Kant's Axe

Is it ever morally acceptable to tell a lie? Kant thought not. His example of the would-be murderer explains his reasoning.
Read by Harry Shearer. Scripted by Nigel Warburton.

and the animations were created by Cognitive.

[TheBlessedarrow]

Wait this doesn't make any sense to me. I think it's the other way around. If I tell the truth and the axe man kills my friend, then it *is* my responsability. I could've given my friend a chance, and I didn't. Now if I lie, and the axe man accidentaly finds my friend and kills them, then it's *not*, because I did all I could to avoid it.

[patrickdonaghy]

If have learned one thing...





It's that I don't wanna be kants best friend

[CraftedChannel]

The ignored option is I have no duty to tell you anything at all.

[happyuk]

What this video demonstrates is that mere statement of facts and the spirit of truthfulness are not the same things. Love and Wisdom are essentially one and the same.

[Gehirnstruktur]

Moral norms are not an end in themselves but merely a means to an end. They are put in place for a reason/purpose. They are designed to be beneficial. And if they cease to be so, they counteract or defeat this very purpose. If, contrary to the rule, telling the truth in a particular instance would lead to significant harm, it is a moral duty to lie. It is morally wrong to injure a person, but it is morally justified in case of self-defence or defence of another person.
Kant's maxim would be something like: fiat veritas, et pereat mundus.
Ralph W. Emerson wrote: "Good men must not obey the laws too well."

[silverblood]

I'd have a guilty conscience knowing I didn't do everything possible to keep my friend from being killed.

[brianc]

I think I'll go with my gut instinct on this one.

[kandastrike]

Excellent video.

I have always thought that Kant would have no problem with the individual NOT telling the sinister man holding an axe anything at all, and just calling the police instead. That way, the individual does not become an accessory to (or, does not in some way abet) an immoral act, and Kant's view of morality/categorical imperative is not infringed upon.

What do you all think?

[t-hat]

Everybody gangsta ‘till you realise the house has a nose and eyes.

[johnparkfernando]

I kan't understand why you would do that

[张慕安]

00:12 Is it morally acceptable to lie when a sinister man asks for the location of your best friend?
00:25 Kant's categorical imperative is about telling the truth
00:35 Kant argued that lying, even with unintended consequences, is morally wrong
00:43 Be honest about your friend's whereabouts
00:52 Your responsibility is determined by your actions and honesty.
01:02 Morality vs. Utilitarianism
01:11 Happiness and consequences for truth-telling and lying
01:20 Deontological approach to ethics

[andersbehringbreivik]

How would I know that the man with the axe is going to kill my friend?  If he made it clear to me that my friend was going to be killed, I say that divulging information would be aiding the murderer and would make me an accomplice.

[makeadifferenceall]

A surprising mistake in this video is when the artwork shows Jeremy Bentham at 1:05 saying, "You should do whatever brings you the greatest happiness." This is doubly inaccurate. First, Bentham is about promoting pleasure, not happiness. That may not seem like a big deal to most people, but among utilitarians, it has been a major bone of contention whether happiness or pleasure is the point of life. Secondly, Bentham said to promote the pleasure of all sentient beings, including animals. He was not advocating selfishness or hedonism. Interestingly enough, the audio narration of what Bentham said is slightly different and somewhat more accurate.

[isabelrubio]

I wouldn't open the door in the first place.

[primetime]

Can anyone understand what word he is saying when it should or should not be on your conscious or consequence? idk what word he is saying here, could someone tell me. For an example at 0:58

[Suibian-]

Easy! Just call the police about a suspicious man in front of your house holding an axe asking where your best friend is.

[nollieflipcrook]

just don't say anything, or tell the man you aren't going to tell him where your friend is. you don't have to lie, and you don't have to give the potentially dangerous man any information about your friend

[kasitoshi]

The would be killer point gives way to the application of utilitarianism to this dilemma. Thanks for the upload.

[luisluis]

I dont open the door to people i dont know.

[richardalvis]

The problem for me in this is lie or tell the truth the ax man and the friend are allowed to continue into the future while after answering you are subjected to standing in the doorway with no further action. In the scenario there is no validity in any opinion as there are no valid responses or actions from the one answering the question. Truth is a construct usually anyway. A perception. Takes 30 seconds to answer the door. Who knows if he's still in the house? You havent seen him in thirty seconds. Wouldn't that in fact be the truth?