Lying is rooted in world culture. It has become almost a fundamental element in every society and is present almost everywhere in the world. But, paradoxically, he is also condemned. All major religions, legal statutes and even community norms advise against speaking falsely. Philosophers since the time of Immanuel Kant have pontificated on the ideology of lying; within his frame of reference which was deontology or the focus of duty and emotionless morality. His basic idea was that universalization determines the ethicality of an action (or inaction). But other great minds opposed these ideas. John Stuart Mills hinged his philosophy on utilitarianism, the practice of achieving maximum social happiness even if to the dismay of the minority. So within the window of these two parties, the lie must find a moral or immoral foundation. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an Original Essay A lie can take many forms. Classes in society are found in different ways. Small and almost insignificant “white lies” that have no real consequences. Then other more serious lies, lies that can tear families or even countries apart. Sometimes it seems that a person's morality tells him to lie, that it is his duty to preserve the peace, and that all reason is willing to lie. As Immanuel Kant said about reason, “…Reason as a practical faculty…its true function must be to produce a will that is good, not for other ends, as a means, but good in itself” (PP W2-3). So how can a person know, truly know, and understand whether lying is wrong if his reason states that it is beneficial? Kant argues that reason is what makes us moral creatures; that being able to be emotionless and make logical choices helps us to be rational. It must be argued that there should be another way to find out whether a lie is moral or immoral other than simply relying on one's reason. Because although Kant claims that reason must be good in itself and not a means, it is almost impossible for a sane human being to completely remove himself from any equation in which he might be involved. But reason eliminates many types of lies. It could be argued here that Kant is saying that any lie that benefits only you and you alone or simply causes harm to another is not moral. That lying to be cruel or to help only yourself is not an ethical choice and should not even be a rational choice. This reason should oppose such falsehoods. With exclusively self-beneficial lies being branded as unethical, the question of how one can discern among other rational choices about when lying is right or wrong comes into play. Kant has an answer to this too. Hypothetically, a person (A) is helping another person (B) at home. In one scenario, the two are returning home from a party. A leads the way and is slightly lost, B asks if A is drunk. One lies and says no, it's a lie but they still get home safely. Now, if this were to be universalized, with A going home and lying about drinking, it immediately becomes immoral, unethical, and dangerous for all parties. Kant states in his article Foundations of the Metaphysics of Morals that “I ask myself: Would I really be happy if my maxim (extricating myself from a difficult situation by means of an untruthful promise) were to hold as a universal law (for me and for me)? others)…” (Kant, 739). Kant underlines that according to him the true foundation of lies, therefore the foundation of morality, derives from the idea that an action must be dutiful and capable of being universalized. That if this action comesperformed once, it must be capable of being performed in every single possible circumstance in which this occurs. If this cannot be done whenever possible, then it is not universally ethical and therefore unethical at its core. Kant would say that a lie is always wrong. A person cannot lie because this maxim would be wrong in some circumstances. Be the lie as harmless as the agreement with someone when you don't; it should first be included in the context of lying in general. Overall it therefore seems that Kant would be against any form of lying. He would say that a lie that benefits only oneself as a means to an end is immoral, as is any lie that cannot be universalized. It seems, in this sense, that no lie can truly be universalized. Because, really, how could a society thrive or even survive if all its supporters knew that everyone else was lying and that they themselves were lying? It would crumble into dust; for no group of people, regardless of size, can coexist if truth cannot exist within it. According to Kant's writings, lying would always be wrong. But Kant can be wrong. Instead of universalization, let's simply imagine that ninety-nine point nine percent of all people thrive on feeling ethically capable of lying. The one percent may be suffering, they may feel like they can't trust anyone or no one can truly trust them and hate this society with every fiber of their being, disagree with everything. But this is a small percentage. Overall, this company is happy. This company is thriving, growing and doing well. People don't always lie, but they don't need to always tell the truth. A lie or a lie can even help promote them as a people. A debated lie in American history is that of President Lincoln's assassin, whether John Wilkes Booth was captured before his death or not. The lie told to generations of this country is that he was cornered and killed in a stable. This made the country feel safer and more closed at the time, as well as giving closure to the nation in general now. But historians and Booth's descendants believe he escaped and lived out his days. This is a lie that millions of people know, but it damages the history of the living family and historians who study that era. But it helped and facilitated the masses. The philosopher John Stuart Mills argued that "According to the Greatest Happiness principle...the end [consequence] of human action, is necessarily the standard of morality" (PP W2-3). By this he means that if the greatest number of people are happy, if they are happy with this action, it is moral. This means that even if a group is disadvantaged or even harmed, it matters less because the majority matters more than the minority. According to Mills, it would appear that lying is sometimes moral. However, this is a much broader scope than Kant's. A lie must benefit more people than it could potentially harm, otherwise it would be considered immoral if a leader were to lie about why his country is going to war, this would be sadly immoral as it would cause unnecessary loss of life. However, if a leader were to lie to end a war it would protect lives and cause greater benefit than harm, a lie should not be necessary unless it benefits others. Kant's basis of reason would agree that if one's duty or generalized personal mental morality benefits a large group and one feels that one should proceed with an action because it is ethical, then one should do so. Kant and Mills?