The problem of lying is a striking issue in Kant's philosophy. What is so special about lying that makes Kant make a conclusion that most people think is completely inhumane? This makes the issue of lying a compelling issue in Kant's philosophy.

Source: Social Science Newspaper

Author: Sun Xiaoling

The problem of lying is a striking issue in Kant's philosophy . Kant regards lying as "an injury to human nature itself." What is so special about lying that Kant makes a conclusion that most people regard as completely unreasonable?

In "On the so-called right to lie out of human love" published in 1797, Kant regarded lying to a criminal to save the life of an innocent person as a violation of the obligation of sincerity and honesty, and regarded this violation as "A harm to humanity itself." This makes the problem of lying a compelling issue in Kant's philosophy.

Kant does not lack practical insight on the issue of lying.

There are generally three interpretations of Kant's above-mentioned position in the academic community: complete rejection, partial defense and complete defense. The first interpretation is that Kant’s accusation of lying to save others not only highlights the unrealistic harshness of Kant’s ethics, but also reflects his universalist moral theory, or even the hidden dark side of Kant himself. Paton can be seen as a representative of the second interpretation. He believes that although Kant's moral and legal accusations about lying to save others are untenable, from the overall perspective of Kant's moral theory, this is just an unfortunate bias. . In this regard, he advanced two arguments. First, he believes that this bias can be attributed to Kant's failure to distinguish the principle of three levels. Principles at the first level, that is, moral categorical imperatives, only formally regulate behavior and do not directly involve behavior, so exceptions are not allowed or required. However, the principles at the second and third levels are intermediate principles that apply to behavior and must take into account the specific circumstances in which the behavior occurs and allow for certain necessary exceptions. Like Paton, Korsgaard attributed this flaw to the unrealistic ideality of Kant's theory. Second, Paton noticed that Kant’s attitude towards lying was not static. In "Lectures on Ethics", Kant affirmed "necessary lies" and gave an example that can be compared with lying to save others: If someone knows that I am rich, ask me if your family has money. If I stay silent, he thinks I'm rich. If I said yes, he would take my money; if I said no, I would lie. what do I do? A lie is a defense as long as I was forced by force to make a false statement and I could not save myself by remaining silent.

It is not difficult to notice that Paton’s first and second arguments undermine each other. The first argument actually regards what he sees as Kant's bias on the issue of lying as the result of the lack of practicality of his theory, but the second argument just shows that Kant does not lack practical insight, even on the issue of lying. So, the real question is not whether Kant's moral theory lacks practicality, but what is so special about lying that Kant finally abandons the view he once held and turns to a view that most people regard as completely unreasonable. conclusion.

The problem of lying in the perspective of conflict of obligations

Liu Zuo's "The Inability to Lie and the Unity of Personality" starts from the particularity of lying and attempts to make a complete interpretation of Kant's position in "On the Right of Lying" defend. He believes that we should understand the obligation of good faith at two levels. It is first of all sincerity as a concrete moral obligation, but in a deeper sense the obligation of sincerity is an obligation to one's own humanity and oneness of personality. Lying is accordingly a breach of the duty of good faith on both levels and is, therefore, indefensible under any circumstances. At the level of obligation, no matter what the intention is, all lies, including of course the rule of lying to save others, cannot pass the test of Kant's formula of universality. I highly doubt this is a correct assertion. The maxim of lying to save others is obviously different from the maxim of lying for the sake of preference and self-interest, and only the latter type of maxim (such as false promises for the sake of preference) is what Kant excludes in his test of universality of maxims.It is precisely for this reason that in "The Foundations of the Metaphysics of Morals", Kant's complete obligations do not allow only "exceptions for the sake of preferred interests." However, in the case of lying to save others, the conflict is not between preferences and obligations, but between two different obligations, namely the obligation to be honest and the obligation to save others.

The conflict of obligations has always been one of the most difficult issues in ethics . Kant pointed out in "Metaphysics of Morals" that the conflict of obligations can be understood from the basis of obligations, "one or the other of them is not enough to make people assume obligations." But Kant also admitted that there may not be a morally satisfactory way to resolve conflicts of obligations that occur in reality. The result is that no matter what choice we make, we may leave a moral shortcoming, but this shortcoming does not constitute a moral charge. reasons. Therefore, although lying to criminals violates the obligation of honesty, Kant still pointed out that "if untruth (lying) has great benefit to others, there is still a certain nobility, almost virtue" because here "the goodness of heart replaces sincerity.” Therefore, even if it can be proven that lying to save others cannot pass universal laws, we have no reason to make moral accusations against it.

Liu Zuo is obviously aware of this, so he emphasizes even more: The reason why lying to save people is immoral is not just because it violates a specific (sincere) obligation, but because it, or any Lies destroy humanity on a deeper level. But why is lying a betrayal of humanity, and telling the truth to a murderer and putting the lives of innocent people in danger is not a violation of the unity of humanity and personality? Liu Zuo didn't seem to give a clear explanation.

The value of Kant’s ethics

In fact, Kant himself suggested an explanation. In the Metaphysics of Morals, Kant distinguished between external and internal lies, and attributed the former, lying to others, to self-deception. In its moral sense, self-deception is "deceiving oneself because of one's own unique thoughts of good or evil" and hinders the establishment of true moral thoughts in our hearts, so what it embodies is the fundamental evil of human nature. It is obvious that it is by first defining lying as a duty to oneself rather than to others, and then attributing all lying phenomena to moral self-deception and associating it with fundamental evil, that Kant can give lying a Such a peculiarity: just as fundamental evil can "corrupt the foundation of all norms," ​​so lying destroys the foundation of all obligations, and is therefore more powerful than murder and all other atrocities. For this reason, lying is a direct damage to human nature, because human nature or personality lies in its morality.

In the article "Lying and Self-Obligation", the author pointed out that not all lying to others can be reduced to self-deception, and not all moral faults necessarily contain elements of self-deception. A person who makes a false promise for a preferred benefit may deceive himself into thinking that he still has some kind of good motive, or he may not engage in such self-deception and self-justification at all, but directly admit that his behavior has no moral reasons and justifications. . Therefore, the question is why Kant believes that self-deception is an essential constitutive element of moral evil, so that we can define fundamental evil as a kind of moral self-deception.

In " Critique of Practical Reason ", Kant wrote: "There is something so special in the infinite respect for the pure moral law stripped of all interests, as practical reason represents it to Let us follow that, and the voice of practical reason makes even the most daring villains tremble. “For Kant, awareness of the law with its absolute binding force is an undoubted fact of reason, and this fact of reason constitutes it. The only proof of our freedom. Therefore, moral fault and evil will remain unexplainable unless we avoid "the gaze of the law" through self-deception.However, once it is assumed that the moral law has respectable authority for all villains, the escape of self-deception from the "law's gaze" will be difficult to explain - where do we get the power and support of self-deception? Or self-deception and evil are not free abilities, but the lack and lack of ability and freedom. If this is the case, in what sense should we be responsible for our incompetence? Kant's only answer to this may be that fundamental evil, which is the source of all moral fault, is beyond human comprehension.

Therefore, once one accepts Kant’s connection between lying, self-deception and fundamental evil, lying will also have the incomprehensibility unique to fundamental evil, and the defense and opposition of the incomprehensible can only be superficial. . This certainly does not mean that there should be no discernible controversy over Kant’s judgment on the issue of lying to save others. Even though there is much in human existence that cannot be fully understood, ethics still has the mission of guiding life (at least in some aspects) and must therefore strive for clarity, at least not to succumb to the incomprehensible at the beginning. In this regard, the value of Kant's ethics may lie more in his taking ordinary moral rational knowledge as the unswerving starting point for his moral metaphysical construction.

Editor: Yongfang

Typesetting: Mo Yi

Review: Yongfang

Art/VI: Xiao Zhou

● Do citizens have the right to resist war?

● When we no longer talk about "waiting for the epidemic to be over"

● Sartre: Why do I sincerely admire the Chinese people?

● The strange current situation of academic performance in China in the past 20 years

● International Women’s Day | I am a feminist