Ethics

Aristotle prohibits lying except in some extreme cases. According to him, lying is the opposite of moderation  it is the means to undermine character and, in the long term, to destroy the good life.  In the Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle argued that lying is an abrupt sense of insecurity, an act of preserving ones interests. It is both shameful and dangerous because it destroys the lives of individuals involved. In some extreme cases, lying is allowed. For example, a person may lie to save another person from harm.

Kant prohibits lying under all circumstances because it violates the first form of the Categorical Imperative. Suppose that there is a murdered inquiring the whereabouts of another person. If everybody lied, then lying could never succeed since no murderer would believe what one says. Lying also violates the second form of the CI by failing to incorporate the rationality of the murderer. In this case, lying is an opposed end to what the murderer has legislated for other people. In short, the liar fails to treat the murdered as an end.

Suppose that there is a politician lying to get a policy implemented. Aristotle would condemn the act because of its moral implications. If the policy is good, there is no need to lie. Lying in this case serves the interests of the politician. Kant would likewise condemn the act. Lying means an invitation to trust and breaking a promise. The politician invited the public to trust his actions while deceiving them. This inconsistency in ends violates the first and second form of CI. Lying therefore is unacceptable.