Is it always wrong to lie? If you replied “yes”, then what if the falsehood benefitted a large number of people or righted an injustice or protected a vital secret? Would the means justify the end in such a circumstance?

On the other hand, if your answer was “no” or “it depends”, then what if everyone lied whenever they chose to, without any qualms, deciding for themselves if the situation merited the deceit? What if someone close to you lied whenever he or she felt it was justifiable? How could you trust anyone’s word? How could you share close relationships or conduct business or make agreements if people could arbitrarily decide when to be honest and when not to, basing the decision on their feelings or self-interest rather than any objective or widespread standard? And did so any concern for the consequences to those being misled or betrayed?

Were you to take a philosophy class in Ethics, among the essential questions being posed on would be: What is just or unjust, good or bad or even evil, right or wrong, proper or improper, or virtuous or base?

At first glance you might think answers to such questions would be rather easy, but the real world often makes the considerations more problematic. As the example of lying suggests, there is that pesky question of “It depends?” Take away the convenient guide of personal opinion and require an answer that is supported by a reasonable explanation-- in other words employing facts and logic-- and the deliberation or discussion can become more difficult, even maze-like.

In their book Philosophy: The Power of Ideas, the authors Brooke Noel Moore and Kenneth Bruder noted, that first of all, “Many questions can be asked about moral judgments, so ethical philosophers discuss a wide variety of issues. One basic question they ask is, What is a moral judgment?”

If you state that fried chicken is delicious, then you’re making a value judgment based on individual taste. I may agree or disagree, but in either case neither of us has delved into the realm of ethics. However, if I proclaim my opposition to capital punishment and base this on the premise that it is wrong to take a person’s life, but you dispute this assertion by stating that it is only wrong to take an innocent life, not life of someone who has committed the evil act of murder, in other words that execution is a permissible exception to the commandment “Thou shall not kill”, then the two of us are engaging in a discussion of moral judgments.

“The most important questions of ethics, is simply, Which moral judgments are correct?” the authors stated. “That is, What is good and just and the morally right thing to do?”

Oh, if it were only so cut and dried. There are five main ethical frameworks or perspectives used by philosophers. Two of them that were used in my opening question, Is it always wrong to lie? are Deontological Ethics and Consequentialism.

If you are asked, “What ought I to do?” and used the perspective of Deontological Ethics, your answer would be “Whatever it is my moral duty to… in some cases, regardless of consequences to myself or to others.” The German philosopher Immanuel Kant (who lived in the 1700’s) is a prime example of this framework with his categorical imperative that states “Act always in such a way that you could, rationally, will the principle on which you act to be a universal law.”

Using this dictum, lying would remain morally suspect behavior because how could you rationally argue that it is permissible to lie sometimes, but not in other instances, and furthermore, Why do you get to make that decision? Saying, “it depends” would be akin to saying that stealing is okay if it’s in my self-interest or whenever I feels like it or that killing an innocent person is justifiable if it benefits me, but a crime for everyone else. Lying is, of course, not as harsh an act as theft or murder, still the question remains, Should the universal law or moral duty in any of these personal acts be one of absolute prohibition or is defensible in moral terms to allow exceptions to the rule?

With the ethical framework of Consequentialism, the reply to “What ought I to do?” would be “whatever has the most desirable consequences.” The British philosophers Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill (who came after Kant) championed this perspective with their theory of Utilitarianism which states (in a simplified term) “the rightness of an action is identical with the happiness it produces as its consequence.” Another, more familiar generalization of this philosophy is that the moral way to act is the one that produces “the greatest happiness (or good) for the greatest number.”

In the example of lying, this framework would be more ambiguous. In overall terms, widespread lying would not appear to be beneficial to society or to most personal relationships, thus not producing general happiness and, thus, could be argued as a moral delinquency. Still, as the opening paragraph noted, What if the falsehood benefitted a large number of people or righted an injustice or protected a vital secret? Under the framework of Consequentialism and the Utilitarian creed, if your lie produced such a common good, then it would appear to be morally permissible.

Moral judgments underpin many of our laws as well as the administration of justice in our courts. They, in addition, inform and influence our public discourse and our personal interactions. To me it’s easy to see where the absoluteness and objective standard found in Kant’s premise of the “categorical imperative” bumps constantly into the idea of the “greatest good for the greatest number” put forth by the Utilitarian philosophers. Our system of government, as defined by the Constitution, is a merging of the democratic notion of ‘the rule of the majority’ and, at the same time, providing legal safeguards for the natural and inherent rights of individuals and of minority groups. We throughout our history constantly weighed the perceived common good against personal liberty.  It is a balancing-of –the-scales that still occupies much of our public dialogue.

Working our way through ethical considerations is not an easy task if done with deliberation and a reasonable attitude. Yet such effort and attitude is vital because, as we can see, moral judgments have a profound influence and impact upon us, both for good and for ill. Ideas do indeed have power.