that there is no obligation to honor prior statements, meaning one must always tell the truth at present, prior statements of truth be damned, he has failed to seek any temporal consistency in his philosophy.

[@rickpgriffin]

Although you could say, if your friend knows you are a Kantian then it is implicit you will betray him to the first murderer who looks for him so you're not technically lying! :D

[@LiveHappy76]

I think this is the best logical prod/poke at Kant's theories of ethics I've yet seen in all the comments...kudos! I really like Kant's categorical imperative to a point, just not to a fault, thinking it one of the straightest, most humanity-favoring, non-religious moral guides out there, along with Aristotle's Golden Mean. I deeply believe in God and Jesus Christ, know that I'm part of the ill of the world (that I'm a flawed sinner) and can't be grateful enough for God making a way past the ill!

[@elle3821]

contra

[@olleicua]

+

[@tobiashagstrom4168]

Contra is bae

[@cedricwublin9306]

Contra is love

[@92enpuissance]

Contra is life

[@abigailcockbane8640]

[@patervoss2305]

I know he probably does deal with this, but, how would Kant deal with telling a lie without knowing? Wonderful video! Been watching for about a year now, but first time subscribing and watching. In answering your question though...I think that there are exceptions/restraints in every circumstance (example: Freedom of speech is restrained by not being allowed to yell fire in a crowded theater). Also, it would be impractical to expect and/or enforce that all humans never lie, ever (not that I think Kant is/was advocating this). If you suspect that telling someone the truth will result in a fight/flight situation, then their hostile reaction to the truth is a far worse breach of trust than your lie...assuming that you are in a morally sound position that is (for example if a person lies to the police about murdering someone). All of my qualifications though just point even more arrows to "it's complicated." Lies should never be ruled out for someone who may need that tactic to survive a potentially damaging situation when the truth will make them worse off. If someone lives in a society where honesty results in that kind of terror, then that's the real issue...not whether or not people lie.

[@slangjo1]

I remember this contradiction being brought up in your Socrates Jones Let's Play episodes a few years ago, but I'd like to point it out here (great episode btw). Kant says that the consequences of a moral act don't matter, only the morality of the act itself matters. Yet, he also says that if a person lies, then the liar is responsible for any consequences that come from the lie. If the consequences don't matter, then why is lying such a big deal? \_:/_/

[@rook9714]

If categorical imperatives did exist, it would be necessary to abolish them.

[@ethanrummel7638]

Curious...What do you mean by this?

[@rook9714]

Ethan Rummel The categorical imperative demands obedience but is not accountable (people, individually and collectively, are made subordinate to its authority, rather than the system of rules being created to serve people). Because of this, it is an unjust form of hierarchy we must dismantle in order for humans to fully exist humanistically and non-hierarchically. I was alluding to a quote by anarchist philosopher Mikhail Bakunin; "If God did exist, it would be necessary to abolish him."

[@ethanrummel7638]

Charlotte Rook I'm not sure we should view it hierarchically.The point of of the categorical imperative is that morality can be decided logically, that the correct action can always be determined, regardless of personal opinion or prejudice, there is an objectively right thing to do. Does it succeed in establishing this? Probably not, but if such an imperative could be proven I don't think it would be oppressive to keep it in place but instead it would be to our benefit to follow it. That said, I find your view point intriguing, it's a different way of interpreting this so thanks for originality, and a quality argument

[@darkhell227]

if you lie, youre disrupting their means to murder your friend. if you tell the truth, you disrupt your friends means to stay alive. unless kant's philosophy on assisting people towards their means only applies to you being the person telling the truth, i think that may be more of a moral dilemma than he makes it out to be.

[@MirandaJackson0]

It is impossible for a human being to understand anything in itself, and nothing actually exists only in itself, but influences and is influenced by many things. The most compatible behaviour with reality and with how we live it is measuring the value in itself and the consequences. For example, using lies to exploit someone would be bad, for lying is generally bad and the consequences don't have enough value (in a utilitarianism perspective) to surpass it (it doens't make it worth to lie). However, in the example of the murderer, the consequences have much stronger value, and the lie is worth to tell. Of course it brings many more questions on considering what makes the consequence strong enough, how to value consequences, etc. (I'm not a native speaker)

[@nikolademitri731]

The Hunter x Hunter 2011 Dickriding Association I agree for the most part. If the consequence of my telling the truth means someone is at severe risk of injury or death, then I prefer to lie, by omission or explicitly. My main qualm with that, however, is with the problem of assuming I know the consequences. In a case like the murderer at the door, or some similar scenario in which safety is at risk, I feel obligated to assume my telling the truth or lying may lead to the worst case scenario, and obligated to act in such a way to avoid that scenario. I basically have to assume I know the consequences of my actions. In other cases, however, I think I take the importance of telling the truth as more important than the consequences of my telling the truth, and think assuming the consequences of my actions can ultimately be problematic. For example, in the classic "does this clothing item make me look fat/pretty/ugly/etc", I would rather tell the truth, and risk the consequence of hurt feelings, than lie. I'm assuming the consequence of truth will be positive for whomever is asking me, as a default assumption. The typical assumption is that a white lie in this scenario is acceptable, and assumes that the best thing for that persons well being, or best outcome for them, is my positively reinforcing them with a lie, avoiding the consequence of the truth, which might temporarily hurt their feelings. Obviously a lot of factors play into this scenario, and any similar scenario (and every scenario), so one should act according to the specifics of the situation they find themselves in, however, no matter what the case, I'll be making assumptions about what's best for that person, and what the consequences of my actions will be. No matter how much information I have, that assumption may still be incorrect. If I tell the truth, no matter the specifics of the situation, the person I am being honest with *should*, in my opinion, respect and appreciate my honesty. If they don't, that's on them, not on me. I can be held responsible for hurting their feelings in that moment, but I cannot be perceived as a dishonest (which is a net positive). I can say personally, that if I ask someone to tell me how I look, I expect an honest answer, and I'd be upset with someone if they misled me merely because they think I'd be insulted if they said I looked bad, or negative would come of it. For me, the most negative outcome possible would be my loss of trust in them, finding them to be dishonest. People tend to say that when that scenario arises, the person who is asking isn't looking for an honest answer, but positive reinforcement. That may often be the case, but what is going to be more positive for them: my positively reinforcing then in that moment, only to face a night of weird looks/rejection/etc, or my being honest, possibly hurting their feelings for a moment, their changing their look, and then having a night filled with much more positive reinforcement. Worst of all, they might expect complete honesty, and my lying may damage our relationship. Again, either way I'm forced to make a many assumptions about what I think will happen, and what I think should happen, all of which may be wrong about. Ultimately, I believe that honesty with the person will cause them to respect and appreciate you more, while lying will make them trust you less, which is ultimately always poisonous to a relationship, whatever the status of that relationship may be. If someone ultimately respects you less for being honest, then it's safe to assume that they are dishonest, or at least appreciate dishonesty in certain situations. For me, and many others, just knowing this about another person is enough to damage the trust you have in your relationship with them, which I can at least appreciate as valuable information. Relationships, be they friendships, marriages, lovers, family, etc, are completely reliant on trust, above all other factors. Anyway, I'm rambling on now. I could go on, and give multiple scenarios, but I think I've gotten the important point across, that being, outside of a situation in which a persons safety is at risk, I don't think a lie is ever acceptable, and that lying is ultimately always damaging to relationships. Cheers 🍻✌🏼

[@refreshdaemon]

Kant's ideas about morality are quite attractive to me, but I think they're impractical and make idealistic assumptions about the capacity for reasoning in human beings at all times. For example: In a particularly heated moment, I might not be thinking clearly and could say or do something hurtful--in such a moment, if by means of subtlety, someone was able to direct me away from doing or saying such a thing--I would be grateful because I was helped from committing an act of evil. In such a case, my personal capacity for reason was already incapacitated by overwhelming emotion and I was driving to do something that, in my right mind I would never want to do. I agree that we ought to make the moral choice at all times and that we should always treat others as ends in themselves, but context and intention matter.

[@PhyreI3ird]

This might be my tiny social circles talking, but I don't personally know anyone who _wouldn't_ disagree with Kant's extreme view on it. Seriously.. I wanna know the people that agree with him. The very idea of favoring a mental construct over bad outcomes (or good for only the wrong people) is just... absurd to me x)

[@jamyangpelsang3099]

I've been told that the humanity formulation and universal formulations are both equal and on the same level. But to me it seems like the humanity formulation is derived from the universal. In that it would be immoral to treat everyone as merely a means to an end and particularly since universalizing that principle would create a scenario where no one could trust one another. I feel that's a more rational basis for Kant's rule on never to lie rather than simply the humanity formulation on its own.

[@manuelprsnl]

Well this is an interesting topic! I make it a point to never lie (except to some salesmen on the street) and it has had the interesting consequence of making me never make decisions that I'd have to lie about. I don't think there's benefit on disclosing all the truth, though, and there is a way to handle the murderer situation without lying, which would be to declase the unwillingness to disclose the information to him. We have to be free to choose to not disclose any given thought, or we wouldn't do any other thing all day.

[@zEropoint68]

anybody watch star trek: voyager? "We are capable of telling lies. However, I have never found it prudent or necessary to do so." -Tuvok

[@MasterAdam100]

Fuck Tuvok tho. Janeway did nothing wrong.

[@calebharmon7404]

I don't think the "to lie to someone is to put yourself above them" argument carrys much weight when we're lying to a murderer. By Kant's own standards (when he says murder is wrong), the person opening the door is morally superior to the murderer. Maybe we could say that more rigorously. Kant thinks the only way to pursue your goals as a rational agent is to respect the goals of other rational agents. To do otherwise would be to arbitrarily prefer your own goals. When the murderer is trying to kill someone, he's not treating them as a rational agent, so he's not acting as a rational agent. Does respect for the ends of all rational agents demand that we respects the whims of this irrational agent? Not insofar as the murderer is acting as a murderer. Rationality requires respect for rationality, not irrationally.

[@TaylorjAdams]

Kant doesn't see it as a good person vs bad person situation. He believes that the lie is wrong not because it wrongs the murderer but because it wrongs the dignity of all of humanity. One should not tell the truth for another's sake but for their own. The ends themselves have nothing to do with it. Only the recognition that the other person is their own being with their own ends.

[@calebharmon7404]

Taylor Adams I didn't say anything about good or bad people or harming or helping others. Kant says that to be a rational (moral) agent one must respect the ends of other rational agents. In this situation, the murderer is not acting as a rational agent. The murderer is not autonomously seeking his own ends because he is violating the categorical imperative, and therefore acting out of heteronomy. In this case the murderer is not an autonomous rational agent, so we have to reason to treat him as one.

[@TaylorjAdams]

Right, but it's not the ends of other rational agents that need be respected, it's that other rational agents have ends. But to lie is wrong not because you're wronging someone else regardless of whether they are an autonomous rational agent, it's wrong because you're wronging yourself as an autonomous rational agent. Kant believes that lies are intrinsically wrong regardless of whom you tell them to. Though he does admit that there may be certain cases where lies are necessary even though they are still wrong, and that does depend on whom you tell them to and why. But he does go on to explicitly state that the lie itself is still wrong even if it is necessary. "Hence there is no case in which a necessary lie should occur, save where the declaration is wrung from me, and I am also convinced that the other means to make a wrongful use of it" - Kant's Lectures On Ethics

[@mindybriggs6559]

I really liked this one. I totally agree with Kant. I'm thinking, if we all just did this, things would be a lot better and communication would be better too! Instead of always trying to wonder what people really mean, they would actually say what they mean.

[@Grayhome]

That's interesting. Your reasoning for believing in Kant's position is that it would produce the best consequences if everyone adopted it. I wonder if the opposite is also possible: using Kant's moral imperatives to justify a utilitarian view of the world.

[@redsparks2025]

I've had further thoughts on the scenario Kant set up with the axe-man and realise that Kant really didn't think this through but left us hanging at a point were we have to fill in the blanks. Basically he set up a scene that begs the question of our own morals. Kant set up a moral dilemma.But what is worst is that he himself did not resolve this dilemma. Or maybe Kant decided not to resolve this dilemma as it may reveal to us the type of "kant" he was. After telling the axe-man truthfully about the friend inside the house then does the home owner step to one side and let the axe-man through or bar the way demanding the axe-man reveal his intentions? If the axe-man's intention is to kill the friend then does the home owner sacrifice his life to save his friend or does he step aside? This decision now goes beyond Kant's position of being truthful to others and now becomes a decision about being truthful to one self. A decision that Kant never really resolved.

[@raulendymion9917]

If you tell the murderer that your friend is in the house, aren't you accompanying them and their actions? By telling them where you think your friend is, regardless if they are actually there or not, you are assisting them. So wouldn't it be morally superior to convince them that your friend left town or you have no idea where they could be? Because then telling the lie is no longer about presenting your ends or goals, it's about the value of your friends life. I don't know if someone has a similar maybe more refined argument about this. Heck I'm sure someone does in history. But thats my argument in a nutshell. Love your stuff!

[@doughboydevito4529]

Raul Endymion And also doesn't your friend also have goals for themselves, like not getting fucking killed? And in this scenario, don't you turn your friends into ends for the killer?

[@hafaskater]

philpapers.org/archive/VARKAL.pdf

[@chrismenNL]

For as far as I understand, Kant doesn't give a damn about consequences. You lying is morally always bad and falls on YOU. That the murderer is about to commit a horrible crime, however, is entirely his problem, and as long as you don't do anything objectively immoral like actually plunging a knife into the chest of your friend or something of the sorts, you are entirely guilt free

[@doughboydevito4529]

chrismen But isn't it objectively wrong to allow someone to get killed even though you had the chance to not allow them to die? It might not be you plunging the knife, but it was you who decided that it was ok to happen and allows it to happen, despite being completely able to prevent it yourself.

[@icarusnote]

Why not just stay silent?

[@JeckolaEcho]

I don't get how to Kant, you're guilty of a terrible thing if you lie and say a friend isn't there, and yet, being honest and possibly resulting in your friends death, well to Kant you can just shrug off the guilt. Even then, doesn't that mean that we effectively used our friend as an object to our own ends (In this case, obeying the humanity formulation to which /we/ deem morally superior even though we can't really prove exists or not)? What does Kant say whenever our means and objectives, and in this case likely our friend's as well, are directly in disagreement with someone else's, in this case the murderer's?

[@MichiruEll]

Je-cko This somehow reminds me of the train dilemma. Train heading for 5 people, you can switch the track so that it will only kill 1 person. Are you then responsible for that person's death? How guilty are you for doing that? Likewise, if you send off the murderer, but he ends up killing somebody else (not your friend) are you responsible for that person's death? Of course, there's a difference between the murderer and the train, because one has their own agency

[@TaylorjAdams]

The best depiction of the trolley problem I've seen is the Star Trek Voyager episode Tuvix. Wonderful episode which takes into account various different arguments about it. +Je-cko Kant doesn't consider doing the right thing to be an end so nothing you do would be a means to it. He also wouldn't consider telling the truth to the murderer to be an interaction between you and your friend at all since anything the murderer does to your friend would be of the murderer's own accord. It's only if you take away some of the murderer's agency that you become responsible in any way for what the murderer does with the misinformation you provide. And in this case Kant does clearly state that one should still do their best not to give the murderer any information. You don't have to lie to say "I'm not going to tell you." He considers a situation where you would be unable to stay silent without having your agency taken away by the murderer to be unrealistic, and if the murderer is threatening your agency then lying in defense is permissible since you are not taking agency away from the murderer but rather taking back your own agency. Though the nuts and bolts of how he views this to work is a bit more complex. "Suffer not thy rights to be trampled under foot by others with impunity" - Kant's The Metaphysics of Ethics

[@appletreepear]

Taylor Adams Ah that makes so much more sense if true, thanks! (I should probably finally actually read his work to understand the detail haha)

[@rainyfeathers9148]

I like this Kant guy's thinking. It's between the person and their conscience what they do with a truth you tell. What were you or the >person< doing that lies became an imperative?

[@HeavyMetalMouse]

"I don't want to tell you that information, because you plan to use it to murder him." - No lie has been told, neither of commission or omission. You have been honest about your action and your intention, and respected him as a person. Just because I respect your personhood with your own Ends doesn't mean that I want them as well - you will simply have to find some other way to get the information you want. Stating that you become morally liable for everything that happens after you lie strikes me as oddly Consequentialist - if actions are moral or immoral in and of themselves, regardless of consequences, then surely dishonesty can't be immoral because of its potential effects on the actions of the one lied to.

[@michaelberg9348]

I really doubt i'm the first to think of this, but kant claims: "you should *never* lie (not taking 'well technically' as an acceptable workaround), therefore if a murderer ask you the location of their intended victim, you must provide them with the information" But that doesn't necessarily follow. "No i will not provide you with the means to murder someone i care about, because i believe you will do exactly that" Is not only honest (not 'well technically', full on honest) but also not facilitates in murder (sure it doesn't hinder the murderer, as a lie could, but still) So i'm wondering, if there is a (standard) counter to that one. As for the "It is treating them, like you're better than they are", that's really 'just asking for it': "Yes i *do* believe i'm better than this person who goes around murdering people, fully expecting cooperation(based on moral superiority, of all things). Why would the (well technically) lie, of hiding this fact by refusing to actively aid in murder, be worse than refusing to actively aid in murder?"

[@GreatCanadianGuy]

I'm an adult on the spectrum (formerly Asperger, which is pronounced closer to Ass-burgers - however unfortunately) who has no qualms with lying. I hold that a lie or a truth are of equal moral value insofar as they have the potential to cause harm. While Kant implies that the lie is harmful as it robs the other of agency, I hold that the ending of a life is a greater harm (moreover, the act of murder is an affront to the murderee's agency, and defending their agency where they can not is morally defensible). Therefore, the decision to lie is morally correct as it minimizes harm. The corollary to this is telling a truth that benefits you at the expense of another - not for justice, but for self-gain. An example would be telling a truth or correcting a lie to alleviate your own guilt; in some cases this may be a selfish act that can cause more harm than perpetuating the lie.

[@kindoflame]

I think that there is a difference between conveying information that you know to be false and refusing to convey information. In the later case, it is critical that you make it clear what you are doing.

[@davezenko]

For practical interactions its supposed to feel bad to lie so that we use lies judiciously. I feel it very strongly and think its moral and useful for me my family and community to be truthful. No right or wrong because the consequences didn't tend to stack up quick enough. But increasingly...

[@svarje8475]

In that scenario when the killer knocks in my door asking me were my friend is he is surely using me as a tool for his end since we do not share the common goal. Am i according to Kant not able to make sure i do not get treated as a means by maybe refuse to answer, strike the killer or maybe lie?

[@somarmohammad95]

Kant's view does not take anything into consideration even when we take out the consequences of telling the truth, telling the truth by it self can be bad. What if you wanted your friend dead and the murderer was on drugs when he made the decision to kill your friend(or he had anger management issues or any illness which affects his judgment momentarily), in this case you know that his end goal (killing your friend) may change when the drugs effect wears off, so telling him the truth would be using him as a tool achieve your end goal(killing your friend). I know that this will make you guilty because you wanted your friend dead, but that will also make you guilty for using the murderer as a tool by telling him the truth. wouldn't that make the action of telling the truth apart from the consequences bad?

[@moviemiester457]

I believe it is self defeating to claim to value the rights of all humans equally, because by preserving the human dignity of the murderer you deny the human dignity of the friend you are quartering. It is impossible to value the lives of everyone equally because not everyone is affected equally. Telling the truth to the murderer in order to preserve human dignity is fallacious in a similar regard to "All Lives Matter." Regardless of consequence, if you tell the truth to the murderer it says a great deal about you that in the game of scarcity you stood by the oppressor rather than the oppressed.

[@weylin6]

Is there an imperative for not asking questions that one would rather not answer? Never lying is one thing, but don't ask questions that could hurt someone.

[@Lanoira13]

Broke: "I won't tell you where my friend is." (Basically a lie of omission, as you know the answer to the question and are not saying it by refusing to answer the question) *WOKE: "Putting my own morality over saving my friend's life is treating THEM as an ends to my mean and thus immoral, and in the absence of a situation where I am not treating someone as an ends to my means, I should obviously choose the option that preserves life, OBVIOUSLY, you absolute cretin."*

[@beyza9615]

that's a really good way to put it

[@Lanoira13]

@@beyza9615 Eeh, thank you! I read the comments for a while and was really impressed on the opinions and points everyone had, they really helped me put how I felt about it into words, and more wanted to make this comment to praise them for putting it into words first, rather than just to be clever and dunk on people. _However I did also wanna be clever and dunk on people._ lol

[@steampunkerella]

*opens video* what? thought i just watched the contra video. must have misclicked. let me ju- oh. okay

[@ruaoneill9050]

So conflicted. I agree in theory with so much of this video in regards to telling the truth and the immorality of lying. I just cannot honestly say I would follow it all the way to the murderer at the door thought experiment. Yet I have argued Kant's version (as you've explained it, not going to pretend to remember anything of what I've read of Kant) of morality a lot when it comes to, for example, governments keeping information from the public to avoid mass panic (thought experiment wise, like in MiB)

[@FearlessSon]

Another person diagnosed with Asperger's here, to offer my perspective as requested. Kant has a very moral absolutist ethical framework, which has never sat quite well for me. My own ethical framework leans in a much more utilitarian direction. The end consequences of an action are far more important to me than the specifics of the action itself. That having been said, I find that lying rarely has much utility when viewed over the long term. A lie tends to generate a short-term utility for a lying party's values but that is often balanced out and eventually overwhelmed by longer term damage to the cause of those values that such a lie can cause. A lie is rarely sustainable over any sort of long term, and once uncovered it tends to undermine the consequences it sought to create, with the consequences that generally scale with the severity and longevity of the lie. That having been said, there are sometimes where the short term value of the lie outweighs the potential of its longer-term consequences. To take the "murderer-come-a-calling" example in the video, of course I would lie to the murder. My lie might be exposed soon, the murder realizing that I deceived them, but the utility I gain from giving my friend a little extra time to escape out the back door or maybe get someone to summon help to restrain the murderer is worth it to me compared to the damage to my reputation in the murder's mind when they discover my lie. Such an example is not even necessarily hypothetical, households in Nazi-occupied territory in WW2 who were hiding Jewish families regularly made exactly this kind of lie when the Nazi's went door-to-door asking if there were any Jews in the households they were required to turn in. So yes, in this circumstance I would objectify the other party. That may not be moral by Kant's definition, but the things that I and the other party want (to keep my friend alive or to murder them, respectively) are in direct conflict. One of us will be doing harm to the goals of the other, no matter which outcome comes to pass. Subjectively, I believe that preserving my friend's life has more social utility than allowing them to be murdered, and if the murderer thinks like I do, they might believe that taking my friend's life has more social utility than allowing them to live. Either one of us might be more "right" than the other, but neither are either of us likely to convince the other of that, and if I need to do what I feel I need to do to achieve a greater utility outcome, then I am going to do it.

[@FearlessSon]

As the founder of modern utilitarianism, yes, generally speaking I agree with him. I think some of his specific attempts to codify different hedonistic principals is an exercise in futility, but I find his principal of utility (maximize the amount of happiness across the maximum amount of people) to be a good rule-of-thumb for evaluating potential benefit and harm. Ironically, I disagree with him on the subject of religion on his own principal. He was anti-establishment when it came to religion, but the fact that it brings quite a few people happiness suggests it has a utility of its own to bring. I find that a strong secular state to be a maximum-utility way of reconciling this (yes, some dominists will be unhappy if their faith is not privileged over others but I think their unhappiness is outweighed by everyone else's happiness as not being disadvantaged by not sharing the privileged faith.)

[@AlbertoAntonio6]

If a murderer comes to the door asking for your loved ones, and you subscribe to the categorical imperative isn't it morally acceptable to refuse that information? It isn't a lie to say, "I refuse to tell you that" and it communicates to the murderer that you yourself also have ends.

[@peoplesrepublican986]

Not according to Kant, that is strategic speech used to further achieve your ends, so basically the same as lying

[@AlbertoAntonio6]

When I think of strategic speech presidential debates come to mind. My lips purse listening to politicians pivot the conversation away from the question, as they are undermining the intelligence and trust of the audience, here I agree with Kant; strategic speech is a form of lying. What I’m having difficulty understanding is why being upfront in stating “I will not tell you that,” is a lie. Unlike strategic speech, it doesn’t undermine your interlocutor as there is nothing misleading about the statement so it doesn’t appear to be treating him as a mean. Also, if we were to rephrase the murderers statement from “I’ve come to kill your loved ones, tell me where are,” into a question, “will you please tell me where your loved ones are so that I may kill them?” than the response would be, “no” (or “fuck off!”). In the latter instance few people would consider this a lie; it’s a refusal. Using the Categorical Imperative It shouldn’t be morally out of line to say, “I won’t tell you that,” because it’s not a lie it’s a refusal. If Kant were to reject this then the Categorical Imperative has a problem. Because if I want someone to do something I just have to rephrase all questions in the forms of statements so that I can bypass permission and consent. Using Kant’s rule wouldn’t it be easier to treat people as means and not ends?

[@Ansatz66]

According to Kant we need to respect people's ends. We might stop the murderer from killing by refusing to tell her the location of your friend, then you're denying that murderer her goals. The murderer is a thinking person just like you are, so you don't get to stand in judgment over her goals and decide whether she gets to fulfill them or not. She must have reasons for doing these things and you should respect that. The proper way to stop the murderer from killing your friend is to take away the murderer's reasons for doing so. We might have a debate about the merits of killing this person and convince the murderer that your friend doesn't need to die. We could also bribe the murderer by offering something better than killing your friend. If we can't change the murderer's goals, then Kant would say we must respect the murderer's goals and offer no resistance.

[@AlbertoAntonio6]

Yes, the murderer is a thinking and presumably rational person that has premeditated this plan far enough to actually follow-through with it. Though misguided, this person may need a voice of reason to explain why this is a wrong course of action or even someone willing to listen to their pains and frustrations which has blinded them up to this point. It seems absurd to weigh the moral differences between lying and murder, but I do appreciate that for Kant two wrongs don’t make a right. Argument cannot be the only solution however. The lives at stake are now at the mercy of my ability to persuade. It’s one thing if Immanual Kant does the arguing, but what if it’s a young child, an inarticulate family member, or if the murderer knocks on the door at 3am? Don’t courtrooms show that the highest bidder can get away with murder? Debate seems to be less on what is objectively true and more about the ability to persuade. I still fail to see from Kant’s perspective why refusal to comply is an immoral choice in this instance, I’m very curious to know what his views are on unrequited love or a rejection letter from a university.

[@TaylorjAdams]

Alberto Sed is right and Kant agrees. The ends have nothing to do with it, only the interaction between you and the murderer. It does not rob them of their autonomy to say "I will not tell you." or even just to stay silent. Only providing misinformation (including "strategic speech" where you technically tell the truth but do so in a deceptive way to make them believe something false) goes against the imperative. This was Kant's solution to the murderer argument.

[@mathymathymathy9091]

Would Kant say that it is wrong to play certain forms of poker, in which deception is required? Everyone there shares the ends of enjoying themselves by playing poker, but would it still be wrong? Also, the existence of Utilitarians shows that Kant was wrong that the Categorical Imperative comes directly from our own reason, as Utilitarians have used their reason to come to a conclusion which does not rely on the Categorical Imperative, and they are not always influenced by those reasons (for example, a Utilitarian would lie to the murderer). Thus these moral reasons cannot always sway us, because Utilitarians exist.

[@AcaaraUchiha101]

yep i have aspergers and i hate lying. I hate lying especially in the context of how i'm feeling around my family. My mom expects me to just "act pleasant" and "nice" whatever that means to make her happy I guess. But in my mind "why would i lie to you about how I"m feeling? that's dishonest, i don't want to have to be dishonest to my family" I ho ever have come to understand the need for certain lies in social situations, but I don't want to put up this face with my family. Because if i can't express how i feel to them, who can I be open with, really? My mother is also convinced that i don't know how to act around people in general because i don't act "acceptably" around her. But i value being honest.

[@akashselvam]

Great video, I agree with what Kant is stating here. I don't think he is too idealistic personally, I have faith humanity could change one day and follow his strict rules. Maybe not today but eventually it could happen in the far future.

[@andrzejjamesstepien]

Could we not just say to the murderer, 'I'm not going to tell you, because you're a murderer'? And if not, what would Kant do were I to ask him for the details of his bank account?

[@TheAsyouwysh]

Andrzej Stepien I'd argue that's the exact right answer, because it isn't even strategic speech - that is the most open you can be about your true ends.

[@stefanlamb1179]

If you're responsible for everything the murderer does after you lie to him, surely you're also responsible for everything the murderer does if you tell him the truth?

[@Schnorchmorch]

Why would you? You have not done a morally wrong thing, it's him who does this.

[@Leo-vf2mq]

I think the distinction is that if you lied to them, you changed the course of their actions and used them for your own ends (even if something went awry and those ends were not achieved), whereas if you told them the truth, the actions they would take are in pursuit of their own ends which they are responsible for choosing.

[@stefanlamb1179]

Leo But surely the murderer is responsible for their own actions even if you do lie? Whether you lie or tell the truth, you influence the outcome either way. Good answer though, thanks. It really got me thinking :)

[@Ansatz66]

"But surely the murderer is responsible for their own actions even if you do lie?" How can a person be responsible for her own actions when she doesn't understand what she's doing? She's making decisions based on false ideas that you created, and therefore she's bound to fail to do whatever she's trying to do and instead she'll end up doing something else. Her mistakes were arranged by you, and therefore you're responsible for the consequences of those mistakes. In contrast, if she correctly understands the situation because you told her the truth, then whatever actions she takes will be in line with her goals, and therefore her actions will be her responsibility. You can't be held responsible for someone else's goals, but you can be held responsible for someone's mistakes if you cause those mistakes.

[@stefanlamb1179]

Ansatz66 Good response, but it seems you're adding a qualifier to 'responsibility' - that someone is only responsible for their actions if they possess all the correct information. That's an interesting idea and I guess we'd have to explore the philosophy of responsibility to know who is responsible for the murder. It's a tangent, however, but let's see where it goes. I'd argue that if a person is about to perpetrate a murder, and you possess the power to prevent that murder (i.e. by lying), it'd be immoral not to, for the same reason it would be immoral not to call an ambulance if someone is dying in the street. I think this is not a Kantian argument though, and the thought experiment becomes a little convoluted at this point. In order to carry out this experiment in the first place, the murderer is introduced to the as 'the murderer,' which lends an air of inevitability to the act of murdering. How this person was introduced, I got the impression that their mind was already made up, and that the only act for which we can make a value judgement is ours (whether or not to lie). Maybe that's my mistake, and I've been carrying out a different thought experiment this entire time, but I don't think so. Can I slightly alter the thought experiment, because I think it becomes much clearer if the person is already on trial for murder (i.e. let's take the murder as a certainty rather than a choice). Now, if this person is on trial for murder, and you told this person where the victim was (knowing what they intended to do), are you or are you not aiding the crime? I think the answer to that would tell you your answer to the former. Of course, there are two ways you could get out of this, but they're both a bit of a cop out. First, could you not simply abstain from telling the murderer anything? I know Kant would call this dishonesty etc, but I don't think it is. If it's dishonest to withhold information, surely the only virtuous way to live your life is to be constantly telling everyone all the information you know. I think I'd punch such a person square in the face. Secondly, you could tell them the truth and then call the police, i.e. take action (and the responsibility thereof) to prevent such a thing. I believe that once you're involved in the series of events, you have a responsibility regardless, perhaps not over their actions, but certainly over yours. Basically, I rank responsibility higher than truth. I don't think you can have a debate about truth without also debating responsibility. In fact, it seems meaningless to debate anything without also debating responsibility, but perhaps that's just my own value judgement. God I love Philosophy Tube. I've no idea if I'm right or not and I need to rewatch this video and others.

[@biggerdoofus]

I seem to be missing something. The scenario with the murderer at the door doesn't involve the murderer asking a question that would reveal your ends in the first place. Telling the truth and telling a lie would both result in the murderer being equally unable to discern why you did so.

[@DullEyes100]

At that point, you have to question whether or not that imperative is really important. At the end of the day, Kant speaks in philosophical terms with a sort of teleological end in mind. In the real world, and I admire Olly for making this distinction, it's not about being right or wrong; it just is. It's not necessarily dehumanizing to put another person's needs or ends over your own; if it's the Nazis asking to give the locations of your Jewish neighbors, wouldn't it be more moral to deny the Nazi HIS humanity for hunting Jews as opposed to outright forfeit those you might hide by telling the truth? I find this is a trapping with ideologues, albeit with a bit more abstraction than 'to lie or not to' . Bravo, Olly, always introducing me to new ideas while expanding my own thoughts on the matter.

[@Pfhorrest]

Does the categorical imperative prohibit killing with the same force that it prohibits lying? Would it be okay to kill someone trying to murder your friend, if that's the only way to save them? What about killing in self-defense? It seems like if the categorical imperative can make exceptions for killing in common-sense-reasonable situations like this (which it might not, I'm not sure), it would just as easily make the same exceptions for lying.

[@Taniseth]

@Pfhorrest the Categorical Imperative does more or less apply to murder as well. Another of Kant's Categorical imperatives goes like "Act only according to that maxim whereby you can, at the same time, will that it should become a universal law." Or in other words, when considering the morality of an action, Kant wants you to imagine what a world would be like if everyone took that action as well... Could a just society operate like that? Does that world make sense? Is it even logically possible? So in the case of murdering someone you don't like, what would a world be like if murdering the person you don't like became a universal law? If you couldn't (Or even wouldn't) consider it acceptable for that maxim to be a universal law, then it is most certainly an immoral act. Murder is hence not moral.

[@MrZarthalan]

He never promised that every situation would be pleasant to deal with. And one can counter that by saying that it is very well possible you might have done MORE harm than good by lying. For example, what if he gets a promotion, and the extra money allows him to put his child through good schooling that allows him/her to become a medical researcher that saves countless lives. Could you have known that? Not really, but that's just one of the big flaws of looking at consequences, is that no one can ideally tell the future.

[@kennethk.5464]

+Doughboy Devito Well if your scenario here is that you're in Nazi Germany and a Nazi asks you where your Jewish friend is and you know I don't think it breaks the categorical imperative to say that you simply won't tell him or to not even speak at all, because withholding information isn't technically the same as lying.

[@MrRayTards]

Since killing the murderer would be a means (his life) to your goal (saving a friend, or yourself), it can not be justified. You could try to fight off the murderer with reason?

[@ms.verepaine6914]

@Kenneth K. you need to rewatch the video or read Kant. With holding information CAN be deceptive.

[@Owlpunk]

Contra's German accent is strangely... brisk :D

[@ATMOSK1234]

Siddhartha also condemned lying but keeping your silence is seen as an acceptable alternative to telling the truth in such instances. In fact, he also says that one should remain quiet unless 4 conditions are present.

[@jonitaylor8144]

Thank you very much, you've been very clear.

[@blakeevans2506]

I don't agree. I believe that if you lie and it leads to something good it was the right thing to do. I would lie the the murderer and therefore hypotheticaly save my friends life as saving my friend is more important then telling the truth and more important then treating someone who wishes to do harm as a human.

[@Erika-gn1tv]

I'm far to much of a consequentialist for this.

[@claymorejohnston]

I think most sane humans are. I'm frankly am at a loss to why this guy is so revered. The Moral Imperative sounds about as realistic as The Force or The Power of Greyskull. I mean, far wiser men than myself revere the guy, and I'm sure there's something I'm missing. This all just seems kind of dumb.

[@ibn_klingschor]

It sounds like people are making appeals to authority from upon high down to us. "Kant is a famous alleged world-renouned wise philosopher. therefore we must find something wrong with our opinions".

[@TaylorjAdams]

He's revered because of all the stuff that comes before that bit. If you loosen the strings on the categorical imperative and make room for context in each situation his philosophy tends to work out pretty well. Almost every revered philosopher has come to at least one or two conclusions which pretty much nobody takes seriously. Doesn't mean you have to throw out the rest of their work. And no, like Olly said in the video it doesn't mean something's wrong with your opinion, it just means someone really smart agrees with those who do share Kant's view. But lots of other really smart people disagree, those arguments were outside the scope of this video is all, which is why Olly asks us to come up with our own (I spose also because doing philosophy is way more fun than reading philosophy).

[@chinggis_khagan]

@@TaylorjAdams And the reason they are respected is their intellectual honesty; they went wherever their reasoning took them, no matter what. Any good philosopher will have some absurd conclusions. If they don't, they're either never wrong (doubtful) or they don't have the courage of their convictions.

[@thisaccountisdead9060]

"Backwards Bullshit" coined by an anti-authoritarian friend at my very sub-standard school who would later get involved in god knows what and eventually ended up driving oil-tankers in Iraq. "Backwards Bullshit" - defined as rather than making the ends justify the means (consequentialism), or even retrospectively adjusting an account of the means to suit the end, "Backwards Bullshit" is the practice of starting with an end - for example a "solution" - and "adjusting" your "customers" towards that end.

[@piyushsundha8894]

Great to listen 😊

[@enfercesttout]

That's practically meaningless. For treating people as ends you need to treat yourself as a tool. To treat everyone as ends you need to use everyone as tool as well. Doing anything without using people is not possible. Only thing one can do is to have human ends, to benefit yourself and humanity.

[@HxH2011DRA]

existential. anarchist This

[@jacobdriscoll8276]

Remember - "merely." We treat people as tools, but we should recognize that, even when we do that, that they are more than JUST tools. When someone pays you to do a job for them, you don't cease to be a complex person with your own goals and desires, and the person paying you should, in this framework, not simply treat you as a thing that turns money into work.

[@yogsothoth7594]

Agreed, while an employ might be desire a good state of well being for their employees they still hire them not because of the employees needs but because they require someone to do a task. In reverse while an employee may want their company to do well and may take professional pride in a job well done the main reason why most people work is so they can support themselves. Customers and employees have a similar relationship, a waiter might want you to be happy but they would be unlikely to be here doing so if it was not their job, and in reverse while you may desire your waiter to be able to do their job but your goal is for them to deliver your food and you probably wouldn't be there is you didn't.

[@enfercesttout]

Well i do Jacob, during the work time. Of course by emphasizing merely we could imply forming other kinds of connections among boss and worker but that doesnt change the core of the relationship. And again to treat people as people you need tools. To give a gift first you need to make one.

[@painfulelegy812]

Yes, but you can utilize someone as a tool without simply treating them as if they were 'JUST' a tool. To take it to its logical conclusion, if your employee were just a means to an end, you'd show little consideration to a task causing them harm if it completes their necessary task. One could extrapolate further and argue that taking care of a tool is part of the use of a tool, in order to ensure its work is maximized; but at the same time, you're willing to put some more consideration into the well being of an individual person and concede their merits in the means of also satisfying their ends to satisfy your ends. It's somewhat complex to really discuss what the philosophical meaning of 'using as a tool' implies, but in reality it basically boils down to 'respect the people who assist you in your goals as if they were people and not just things that you can just buy a replacement for'.

[@mathymathymathy9091]

Is Kant contradicting himself? You had previously mentioned that he thought an action was moral if done out of "good will". If you lie to the murderer, are you not showing good will towards your friend? Also, would Kant say that not telling the murderer anything and just staying silent is deceptive, and would that count against the Categorical Imperative? Also, whether you do something for the right reasons or not, the world just continues in exactly the same way (although, of course, Kant doesn't care about consequences). From a Utilitarian perspective, of course, lying to save your friend would be the right thing to do as in doing so you have prevented the suffering of your friend, which outweighs any pleasure that the murderer could have got from killing them. Kant says we should always treat humans as rational beings, but are humans always rational beings? Can the murderer's actions be called rational? Do you personally follow Kant's ideas, a more Utilitarian moral philosophy, or something else? Could you tell a lie if it increases happiness? Mill and Bentham can but Immanuel Kant.

[@tserings2228]

This is crazy haha. I just got my essay topic for my Ethics class and it's on this very topic! What are the chances that you release this video on the very day that I got my essay topic? Thank you.

[@leocelente]

the b-roll is spectacular