 |
| "The Elders Plea with King Hormuzd to Forgive His Son Khusraw" (1494) by Kamal ud-Din Behzad |
In chapters 3 and 4, Soni describes how Murugan Khandasamy and Shawkat Al Sheikh were told that they needed to tell a lie if they wanted the U.S. government to grant them a visa that would allow them to work in the United States.
Don't answer this question set before you've read these and previous chapters.
As always, it is not necessary to require to every question in the question set.
Questions:
To what extent is it acceptable to tell a lie if you're doing so for a good reason, such as in order to provide your family?
To what extent is it acceptable to tell a lie if no particular individual is harmed by the lie?
To what extent is it morally defensible to lie about commiting a crime if you believe that the law you have violated is unfair or nonsensical?
How many of these factors apply in the case of the lies Murugan and Shawkat felt compelled to lie about?
How much does it matter whether they were aware of the necessity of telling a lie before they were already $14,000 in debt?
The extent it's okay to tell a lie for a good reason... I'd say it can go a long way. If it's to protect people through that deceit, I'd say it's reasonable. Say you had to lie about how many people were in a car to get your family to a new home, be it immigration or trying to run from war. I'd say that's a pretty good reason.
ReplyDeleteIf no particular individual is harmed by a lie, I'd honestly say the sky's the limit for the lying. If it doesn't hurt anybody, it doesn't hurt anybody.
Regarding laws however, I'd say it very much depends on the sentence offered. If you are having to serve life for something like possessing marijuana, and you personally believe the law is unjust, I think it's within reason to lie about it as your entire life is on the line.
The problem is, there are several people who are potentially harmed by the deceit of these people. In Shawkat's case, he actively throws away a religious holiday and its significance to his family in the name of keeping the lie up, in the hopes he can serve and provide for his family... Even though it would be his son's first Eid during Ramadan. He rejects his own religious and familial obligations innthe name of the lie. In Murugan's case, he has to lie about having a child in order to compensate for his lack of preparation (lack of marriage certificate, which puts getting his work visa on the line). It's clrar that while they both have their reasons, there is realistic consequences to their deception. It's not that harmless lies are always immoral: it's that we like to say that harmful lies are 'harmless lies' a lot of the time to excuse our lying.
Question 1: If you're telling a lie for a good reason, like to provide for your family, I think it depends on how big the lie is. If it is a small lie that won't hurt them then I don't see why it would be a problem. Now if it is a big lie that could put them in direct/immediate danger then I would see a problem with that. Even if it is for a good reason you need to calculate how the lie could affect you and the people around you, especially if there is family involved.
ReplyDeleteQuestions 2: I am conflicted with this question. One part of me says it would be ok to keep lying if no particular individual would be harmed. The other part of me says it is still not ok to lie whether or not no one would be harmed because of it.
-Abigayle Shropshire
To what extent is it acceptable to tell a lie if you're doing so for a good reason, such as in order to provide your family?
ReplyDeleteI believe the threshold of acceptability is whenever the lie you are committing for good reason begins to harm others in ways that are more than inconveniences. I think many lies can be morally acceptable if you have a net positive outcome, such as your family being provided for. However, if morality can be visualized using a balance scale, with neutrality being represented at the perfect equilibrium, once a lie causes enough negativity to weigh down the positivity of the entire scenario as a whole, then it is morally wrong. An inconvenience being caused for the opposing party, for example, would have minimal effects of affecting the morality of a situation; however, a problem being created for others would tip the balance scale enough that your positive action can not outweigh it. To this extent, your positive actions do not balance out the negative actions being created because your positive actions derive from selfish reason. Selfish reason inherently has morally negative derivatives.
To what extent is it acceptable to tell a lie if no particular individual is harmed by the lie?
I believe from a secular perspective, if no individual nor organism will ever be affected by your lie, then there is no limit to acceptability because the lie has no negative moral weight. We base our morals based on other living organisms, because we believe most other living organisms to have the same emotions we have. We have an evolutionary instinct to protect and respect other living things. Such as, if you were the only living thing in the universe, any action would have no moral affect, because it can not affect other living things.
To what extent is it morally defensible to lie about commiting a crime if you believe that the law you have violated is unfair or nonsensical?
I believe there are numerous laws that are unfair and nonsensical. The reason these laws exist is because they are created by a minute set of lawmakers, who by chance, are elected to their position. Laws are not created by unbiased, randomized philosophers who might gauge the morality of rules; instead they are created by elected (or non-elected) officials. Therefore, we should not use laws as a moral compass in any respect whatsoever and should only guide ourselves and others on the beliefs we hold. Therefore, it is entirely and utterly morally defensible to lie about a nonsensical crime only if you truly believe commiting said crime will not negatively harm others beyond inconvenience.
-Rafael Charqueno
Lying, for a good reason, such as the example of providing for your family definitely does have a line to be crossed. For instance, if you are lying to the degree of even lying to your family you should heavily consider telling the truth. There are certain circumstances, though, where lying is the only thing one can do when it comes to family. Usually these are the bigger lies needed in order to ensure no harm can come to any of them, because the truth can either be too much to bear, or it can even put someone in danger. For example, there are times when an individual may need to get their hands dirty in order to provide for their loved ones, such as being in a gang while living in an area heavily controlled by such a gang. If that person were to be completely honest about what they have to endure for a living to make a living, they can put themselves and their family at risk, which in some cases, result in fatality.
ReplyDeleteIf there is an instance where no particular individual is harmed by a lie, then the only conflict would be morality, whether or not you could live with the guilt of lying.
Many laws across the globe are nonsensical laws with unjust punishments. Regarding the extent of how defensible it is to lie about committing such crime, I believe that in many cases lying is justifiable, but at the same time, if one were to not agree with sentencing of a clear-cut murder case, then I believe the one executing the murder does not hold human life to the degree in which I do.
To answer question one and two, I think it is acceptable to tell lies to a certain extent. If the lying is beneficial and outweighs any risks or downsides, I think it is okay. Other than that I do not think it is okay to lie if any people get hurt in the process or are negatively affected by the lie.
ReplyDelete