Breaking A Promise Or Lying Is Immoral

Published Date: 02 Nov 2017

Deontology is a concept that comes from the Greek language. The term is used to designate a kind of discipline that focuses on the analysis of the duties and values governed by moral.

It is said that the British philosopher Jeremy Bentham (English thinker, father of utilitarianism (Houndsditch, 1748 - London, 1832)) was responsible for coining the notion. The deontology is part of what is known as normative ethics (philosophy indicating what should be regarded as good and what should be termed as bad). This means that every profession, trade or particular area can have its own ethics that indicates what the duty of each person is.

The deontologists are also called the nonconsequentialist; Immanuel Kant was a nonconquetialist and was considered by many as the most influential thinker of the modern era.

When we think about why lie or break a promise goes against morals, in Kant’s reasoning, lying is immoral because according to the universal law lying as wrong. Kant says that an action is good only if we do it with good intentions or act if we think it is our duty to do the right thing, regardless of the possible consequences that this action may bring. The action must do so only because it is morally right or ethical.

If we do not act based on that thought for Kant the act is immorally. How we know we are acting correctly? How do we know that our intentions are morally right and not our own desires?

To clarify this we should stick to moral law. This is based on the categorical imperatives that tell us what we should do in certain situations. When we think of an action we think if we can make this universal. This becomes a moral law if everyone can agree that an action is good and act the same way.

Kant says that lying could never be a moral law and remains morally incorrect, a lie could not be held as a moral law, it destroys itself because everyone would know the purpose of the lie, then no one would believe in those lies. If I lie to get something, it is not morally right, for lying to achieve that goal it can never be a universal moral law. If everyone acted like that and everyone agreed to act that way, the same action is removed herself because nobody would believe these lies and return to where we started; lying is morally wrong.

In my opinion I think the thought of Kant is partially correct. On certain occasions I agree with the theory but of nonconsequentialist but on other occasions I agree with consequentialist. I think there are many complex situations in life that sooner or later we always act in the 2 ways. I do not believe that bad actions and good deeds can classify and categorize universally. There are certain situations where consequentialist theories and nonconsequentialist conflict. For certain occasions works the first and on others works the second.

In my opinion the good and bad depends on the context in which each theory applies. For example, if we are asked to lie to protect someone we care about, what would we do? Lie or tell the truth? Knowing that the truth may hurts this person. In this case I think we would be lying with good intentions and thinking of the wellbeing of the other person, thinking about the consequences it brings. But if we think the mere fact of lying would be wrong according to Kant. But in another example if we intend to lie at a situation less important we would be more willing in doing the right thing. I think that the right and wrong is closely related to in what level affect us too. When the situation not affect us is easier to think of what is morally right, and when it affects us is easier to act in a way that benefits us. Depending on the context, we think on the nature of the actions or the consequences, I do not believe that to solve certain situations we could look at one of the two.

In conclusion I disagree with the thought of Kant, but also disagree on which are based only on consequences. In complex situations we cannot rely on theories, we must use our intelligence to analyze the weight of the action compared to the weight of the consequences, and then discern the solution based on the context and gravity of the situation. The key is in the analysis, not think is right and what not.