[7.3.] The Case of the Inquiring Murderer.

 

We have seen that Kant took The Categorical Imperative to imply the following specific rules of morality (specific categorical imperatives):

·         Never commit suicide in order to improve your life.

·         Never promise to repay a loan when you know you won’t be able to.

·         Attend to the well-being and needs of others.

 

Kant thought that the following was also a categorical imperative implied by The Categorical Imperative:

·         Never tell a lie.

 

On Kant’s view, you are always obligated to tell the truth, even if it means telling an inquiring murderer the location of his next victim (EMP 130). How could Kant possibly defend such a claim?  Here is his argument for the claim that you should never lie (adapted from EMP 130):

 

Kant’s “Categorical Imperative” Argument Against Lying

(1)   We should perform only those actions that conform to rules that we can rationally will to be adopted universally. [The CI]

(2)   If we were to lie, we would be following the rule: “Tell a lie.”

(3)   We cannot will that this rule be adopted universally, because it would be self-defeating: people would stop believing one another, so it would do no good to lie, and people would stop lying.

(4)   Therefore, we should never lie.

 

If this argument is sound, then it is always immoral to lie, no matter what the circumstances. If it is not sound, then what exactly is wrong with it? Is it invalid? Or does it have a false premise? Or both?

 

[Rachels discusses another argument Kant gave for this conclusion, based on the idea that we can never be absolutely certain what the consequences of our actions will be; see EMP pp.130-31.]

 

Next time we will discuss Anscombe’s criticism of this argument…

 

 

Stopping point for Friday November 6. For next time, read all of EMP ch.10 (“Kant and Respect for Persons”) and study today’s lecture notes.