The Ethics of Lying: A Comparative Analysis of Kantianism, Utilitarianism, and Virtue Ethics

The ethical issue of lying is complicated and varies according to context, intent, and consequences. Lies come in all shapes and sizes: harmless “white lies” — like inflating the size of fish — to more serious stories told to protect a criminal. Moreover, some lies, like Santa Claus’s lies or the sort one might tell to give someone a boost in self-esteem, are socially valid. To evaluate the ethics of lying, we can examine three major ethical theories: Kantianism (deontology), utilitarianism, and virtue ethics.

Kantianism is rooted in the idea that actions should be controlled through individuals’ universal principles and respect. Schmidt states that Kant holds that lying is always morally wrong because our actions violate the categorical imperative, i.e., we should act in a way that our actions could be universally applied. Lying treats others as mere means, as an end to an end, treating the ends as mere means for personal gain. Hence, if we add up to this cause of artificial abortion, then Kantian ethics would dismiss all types of lying, whether white lies are also counted as unethical.

Struggling with ethical theories or philosophy assignments? Our Psychology Homework Helpline provides expert guidance on Kantianism, Utilitarianism, Virtue Ethics, and more. Get the help you need to tackle complex ethics topics—visit us now!

Down by the poor and, for the rich, the fun, utilitarianism judges the good in terms of consequences. In utilitarianism, a lie is legitimate, though, if the lie results in the greatest good for the greatest number (Santa Clara). For example, sometimes, well-being would be increased (that is, the overall amount of lies told would be decreased) if we lie to protect someone from harm or to promote happiness (say, telling a child about Santa Claus). With this perspective, we can afford more liberty to lie, depending on what works in the context instead of what should have occurred.

The virtue ethics concerns the person who does the act, not the act itself. Virtue ethics say that lying is not wrong in and of itself, but only when these motivations are present. Then again, if their lying is an act of compassion or kindness (a seemingly harmless white lie to spare someone’s feelings), it is virtuous. However, lying for self-serving or malicious reasons, to deceive or manipulate, would be immoral.

However, from the plausibility perspective, utilitarianism is more sensitive when considering which outcomes a lie can have (Santa Clara). While Kantianism is too strict, virtue ethics is too subjective, and utilitarianism’s view of the ethics of lying tends towards a more practical, secondary observation of the consequences. Yet one outstanding problem with utilitarianism is that it would sometimes justify lying even if it led to harm or implications in the long run, showing that some lying is easy to morally excuse only based on the short-termites. Given this fact, utilitarianism is more plausible in some cases and cannot, possibly, address all relevant ethical questions on lying.

Works Cited

Santa Clara, University. “Calculating Consequences:The Utilitarian Approach to Ethics.” Markkula Center for Applied Ethics, 1 Aug. 2014, www.scu.edu/ethics/ethics-resources/ethical-decision-making/calculating-consequences-the-utilitarian-approach/#:~:text=Greatest%20Balance%20of%20Goods%20Over%20Harms&text=So%20long%20as%20a%20course,frequently%20in%20our%20daily%20decisions.

Schmidt, Jeff. “Kantian Ethics.” Corporate Finance Institute, CFI, 7 May 2024, corporatefinanceinstitute.com/resources/esg/kantian-ethics/#:~:text=Kant’s%20ethical%20theory%20is%20that,to%20personal%20desires%20or%20incentives.