Morality

[Kralizec]

I don't know what the hell Kant makes the foundation of his deontology. I barely had time to make sense of Mill and Aristotle, I wasn't going to dedicate 10 hours a week into deciphering the 30 pages I was assigned of him. All I know is that I liked his (or my interpretation of his?) idea that all humans by apparent observation, obtain a degree of reason and thus hold a special responsibility/duty to act accordingly to his Categorical Imperative.....or something like that. Tbh, I just really liked his Categorical Imperative and didn't see why people freaked out when they learned you could not lie.

The classic example of why Kant's imperative is problematic is that of helping the murderer. You walk the streets at night. A man flees past you in panic, then crosses into an alley. Then you see his pursuer who obviously has bad intentions, and he asks you where the other guy went.
According to Kant, it would be morally wrong to direct the pursuer in the false direction. "Lying" is not an action you would want the rest of the world to induldge in and is therefore bad in and of itself. The fact that telling the truth will result in the death of the fleeing man is because the pursuer isn't acting according to the categorical imperative, not because of your action.

[a completely inoffensive name]

The classic example of why Kant's imperative is problematic is that of helping the murderer. You walk the streets at night. A man flees past you in panic, then crosses into an alley. Then you see his pursuer who obviously has bad intentions, and he asks you where the other guy went.
According to Kant, it would be morally wrong to direct the pursuer in the false direction. "Lying" is not an action you would want the rest of the world to induldge in and is therefore bad in and of itself. The fact that telling the truth will result in the death of the fleeing man is because the pursuer isn't acting according to the categorical imperative, not because of your action.

Just don't say anything. You do not have a duty to give a response to anyone who asks you a question. The beauty of "the right to remain silent".

[Kralizec]

Just don't say anything. You do not have a duty to give a response to anyone who asks you a question. The beauty of "the right to remain silent".

That's a flaw in the example. For the purpose of the argument you'll have to assume that you have to answer (i.e. he's threatening you) or that he'll pick the right direction if you remain silent.

[a completely inoffensive name]

That's a flaw in the example. For the purpose of the argument you'll have to assume that you have to answer (i.e. he's threatening you) or that he'll pick the right direction if you remain silent.

The more specific the example, the less of a problem it becomes philosophically imo. You still do not have to reply even if he is threatening you. You always have the ability to be silent. Posing a scenario where the murderer somehow has the ability to compel you to say something starts to become silly. If the point of the example is that there is a situation where there are only two possible choices, lie or have the man be killed then I still don't see the problem that people have. You have a forced a situation where someone's duty is to be broken. Categorical Imperative in its first formulation is to treat people as ends in themselves not as a means to an end. Given the choice between the death of a rational being or lying, you must lie because to let the person die for the sake of upholding duty is in fact breaking your duty by treating his life as a means to an end (satisfying duty).

Not a perfect answer obviously. But then again, I try to live according to Aristotle's ethics than Kant.