A very simple question:
Is it wrong to decieve someone for their own benefit?
Yet a very difficult & complex ethical matter. We've been debating this one on and off all semester in the dept. Many supporting examples and counter examples come to mind for both sides. For example, placebos have proven to often have a measurable positive medical effect on patients (the placebo effect), yet, for it to work you have to deceive the patient (you can't TELL them you are giving them a placebo... they must believe it is a "real" drug for the placebo effect to work). Tradtionally in medical ethics it is considered wrong to prescribe placebos... but I'm not so sure. What if someone WANTS to have a placebo effect. Well, it's difficult at best. They can't request a placebo -- for then they know that's what they are getting and it won't work. My thought is this is a legitimate case where someone can be decieved for their own benefit and such an act would be morally permissable.
Your thoughts? Is it ever morally permisable to deceive someone for their benefit? There are LOTS of counters on the other side.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
21 comments:
Well, according to Kant, it is never morally permissible to tell a lie. Lying to someone does not fit the universal law or the ends in itself test. First off, one cannot justify the maxim of lying for the whole world, because the idea of truth ceases to exist. Secondly, you are using the person as a mere means to meet an end, and they are not giving their consent. With this is mind, one cannot lie to a patient. But...what if the person gave you their consent to possibly give them a placebo, and just not tell you? Then you have their consent, and you are not just using them as a means. However, the maxim of establishing lies to everyone in the world still proves an issue. Kant could be right. However, I lie a lot, so I can't really agree with Kant. I think that lying can be permissible. If the greater good is reached through a lie, then I think its okay, in some circumstances to lie. The ends justify the means.
If you look at this issue from a consequences point of view, of course it is alright to deceive somebody for their own benefit because the result is better for them. I think it is not always right to deceive somebody for their own benefit; however there are situations were it seems alright. For example on somebody's 21st birthday they have drank what appears to be their limit, but they want more shots or they refuse to drink water. So you fill a shot glass with water and tell them it is alcohol in order to satisfy their desire for more alcohol and at the same time get some water into them. At this point they probably can't tell the difference between water and alcohol. Here you are deceiving them, but for their benefit. In this case I think it is morally acceptable even though this is a minute example. So in some cases it is morally acceptable to deceive somebody for their benefit.
Morally, I feel as though it is never right to lie. I want to believe that even if the immediate result of a lie is a good effect, the long term effect may be bad. For example, if Captain Strawser made a dinner one night and it was completely horrible, but out of respect, I told him that I loved the meal, the immediate effect would be good, because Captain Strawser would feel good about himself. However, he would then continue making the discusting meal for his students and they would all suffer. The long term effect would be bad.
Regardless of this example, I see that there are times when it is necessary to lie. A good example of this is when captured prisoners lie to their captors to protect their fellow soldiers. In that case, it would be morally wrong to betray your countrymen. Because of situations like this, it must be morally right to lie in certain situations.
Actually, according to Kant, your intent is good, and I would want it to be a Universal law of increasing one's benefit via deception. The problem may be using someone as a mere means, but if I were the patient during the placebo effect I am normally paid to experimented on so it is more like a transation than a mere means.
This concept is not when a Doctor says ya your healthy when your not. The example used is the placebo effect, if there were any downfalls in receiving the placebo then its not a benefit so its not the same thing - which isnt Kant but is ... ya anyways. Also isnt the placebo effect more of testing if the real drug has any relevance in curing someone, if its the same as the placebo its basically useless and a waste of money, why would ANYONE ever want that not to be morally okay.
And from a consequence few. Benefit good, morally good.
Deception for someone's benefit is morally right. The end is what matters in this instance. Take for example, your mother. If she asked you, does this dress make me look fat?, how would you respond? The obvious answer is to say it doesn't make her fat, even though it does. Why? The consequences that will occur from honesty far outweigh those consequences associated with lying. The greater good is what matters most.
This deals with one's intent in lying. If it is for a morally wrong action, then of course the means to that end are immoral as well. However, if one lies for a morally acceptable action--take the previous example--then those means to the end are morally acceptable as well. Therefore, if one lies to benefit that person, it is morally and utterlly right.
I think Mr. Kant has a good perspective on this one. It goes back to the whole "do onto others as you would want" with you maxim becoming universal law. I think the fact that it benefits the person you lie to shouldnt matter... you're still lying and i can see that no one is going to want to be lied to... even if it is for their own good.
This is a tough question because it might be that the ends justify the means and it would be better for that person but i dont think that simply just because its better... makes it morally permissable. There is still something inately wrong with deception...
When i first looked at this arguement i was all for deception for benefit, but then i thought a little deeper about the question and found that some of my own thoughts were conflicting. in the case of the placebo effect, it is quite obvious that you are doing that person a good because it makes them feel better, and it would seem that you would have a good amount of big name philosophers to back you up. But what if that same person then became completely dependent on a placebo and you would have to tell them the truth which could possibly crush them. On the opposite side of the spectrum, it would then seem immoral to tell them the truth.
I do not understand...if they are dependent on a placebo - I would probably recommend them to a psychologist just because that is who I am - but for moral sakes, let him keep taking the 10 cent sugar pill, if a 10 cent sugar pill made you feel good I am sure you'd want to be able to take it.
with the way our society is run today it is not only acceptable but considered right in many cases to deceive someone for their own benefit. the age old question from your wife/gf/significant other, Do i look good in this dress? every man knows the "correct" answer to this question, but whether or not it is true may be a different story. does it hurt the girl to tell them they look great when in actuality they look terrible? this is a very tough question. many people will say that it depends on where you are going or what you will be doing. others will say that it does not matter because they know the real answer but just want to have their spirits lifted a little. whether or not it is morally right to do this, i cannot say. but i do think women shouldn't put men in tough situations like that!!!
Ok so i think the question in this case is it really right or just to decieve that person. Plato would probably say that it is in the best benefit to decieve this person because they are the weaker individual in the situation. But is it wrong when they do not know they are being decieved? I would contend that it is not as long as they eventually realize that they are better off.
The placebo example makes sense, because results are coming about more from a phsycological change in the person. If the case is that patients get better, then great, the sickness was a result of another symptom, say stress. Often times this is the case for many people, so decieving the person in order to benefit them is just.
Whether this is using the person as a mere means is true, that depends if the deciever gains anything as well. Say a person is always getting in fights with a possessive gf. His friends may tell him to dump her, so that he can be less miserable, and in return they get to hang out with their friend without dealing with a class 5 clinger. I think that lying is permissable and often expected if there is a benefit for either party involved.
I certainly think it is ok to deceive someone for their own benefit. Placebos are just one example where it is permissible. Kant would argue that you can not deceive anyone by his universal law formulation because if everyon deceived everyone else, then it would be impossible to work. Unfortunately that view of morality is fairly narrow and doesn't consider the potential benefits of said deception. Consequentialism would argue that it is morally ok to lie to someone for their own benefit. The negative consequences of lying do not outweight the positive benefits of the intended deception for the person being lied to. A more pertinent example is lying to soldiers that are sent on more or less a suicide mission. We sign up for the possibility of giving our lives, and it is possible to be sent on a mission that will more than likely result in a lot of casualties. If I were the commander, I would probably not tell my people that we were on a suicide mission because I would want them to work effectively. In that case, I think you give them more confidence and also a higher likelihood of surviving because they can think more clearly.
While it’s tempting to be lured to agreeing that it’s ok to deceive someone for their own benefit, I’d like to look at doctrine of double effect to show that this temptation is morally wrong. Under the first principle, the main effect of benefiting the person is good. So, this ethical question passes the first principle. However, under the second principle, the evil effect of deceiving the person is foreseen and intended. Therefore, it does not pass the second principle. Under the third principle, the evil effect is also the means for the good principle of benefiting the person. So, this question also does not pass the third principle. Depending on the situation, the good effect of benefiting the person may outweigh the evil effect of deceiving him or her. Deception should not be an accepted means of helping someone out. There is always another way, which may seem less convenient or easy. But, we should always strive to help one another by being completely honest with one another.
I think that in some cases it is ok to lie... not very many cases, but at times. I am usually not a consequentialist, but in this case... if there can be no good by telling the truth, and the person would never be able to know that they are being told a lie, then I don't see why it would be necessary to cause harm and pain to someone's life if it could be avoided. The cases are few that would meet these circumstances. If a woman has a child who was killed during war and the child hadn't really helped out yet (they had just landed and hadn't made any contributions) then I think it is perfectly ok to tell the mother that her son was a hero and contributed to a great cause, etc. It would ease the pain of the mother and is only a white lie... I do not think that it is OK to lie about many things at all, but in some cases it is ok.
when kant says you cant ever tell a lie because you cant will that to become a universal law, he presents a error in his theory. by his own formulations telling a lie can be ok if it is for that person's benefit because of his example on actions of beneficence. Telling a lie that that benefits that person is good then. however, it is a very tricky point to try to make and it would have to be a lie that really benefited that person. i think a good example might be telling someone a lie about them be good or talented to give them the confidence to do something they might not do otherwise which ends up making them better in the end.
In this case I feel it is morally permissible because even though you are telling them something that is untrue, you are acting in their best interest. Look at the case of social tact, it is generally permissible to tell someone the food that they cooked is good even though it may in fact be aweful.
This is a tough one as i like what Kant has to say and his universal law prohibits lying, however, i also sometimes think that consequentialism is the way to go if there is no other option. If there is a drug that will benefit the person give them that, but if there isnt you are stuck either letting them suffer and or die or you can try to give them a placebo telling them it is a real drug. Therefore i think it is ok to give a placebo if there is no other option.
The consequentialist would argue that it is morally acceptable to lie if the end result was good. In this example the end result is attaining the psychological benefit of a placebo. Without the lie this benefit can not exist...or can it? If you think lying is morally wrong in all situations would it not be possible to tell someone you are going to give them a pill that could "potentially" make them feel better. You don't have to give them specifics about the medication nor do you have to tell them that will be cured. I know this is simply playing with words but it points out that it might be possible to still get a placebo effect without lying.
This is some thing that will always be wrestled over. There are two main views as far as this is concerned. One is the Kantian ideology and the other the Utilitarian approach. If you side with Kant then every human must be an end in itself and cannot be used as a mere means. They can be used as a means but never without any mutual benefit between the two parties. Mill then would argue that telling a lie is okay as long as it produced happiness. This result is the only thing that you can possibly judge morality be, In my opinion if the intentions are good and the results will serve as the greater good for the greatest #; then deception is ok.
What about throwing a surprise birthday party for someone...they ask you what you are doing the night of their suprise party, you tell the truth you ruin the surprise, you lie you preserve it but you still lie to them. Looking at the placebo effect though you are sort of playing the moral ruler because you are deciding what is good for them. Obviously they want to get better and we can assume people want to be surprised during their party. Therefore, we can assume it is OK to tell them a lie to achieve the end that we assume they want. However, I think the problem/concern should be in giving one person the authortiy to decide what is right and wrong. This is a concern of consequentalism that you could justify anything as being good if you wanted to throw out any moral set. And we know Kant would say that you can't lie to them no matter what. However, I think in this case you can lie to them and I think that with necessary and proper restrictions the concerns about who can determine what is good for them can be curtailed. Mill addresses these when he defends consequentalism. Mill argued that a person obeying the concept of utilitarianism could not possibly wish ill on another individual for his own personal pleasure. Therefore, as long as we follow the guidlines of what is right and wrong, assuming a moral realist stance here, than we can lye to someone for their own benefit.
Okay, some clarification is needed here. Kant would say that it is wrong to lie to someone about the placebo effect. Take, for example, the universal maxim formulation of the cat. imperative. If everyone got a placebo everytime they went to the doctor, then everyone would know that they're actually getting a placebo. So, this is a perfect duty example, kind of like Kant's second example in the reading (and by this I mean exactly like Kant's second example in the reading). Now, let us again return to the question. It seems that the position that the question poses is that the placebo's ability to make a person feel better justifies the lie. Okay, so the argument is incumbent on the meaning of life being to feel better (eudaimonia or what have you). At this point, we've merely entered into a basic consequentialism vs. deontological case study. Since we all know all the arguments for and against each, allow me to interject another type of thought. When I was little, my kindergarden teacher told me about Santa Clause (my parents never did b/c they thought it was wrong to lie to a kid). In due time, I came to the stark realization that there was no Santa Clause. With this realization, I concluded that my understanding of the nature of humanity had been flawed because it had been based in flawed assumptions. Once I was able to see the world accurately, I was able to come closer to understanding the truth. So, it seems that I would have rathered been Socrates dissatisfied than a moron in bliss - or however the expression goes. So, in this instance, the consequentialist view is self-defeating since it hopes to create happiness of a different kind, but all that the placebo and Santa Clause could do was reduce mankind to the simple swine that demand easy pleasures.
Post a Comment