Beginning in our childhood, we are taught to always tell the truth, with the idea that ‘honesty is the best policy’ being an important aspect of our upbringing and remaining a key rule in our society throughout our lives. This notion coincides with the theory expressed in Immanuel Kant’s Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals. This moral theory presented by Kant presents the claim that lying is absolutely forbidden in every situation no matter the circumstances. However, there are a number of instances in which it seems that withholding the truth or even going so far as to blatantly lie could have a greater benefit than being unwaveringly truthful. Kant’s total ban on lying is rather unreasonable since white lies, lying for a good cause,
…show more content…
This, in addition to Richard Joyce’s morally skeptical The Evolutionary Debunking of Morality, presents arguments that object to Kant’s claims and therefore support the belief that lying is acceptable in certain cases. Kant’s theory against lying is described in his Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals and clearly necessitates the existence of universal moral laws. These moral laws are equally applied to everyone and the consequences of them are irrelevant. For this reason, Kant believes people cannot be held responsible for what occurs as a result of following the moral laws, so long as they are in fact behaving morally. Kant goes on to explain that the only good things that exist are those that exist without qualifications. In other words, a good act is …show more content…
This theory presents a view that is more skeptical to the idea of universal morality than that of Kant. Joyce claims that our concept of what morals are is a result of evolution, coming from millions of years of our ancestors acquiring the traits that were most beneficial to the survival and continuation of our species. Despite this, however, Joyce also argues that we should withhold believing that there are truly any moral principles because, while the morals we humans hold to are useful, they are not real. Considering this view, one can ascertain that the beliefs we hold due to our moral concepts are unjustified. One example of this is that, although our moral concepts were designed for survival, there were surely times in our ancestor’s lives when immoral behavior was required in order to survive. Stealing, killing, and of course even lying were actions that were most likely taken at some point in our species’ history that ensured the continuation of humanity. For this reason, moral concepts should not dictate our world or our beliefs, thus making Kant’s argument irrelevant. Furthermore, Joyce’s theory compares natural selection to a hypothetical pill that provides the consumer with some belief. Because there is no way of knowing if the pill is the source of the belief or if the belief is actually coming from the consumer, Joyce urges us to keep an
This, in addition to Richard Joyce’s morally skeptical The Evolutionary Debunking of Morality, presents arguments that object to Kant’s claims and therefore support the belief that lying is acceptable in certain cases. Kant’s theory against lying is described in his Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals and clearly necessitates the existence of universal moral laws. These moral laws are equally applied to everyone and the consequences of them are irrelevant. For this reason, Kant believes people cannot be held responsible for what occurs as a result of following the moral laws, so long as they are in fact behaving morally. Kant goes on to explain that the only good things that exist are those that exist without qualifications. In other words, a good act is …show more content…
This theory presents a view that is more skeptical to the idea of universal morality than that of Kant. Joyce claims that our concept of what morals are is a result of evolution, coming from millions of years of our ancestors acquiring the traits that were most beneficial to the survival and continuation of our species. Despite this, however, Joyce also argues that we should withhold believing that there are truly any moral principles because, while the morals we humans hold to are useful, they are not real. Considering this view, one can ascertain that the beliefs we hold due to our moral concepts are unjustified. One example of this is that, although our moral concepts were designed for survival, there were surely times in our ancestor’s lives when immoral behavior was required in order to survive. Stealing, killing, and of course even lying were actions that were most likely taken at some point in our species’ history that ensured the continuation of humanity. For this reason, moral concepts should not dictate our world or our beliefs, thus making Kant’s argument irrelevant. Furthermore, Joyce’s theory compares natural selection to a hypothetical pill that provides the consumer with some belief. Because there is no way of knowing if the pill is the source of the belief or if the belief is actually coming from the consumer, Joyce urges us to keep an