I was in a Philosophy class this Fall and I mentioned writing a paper for it on here. Then, everyone wanted to see it, so here it is. I emailed my Professor and he said it was okay for me to post. For the essay, he asked us to compare Kant, Mill, and Aristotle's views on lying. What strengths and weaknesses do each Philosopher have and which is best?
So, enjoy! (Because I pulled my hair out over this! AUGH!!! I am so glad this class is over! Praise me for my suffering!)
John Stuart Mill writes in his essay, Happiness is the Foundation of Morality that lying causes unhappiness, which is in direct opposition to a moral compass directed by happiness (Happiness as the Foundation of Morality, p. 513 and 516). According to Mill, morality based on Utility strives to create the most happiness for all involved (Happiness as the Foundation of Morality, p. 513). Whereas actions which decrease overall happiness of people are not moral (Happiness as the Foundation of Morality, p. 513). Mill also says that actions which are expedient and only for personal gain are immoral as well; such as lying for convenience’s sake or personal gain (Happiness as the Foundation of Morality, p. 516).
However, Mill states there is an exception that allows for one to lie, when doing so would save someone, “from great and unmerited evil, and when the withholding can only be effected by denial,” (Happiness as the Foundation of Morality, p. 516). Such as when one knows that telling the truth would gravely hurt another person, physically or emotionally (Happiness as the Foundation of Morality, p. 516). This exception is the strength in Mill’s views regarding lying. Because he understands that in certain cases, one must lie to protect other people from harm (Happiness as the Foundation of Morality, p. 516). Which makes his philosophy more grounded with the troubles and complexities of real life. One of the weakness to his viewpoint is that lying can sometimes bring happiness to more people than telling the truth to one person, (Happiness as the Foundation of Morality, p. 513).
For example, is it wrong for a con-man to swindle a rich man and use the money to buy food for the poor? The rich man may be unhappy for a time, but the one lie told to the rich man may have fed fifty people in need. If one is thinking about the legendary Robin Hood, that is the exact dilemma, which Mill did not consider. However, one could assume the poor Robin Hood fed were going to starve, which Mill might consider “great and unmerited evil,” (Happiness as the Foundation of Morality, p. 516). Hence it may be acceptable for Robin Hood to lie to the rich man for the sake of saving the poor from unmerited evil.
Immanuel Kant on the other hand holds that lying is always wrong. Because he believes in a principle he calls The Categorical Imperative which states, “Act only according to the Maxim by which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law,” (Are There Absolute Moral Rules, p. 106). In short, one should only act in a way that would improve or maintain society if the action was made into a “universal law,” (Are There Absolute Moral Rules, p. 106). Actions such as lying harm society, for if lying was made into a universal rule, then no one would trust anyone else (Are There Absolute Moral Rules, p. 106). As Kant says, a society where lying was acceptable would be, “self-defeating,” because the society would not function (Are There Absolute Moral Rules, p. 106). Hence, Kant does not allow for any exceptions to lying (Are There Absolute Moral Rules, p. 104).
However, one can still find benefits to Kant’s views as acting as one wishes others to act can lead to a better society. Such as the action of giving food to a foodbank. If doing so was made into a universal law, then the lives of many would be improved (Are There Absolute Moral Rules, p. 107). Another strength pointed out by the essay that is easy to love is that Kant demands that no one believe they are special or believe any exceptions to the rules apply to them (Are There Absolute Moral Rules, p. 112). Which is quite refreshing as humans are prone to believe they are extraordinary or above the law, and Kant asks them to set aside their egos for the greater good.
However, the weakness of Kant’s theory lies in its inflexibility. In the excerpt, it is pointed out that sometimes life is far more complex than theory and it is possible to be morally paralyzed by two conflicting categorial imperatives with no alternate choice. (Are There Absolute Moral Rules, p. 110-111). A good example would be a conflict between the categorical imperatives to not lie or insult others. What do you do if you are at a friend’s house for a summer grill party and you can tell the hamburger is undercooked and your friend asks everyone how they like the meal? Do you lie and say the food is great? Or do you tell the truth and say the hamburgers are undercooked? If you lie and say it’s great, then it's possible that others at the table could be harmed by the undercooked meat. However, if you say the meat is undercooked, your friend might feel insulted and you must not insult others. The other guests at the table also find themselves in the same situation as none of them wish to lie or hurt their friend’s feelings, creating a stalemate.
You might find this situation quite common in real life and hence, it is easy to say the complexities of life require more nuance than Kant’s views provide. As one can now understand, even the most simple of situations, such as a summer grill party, can create an unsolvable moral dilemma.
Aristotle’s views on morality, however, can solve the stale-mate issues presented by Kant’s Categorical Imperatives. To Aristotle, experiencing the “supreme good” through living a virtuous life is all that matters (Ethical Virtue, p. 493). To explain, Aristotle states “happinesses is the supreme good,” and every sentient and living creature on earth experiences this happiness when they embrace their function (Ethical Virtue, p. 193). For example, the function of a bee would be to pollinate and make honey or a pear tree growing pears. However, humans have a very different function that sets us apart from plants that grow and bees that live and die just like us; humans have souls and the ability to reason (Ethical Virtue, p. 493). Hence, Aristotle states that reasoning is the function of humans and it is through self-improvement that we strive for a virtuous life that knows the “supreme good” (Ethical Virtue, p.493-494). For example, a painter who regularly paints and sells or displays art at a gallery is a virtuous painter (Ethical Virtue, p. 493-494). Because he or she is performing their function, painting as intended and so will be experiencing the “supreme good” known as happiness (Ethical Virtue, p. 493-494). Whereas a painter who maybe paints occasionally, has a stash of half-finished works no one sees, is not functioning as intended, so does not experience happiness (Ethical Virtue, p. 493-494).
Aristotle goes on to say that there are two types of virtue, intellectual and ethical (Ethical Virtue, p. 493). According to Aristotle, ethical virtue is not naturally ingrained in us, so we must learn it through practice until it becomes a habit (Ethical Virtue, p. 493). To him, being virtuous is a choice we must all consciously make and when we are we function as intended (Ethical Virtue, p. 494). However, to be virtuous, one must find the mean or the right amount of virtue in every situation (Ethical Virtue, p. 494-495). To use the summer grill party as an example, Aristotle would say finding a way to politely tell your friend about the undercooked hamburgers is in the mean of virtue. Whereas, getting angry or dumping the food on the ground is not. To further explain, Aristotle states, “But to have these feelings at the right time, on the right grounds, toward the right people, for the right purpose and in the right way—this is the intermediate and best condition,” (Ethical Virtue, p. 495).
So, to Aristotle it seems that lying is not always virtuous, but in some cases it can depend on the situation and people involved. The flexibility and the self-reflection required to act virtuous is the strength of Aristotle’s theory. The weakness of Aristotle’s view of morality is that they depend on the person to desire to be virtuous and since it involves practice, many will give up or not try at all.
In my opinion, Aristotle’s view of morality and ethics is the most reasonable as it relies on the self and is easily adaptable and is flexible enough to be applied to a wide-range of situations. Even though the focus upon the self and your own actions can be seen as a weakness, I feel many people in the world strive to improve themselves. I also liked how Aristotle says that we must practice being virtuous as I feel it gives people the ability to change how they act.
The reason why I find Aristotle’s views superior to Mill is because even though Mill has some flexibility in his rules, making every choice based on how many your actions will benefit is exhausting. Not to mention, one cannot always serve others’ needs and sometime must focus on oneself. To put it simply, Mill’s views are focused too much on the needs of other people and happiness as an outcome. As for Kant, I find his rules too inflexible to truly be applied to real life situations and I am troubled by the dead-ends one can run into with categorical imperatives. Not to mention Kant’s views are too large in scope as he tries to apply them to the world as a whole. Aristotle on the other hand, knows that each person has the power inside themselves to live a virtuous life—one made of balance where one can think of themselves, others and the world.
Most of all, I love Aristotle’s view best because he says one can find happiness doing what you love and you are the only person who can make you happy. Also, through being kind, courageous, and understanding others, you can bring happiness to others as well. But Aristotle also acknowledges that we are humans who have feelings such as sadness and anger, which he says must also be used in the right way and in the right amount (Ethical Virtue, p. 494-495). Which I appreciate, because we should embrace who we are and know it’s okay to feel the way we do. Lastly, I love that Aristotle wants you to live a life that makes you and those around you happy.
John Cottingham, Western Philosophy: an Anthology, Blackwell Publishing, 2nd Ed., pp. 492-517.
Rachels, J., "Are There Absolute Moral Rules?" The Elements of Moral Philosophy, McGraw-Hill, 5th ed., pp. 104-13.
So, enjoy! (Because I pulled my hair out over this! AUGH!!! I am so glad this class is over! Praise me for my suffering!)
John Stuart Mill writes in his essay, Happiness is the Foundation of Morality that lying causes unhappiness, which is in direct opposition to a moral compass directed by happiness (Happiness as the Foundation of Morality, p. 513 and 516). According to Mill, morality based on Utility strives to create the most happiness for all involved (Happiness as the Foundation of Morality, p. 513). Whereas actions which decrease overall happiness of people are not moral (Happiness as the Foundation of Morality, p. 513). Mill also says that actions which are expedient and only for personal gain are immoral as well; such as lying for convenience’s sake or personal gain (Happiness as the Foundation of Morality, p. 516).
However, Mill states there is an exception that allows for one to lie, when doing so would save someone, “from great and unmerited evil, and when the withholding can only be effected by denial,” (Happiness as the Foundation of Morality, p. 516). Such as when one knows that telling the truth would gravely hurt another person, physically or emotionally (Happiness as the Foundation of Morality, p. 516). This exception is the strength in Mill’s views regarding lying. Because he understands that in certain cases, one must lie to protect other people from harm (Happiness as the Foundation of Morality, p. 516). Which makes his philosophy more grounded with the troubles and complexities of real life. One of the weakness to his viewpoint is that lying can sometimes bring happiness to more people than telling the truth to one person, (Happiness as the Foundation of Morality, p. 513).
For example, is it wrong for a con-man to swindle a rich man and use the money to buy food for the poor? The rich man may be unhappy for a time, but the one lie told to the rich man may have fed fifty people in need. If one is thinking about the legendary Robin Hood, that is the exact dilemma, which Mill did not consider. However, one could assume the poor Robin Hood fed were going to starve, which Mill might consider “great and unmerited evil,” (Happiness as the Foundation of Morality, p. 516). Hence it may be acceptable for Robin Hood to lie to the rich man for the sake of saving the poor from unmerited evil.
Immanuel Kant on the other hand holds that lying is always wrong. Because he believes in a principle he calls The Categorical Imperative which states, “Act only according to the Maxim by which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law,” (Are There Absolute Moral Rules, p. 106). In short, one should only act in a way that would improve or maintain society if the action was made into a “universal law,” (Are There Absolute Moral Rules, p. 106). Actions such as lying harm society, for if lying was made into a universal rule, then no one would trust anyone else (Are There Absolute Moral Rules, p. 106). As Kant says, a society where lying was acceptable would be, “self-defeating,” because the society would not function (Are There Absolute Moral Rules, p. 106). Hence, Kant does not allow for any exceptions to lying (Are There Absolute Moral Rules, p. 104).
However, one can still find benefits to Kant’s views as acting as one wishes others to act can lead to a better society. Such as the action of giving food to a foodbank. If doing so was made into a universal law, then the lives of many would be improved (Are There Absolute Moral Rules, p. 107). Another strength pointed out by the essay that is easy to love is that Kant demands that no one believe they are special or believe any exceptions to the rules apply to them (Are There Absolute Moral Rules, p. 112). Which is quite refreshing as humans are prone to believe they are extraordinary or above the law, and Kant asks them to set aside their egos for the greater good.
However, the weakness of Kant’s theory lies in its inflexibility. In the excerpt, it is pointed out that sometimes life is far more complex than theory and it is possible to be morally paralyzed by two conflicting categorial imperatives with no alternate choice. (Are There Absolute Moral Rules, p. 110-111). A good example would be a conflict between the categorical imperatives to not lie or insult others. What do you do if you are at a friend’s house for a summer grill party and you can tell the hamburger is undercooked and your friend asks everyone how they like the meal? Do you lie and say the food is great? Or do you tell the truth and say the hamburgers are undercooked? If you lie and say it’s great, then it's possible that others at the table could be harmed by the undercooked meat. However, if you say the meat is undercooked, your friend might feel insulted and you must not insult others. The other guests at the table also find themselves in the same situation as none of them wish to lie or hurt their friend’s feelings, creating a stalemate.
You might find this situation quite common in real life and hence, it is easy to say the complexities of life require more nuance than Kant’s views provide. As one can now understand, even the most simple of situations, such as a summer grill party, can create an unsolvable moral dilemma.
Aristotle’s views on morality, however, can solve the stale-mate issues presented by Kant’s Categorical Imperatives. To Aristotle, experiencing the “supreme good” through living a virtuous life is all that matters (Ethical Virtue, p. 493). To explain, Aristotle states “happinesses is the supreme good,” and every sentient and living creature on earth experiences this happiness when they embrace their function (Ethical Virtue, p. 193). For example, the function of a bee would be to pollinate and make honey or a pear tree growing pears. However, humans have a very different function that sets us apart from plants that grow and bees that live and die just like us; humans have souls and the ability to reason (Ethical Virtue, p. 493). Hence, Aristotle states that reasoning is the function of humans and it is through self-improvement that we strive for a virtuous life that knows the “supreme good” (Ethical Virtue, p.493-494). For example, a painter who regularly paints and sells or displays art at a gallery is a virtuous painter (Ethical Virtue, p. 493-494). Because he or she is performing their function, painting as intended and so will be experiencing the “supreme good” known as happiness (Ethical Virtue, p. 493-494). Whereas a painter who maybe paints occasionally, has a stash of half-finished works no one sees, is not functioning as intended, so does not experience happiness (Ethical Virtue, p. 493-494).
Aristotle goes on to say that there are two types of virtue, intellectual and ethical (Ethical Virtue, p. 493). According to Aristotle, ethical virtue is not naturally ingrained in us, so we must learn it through practice until it becomes a habit (Ethical Virtue, p. 493). To him, being virtuous is a choice we must all consciously make and when we are we function as intended (Ethical Virtue, p. 494). However, to be virtuous, one must find the mean or the right amount of virtue in every situation (Ethical Virtue, p. 494-495). To use the summer grill party as an example, Aristotle would say finding a way to politely tell your friend about the undercooked hamburgers is in the mean of virtue. Whereas, getting angry or dumping the food on the ground is not. To further explain, Aristotle states, “But to have these feelings at the right time, on the right grounds, toward the right people, for the right purpose and in the right way—this is the intermediate and best condition,” (Ethical Virtue, p. 495).
So, to Aristotle it seems that lying is not always virtuous, but in some cases it can depend on the situation and people involved. The flexibility and the self-reflection required to act virtuous is the strength of Aristotle’s theory. The weakness of Aristotle’s view of morality is that they depend on the person to desire to be virtuous and since it involves practice, many will give up or not try at all.
___
In my opinion, Aristotle’s view of morality and ethics is the most reasonable as it relies on the self and is easily adaptable and is flexible enough to be applied to a wide-range of situations. Even though the focus upon the self and your own actions can be seen as a weakness, I feel many people in the world strive to improve themselves. I also liked how Aristotle says that we must practice being virtuous as I feel it gives people the ability to change how they act.
The reason why I find Aristotle’s views superior to Mill is because even though Mill has some flexibility in his rules, making every choice based on how many your actions will benefit is exhausting. Not to mention, one cannot always serve others’ needs and sometime must focus on oneself. To put it simply, Mill’s views are focused too much on the needs of other people and happiness as an outcome. As for Kant, I find his rules too inflexible to truly be applied to real life situations and I am troubled by the dead-ends one can run into with categorical imperatives. Not to mention Kant’s views are too large in scope as he tries to apply them to the world as a whole. Aristotle on the other hand, knows that each person has the power inside themselves to live a virtuous life—one made of balance where one can think of themselves, others and the world.
Most of all, I love Aristotle’s view best because he says one can find happiness doing what you love and you are the only person who can make you happy. Also, through being kind, courageous, and understanding others, you can bring happiness to others as well. But Aristotle also acknowledges that we are humans who have feelings such as sadness and anger, which he says must also be used in the right way and in the right amount (Ethical Virtue, p. 494-495). Which I appreciate, because we should embrace who we are and know it’s okay to feel the way we do. Lastly, I love that Aristotle wants you to live a life that makes you and those around you happy.
Bibliography
John Cottingham, Western Philosophy: an Anthology, Blackwell Publishing, 2nd Ed., pp. 492-517.
Rachels, J., "Are There Absolute Moral Rules?" The Elements of Moral Philosophy, McGraw-Hill, 5th ed., pp. 104-13.
