Brianna Contreras

Period 4&5
11/3/14

Kant Essay
Imagine one your friends is hiding in your house from a murderer that has been
looking for him, the murderer comes into your house door asking for your friend. Would
you be honest and tell the murderer that your friend is hiding in your house? Or lie to
him? According to Immanuel Kant, lying would violate the principle of rights, It depends
on the idea that we are rational beings, worthy of dignity and respect (Sandel pg.104).
That being said it is our moral duty to say the truth no matter what the consequences
might be, Doing something cause its right, not because its useful or convenient
(Sandel pg.113).
According to Kant the truth should be told to anyone, not just to people
who disserves it. Kant makes it clear that a murderer should not be lied to no matter
what type of person he is. He also says that truthfulness is the formal duty of man to
everyone, and he states that the outcome of his action does not matter however great
the disadvantage that may arise. So again we ask, should the truth only be told to
those who deserve it? The answer is anyone deserves the truth because it is our moral
duty to do so.
French philosopher, Benjamin Constant disagrees, his argument being, that
people should only be told the truth only if they deserve it and more importantly if it
doesnt carry an evil deed behind it. The problem with telling the murderer the truth in
this case, is only allowing an evil deed to happen. It would be safe to blame that one

person who told the murderer because by telling the truth you are allowing the murder
to reach his evil extremes and kill someone. Would a bystanders opinion change if Kant
told them that morality is not about consequences but about principle?
Kant says The duty to tell the truth holds regardless of the consequences
because he believes that a lie is unacceptable so, you say the truth and not worry about
whats going to happen after that. To Kant what matters is doing the right thing because
its the right thing to do not for some ulterior motive. A good will is not good just because
of what happens after doing it, same as saying that you shouldnt base a decision on
what may happen after. In this case according to Kant we shouldnt even think about the
outcome of our truth telling but on whether or not were doing the right thing.
A libertarian would say that if the friend hiding did not want the murderer to know
where he was then it is his right and the other friend should respect that. Even though
libertarianism is about self-ownership, it should not be up to the friend to make the
decision of telling the murder where the victim (his friend) is hiding. That connects back
to Benjamin's argument. If the guy tells the murderer where his victim was then it is
basically helping him commit this crime and allowing him to kill. It would be just and ok
to lie to the murderer and save a life.
In conclusion the right thing to do is to tell the murder that your friend is hiding in
your house. As stated before telling the truth is what you should do because its the right
thing to do. This goes along with the idea of a categorical imperative which Kant states
A categorical duty or categorical right is one that applies regardless of the
circumstances (Sandel pg. 119). No matter what may end up happening to the friend
atleast you know you did the right thing by telling the absolute truth.