Most people would agree that lying to a murderer about the whereabouts of his victim to save a life is morally permissible, but Kant insisted that even then , lying is unacceptable. Some cite this refusal as a failure of his moral system, because no system would so easily reject the value of human life. In this article I will address this objection and show how, despite it, Kant's categorical imperative should not be rejected. I will begin by addressing Kant's strongest argument for revealing the truth to a known murderer and demonstrating why this argument fails. Next, I will evaluate the argument that universalizing the principle of lying to save lives is consistent with the categorical imperative, showing why it fails. I will then argue that lying to save lives is consistent with the categorical imperative, not because it meets all three criteria of the imperative, but because the murderer has sacrificed his rationality in his quest to murder, thereby abdicating the right to truth granted to the rational. beings subject to the categorical imperative. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”? Get an original essay To understand the objection to Kant's categorical imperative, a brief discussion is helpful. Categorical imperatives are distinguished from hypothetical imperatives in that they must be intended for their own sake and not for the ends they achieve. Kant's categorical imperative then demands that people “act only according to that maxim by which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law” (30). In short, as rational beings, we are required to act as we would demand others to do if they were in our place, otherwise we act for our own selfish interest, which does not necessarily equate to morality. This results in two other formulas of the categorical imperative: the humanity formula, which asserts that we must treat people "as an end and never merely a means", and the kingdom of ends formula, which requires that our actions are consistent with a “systematic union of different rational beings through common laws” (36, 39). In this system, lying is wrong because it violates the main criteria of the categorical imperative. First, lying cannot be universalized because that would be counterproductive. As Kant says, lying to achieve a goal would be "impossible, since no one would believe what was promised to him but would be content to laugh at all these words as vain pretenses" (31). In other words, in a world where lying is commonly accepted, no one would trust what they are told and, therefore, lying would not achieve the goals for which it was designed. Second, deceiving someone to achieve a goal disrespects their autonomy because it is being used. as a means, which violates the second formula – the formula of humanity – and therefore makes it impossible to reach the realm of ends. So, in a world where lying was allowed, no one would believe what they heard, which would make that world dysfunctional, and humans would be used as means to the ends of others, which would violate their autonomy, which are two reasons strong in Kant's categorical imperative. to avoid lying at any time. Of course, the question then arises as to how Kant's moral system deals with the objection that it seems permissible, or even obligatory, to lie in certain circumstances. A common form of this objection, which I will use throughout the rest of this article, uses the example of the Nazis and a man who hides the Jews from themto save their lives. In this scenario, a Gestapo member shows up at the man's door looking for Jews and asks if there are any in the house. In this case, our intuition might lead us to conclude that he has an obligation to lie to the Nazis to save the lives of the Jews. However, if we accept Kant's categorical imperative, we are prohibited from lying even in this circumstance, since the categorical imperative is absolute. Because the value of human life seems more valuable than an individual's right to be treated as an end in all cases, many cite this case as an example of the failure of the categorical imperative. Since it is an absolute system, the integrity of the entire categorical imperative seems to be called into question if we admit this exception. In response to this objection, Kant insists that “the truth of statements which cannot be avoided is the formal duty of man towards everyone. , whatever the inconvenience which may result for him or for any other” (64). In other words, the man who is hiding the Jews must tell the Nazis the truth, even if it results in the Jews dying at the hands of the Nazis. His justification for this position is, however, unsatisfactory. Kant argues that a rational agent is not responsible for the actions of another if he or she acts honestly. In this case, telling the Nazis the truth is not inherently wrong, only the Nazis' decision to round up the Jews is wrong. The Nazi's actions, however, are determined solely by him and therefore the moral injustice of those actions can be attributed to him. However, if the man lied to the Nazis, then he did not treat the Nazis as an end but as a means to his goal of protecting the Jews. And according to Kant, he is therefore responsible for any action taken by the Nazis since this man artificially created the conditions to which the Nazis respond. Although this response fits within the imperative, a man handing over Jews to the Nazis for the sake of preserving his own moral innocence does not seem like a compelling reason to accept the death of an innocent person, let alone one other innocent people. For this reason, many have sought alternative explanations, even attempting to argue that Kant was wrong to absolutely forbid lying under the categorical imperative. One argument claims that the categorical imperative is valid in the face of this objection because it actually allows man to lie. hiding Jews to lie to the Nazis. The trick, the argument goes, is to more narrowly redefine the maxim of being universally intended. In other words, the man who lies to the Nazis does so to save lives, so suppose we universalize the principle of lying to save lives. On the surface, this principle seems to stand the test of the formula of universal law and even of the formula of humanity. Since the opportunity to lie to save lives presents itself so rarely, trust will remain intact because all other instances will require honesty, in order for the world to continue functioning. Since people will have to tell the truth in all cases where lives are not at stake, this will also virtually eliminate the risk of people being used as a means to an end. Thus, defining the principle as lying to save lives seems to suggest that lying in this case is not an exception to the categorical imperative but rather is subsumed by it. Unfortunately for this answer, however, it does not actually pass the test of the universal law formula. While it is true that people would tell the truth in virtually any circumstance imaginable, thereby keeping trust intact, the purpose of this principle is to save lives...