The Categorical Imperative
In deontology duty is the basis of morality (Boss 299). There are several different kinds of duties; absolute, prima facie, positive, and negative. An absolute duty is always morally binding while a prima facie duty is binding unless it conflicts with a more urgent moral duty (Boss 300). Positive duties require some form of an action such as giving someone money. In contrast negative duties are duties in which restraint is necessary such as cheating (Boss 300). Immanuel Kant developed his own version of deontology called the categorical imperative. A categorical imperative is different than a hypothetical imperative because categorical imperatives state something should be done regardless of the consequences (Boss 304). Kant developed two formulations
…show more content…
Furthermore, even if lying will save someone’s life you ought not to lie (Boss 317). Sissela Bok disagreed with Kant and regarded telling the truth as a Prima Facie duty. She agreed that lying is usually wrong however she claimed if innocent lives are at stake it is okay to lie. To illustrate her point she used the example of boats that smuggled Jewish people out of Nazi territory. Nazi patrol officers would ask the captain of the boat if there were any Jews aboard. Obviously the captain would lie and say no, thereby saving the lives of all the Jewish people on the boat from being shot (Boss 317). However, Sissela Bok did not accept any other common excuses for telling a lie such as paternalism or a higher good (Boss 318). According to Bok paternalism, the belief that your lie will benefit another, comes from a lack of respect for the other individual and therefore is morally wrong (Boss 318). The pursuit of a higher good is not an acceptable excuse to lie because it violates the categorical imperative of treating people as a means only (Boss 318). In order to determine whether lying is morally justified Bok devised three criteria. The first thing to do is look for an alternative to lying. Next, one should ask themselves if the lie will pass the test of publicity, in other words would people find the lie acceptable. Finally, one should ask themselves if they
Furthermore, even if lying will save someone’s life you ought not to lie (Boss 317). Sissela Bok disagreed with Kant and regarded telling the truth as a Prima Facie duty. She agreed that lying is usually wrong however she claimed if innocent lives are at stake it is okay to lie. To illustrate her point she used the example of boats that smuggled Jewish people out of Nazi territory. Nazi patrol officers would ask the captain of the boat if there were any Jews aboard. Obviously the captain would lie and say no, thereby saving the lives of all the Jewish people on the boat from being shot (Boss 317). However, Sissela Bok did not accept any other common excuses for telling a lie such as paternalism or a higher good (Boss 318). According to Bok paternalism, the belief that your lie will benefit another, comes from a lack of respect for the other individual and therefore is morally wrong (Boss 318). The pursuit of a higher good is not an acceptable excuse to lie because it violates the categorical imperative of treating people as a means only (Boss 318). In order to determine whether lying is morally justified Bok devised three criteria. The first thing to do is look for an alternative to lying. Next, one should ask themselves if the lie will pass the test of publicity, in other words would people find the lie acceptable. Finally, one should ask themselves if they