Kant's Ode To Honesty And Importance Of Honesty

Would you want to be stuck in a world where lying has become the new truth? Kant asserts that if humanity were to withhold the truth from one another, then lying would become the norm and the world would be invalid. However, from a Utilitarian standpoint, one would claim that people have the right to withhold the truth if it were to harm others otherwise. Kant shuts down this opposing party by voicing the importance of seeing an action as right or wrong without respect to the consequences of the action. Thus, withholding the truth is in itself an immoral act that restricts people’s autonomy no matter the circumstance. However, I believe reflective thinking when deciding whether or not to be honest is a true measure of one’s moral worth, which neither Kant nor Utilitarians incorporate into their teachings.

Before explaining the implications of withholding the truth, I first want to give a background of Kant’s philosophy. Kant argued that there is an objective moral law in which there is a necessary truth that guides our actions and decision-making, called the Categorical Imperative. This law can apply to any rational being, therefore, it must be independent of ulterior motives and only require absolute necessity. In one of the Categorical Imperative’s formulations, the supreme principle of morality states that we must act in such a way that we rationally intend for our maxims to become a universal law. This means that our maxims will apply to everyone in similar situations, thus, they must be systematically justifiable and not subject to inclination. To act out of self-interest, we wrongfully act from our desires rather than good will. Even when acting out of self-interest benefits other people.

That leads me to Kant’s second formulation of the Categorical Imperative; we must treat people as ends in themselves, not as a means to an end. He believes we must not deny humanity’s moral characteristics, and instead respect moral autonomy (Kant, 496). Although autonomy has a duel meaning, the Kantian philosophy regards autonomy as an agent’s ability to act under objective morality and not selfishness. To combine Kant’s first and second formulation, we must always act in a way that is selfless and valid for people in similar situations, because rationality grounds autonomy.

Moving on to a contrasting philosophy, Utilitarianism is comprised of both happiness and consequentialism. This means that a behavior is appropriate if the outcome generates happiness and wrong if it generates the opposite of happiness. Happiness is the sole force of human action and should be considered for the better of humanity not just for the person performing the action. Therefore, consequences dictate whether or not an action is right or wrong. Utilitarians believe that we can choose between two choices by weighing the differing levels of happiness they each produce. The philosophy also talks about the importance of not harming. Because harming does not coincide with happiness, it is the main focal point of the teachings. By calculating humanity’s benefits and harms from every action a person takes, we can decide on the best course of action. Specifically, lying is allowed when the consequences of lying are better than when telling the truth.

Let's think about a real-life scenario: a guy by the name of “Can't Personally Overlook Selfishness (CPOS)” is debating whether to tell his fiancée that he had cheated on her or to cover it up. In the past, his fiancée had caught him cheating but they worked through it. CPOS realizes he is a horrible person for doing what he did and still loves his partner deeply. He sees a therapist, who claims that if he is happy and ensures it was a one-time thing then he should not unload his baggage on her. However, CPOS feels extremely guilty, for not being the person his fiancee sees him as and withholding the truth from her. He ultimately debates whether or not to use this as a teaching moment and not confess.

In the first formulation of Kant’s Categorical Imperative, we can determine that CPOS withholding the truth is immoral by expanding his maxim to every person and every world. Simply put, it would be viewed as inhumane if there was a world where it is acceptable to withhold the truth from your partner; therefore, CPOS’s actions should be judged in the same context. By CPOS telling his partner about his infidelity, he is maintaining the notion of honesty in all relationships. We cannot look at this from a Utilitarian point of view and accept the therapist’s advice, because although the truth may upset his fiancee for a little, a lie hurts forever. If the maxim of withholding the truth became universalized, there would be no way to differentiate the truth from dishonesty and so truth itself would become obsolete. This is called operationalizing the maxim, in that the universe would intentionally not place value on people’s dialogue and people would learn to not trust a word that anyone says.

Despite the fact that Kant does not incorporate the consequences of one’s actions in his teachings, he does draw emphasis on imagining a life where people’s maxims become universalized. In simpler terms, if the act is permitted for CPOS it should be permitted for all of humanity to do it as well. Hence, if you want to decide whether an act is permitted for someone to engage in, envision that act being permitted as a policy for everyone. In the instance with CPOS, withholding the truth evokes contradictions if applied to humanity as a whole, so it makes lying unsanctioned. If you disagree and believe CPOS should lie, then you would also need to agree to the idea of the elimination of assurance, confidence, and trust in every single relationship. Healthy partnerships would not exist and unconditional love would be unattainable in a world where lying to a significant other is warranted. The Utilitarian believes that the good of a society comes from the collective happiness of the people in the society, so in regards to the universalization of withholding the truth, the Utilitarian would have to agree that lying is not right.

At this point, I have interchanged the terms “withholding the truth” and “lying” quite frequently. This is because it is considered lying if a person withholds the truth in order to manipulate another person’s judgment. Although CPOS wants to be the person his fiancée sees him to be, his underlying motive to hide his infidelity is to preserve his self-image and stay with his partner. His reputation is on the line, therefore, the second formulation of the Categorical Imperative applies. Although telling his fiancee what he did will cause her distress and heartache, it is his duty to treat her as an end and not as a means to an end. In other words, if CPOS were to lie he would not be withholding the truth to respect his partner’s ends, but rather as a means for the relationship to continue. He would be implying that his fiancee is not worthy of the truth, and stripping someone of their worth is far more harmful than freeing someone from a toxic relationship.

I do concur from a Utilitarian perspective that there is a high probability that the fiancee would be hurt, but Kant would affirm that no matter how much pain she would be in she is still a human being who deserves the truth and a fair chance at true love. The only way for his fiancee to receive those two things is for CPOS to openly confess to his wrongdoings. It is the fiancee's decision to do what she wants with the truth, but this outcome should not change the fact that CPOS needs to tell her what he did. If everyone were to base their decisions on the outcomes of their actions, people would act in an advantageous and self-benefiting way rather than what is right and moral.

We all have desires, might that be not to harm people, but we need to understand that they are inessential to the self. Rationality, on the other hand, is the only thing that is essential. Being rational means doing something out of duty regardless if you enjoy it or not, in order to uphold your moral worth. Going along with that, as human beings, we must respect our own and one another’s autonomy. Because an autonomous agent views himself as a rational figure, he/she must also consider other rational beings’ autonomy as well. People should be driven by doing the right thing, not by reaping the most benefits. Even if CPOS were to withhold the truth from his fiance to spare her feelings, he undermines her commitment to him and her ability to make her own choice to stay in the relationship or not. CPOS would be treating her in a way that diminishes her to having a mere instrumental value; therefore, the Utilitarian notion that one should withhold the truth if that truth would hurt someone else is false; humanity’s ends are not considered in Utilitarianism and it allows for external factors to influence decision-making. Instead, we suffer when we are being lied to because we are not able to go after our ends—we behave on the notion of false beliefs.

Decision-making should account for the first and second formulations of the Categorical Imperative, and disregard the aftereffects. I will offer another example to show that the consequences of actions hold no significance—it is the moral worth of the action that matters. What would happen if I pay back a debt to someone, who then uses the money to buy a gun and shoot an innocent person? From the Utilitarian view that consequences are a determinant of an action being right or wrong, I would be at fault for the murder. I had no way of predicting what would happen, and yet the crime would taint my virtue and righteousness. This is one instance where the theory is flawed and fails to show a proper rationale. My action of duty to pay back the debt should be the thing estimating my moral worth, which coincides with Kant’s reasoning. Now think back to the cheating example, the consequences of CPOS telling the truth should not matter. Granted that the truth is unpleasant, the action of telling his fiance about his infidelity still has moral value.

However, what both Kant and Utilitarians neglect to mention in their teachings is the importance of reflective thinking. What I mean by reflective thinking is contemplating a decision to the point of fully understanding our final choice. Understanding that we do something because it is our moral duty or because it evokes the most happiness is in my opinion not enough. We gain the most moral worth by basing our decisions on thoughtful knowledge, as it showcases our integrity and genuine character. I do agree that we must act in a way that fulfills our moral duty, nonetheless, we must consciously analyze our decision-making and establish meaning from the analyses. CPOS needs to tell the truth, but before doing so he also needs to contemplate the positives and negatives in confessing to his infidelity and understand that the positives far outweigh the negatives. CPOS did write that guilt is building up inside him from not being upfront with his fiancee and although this should not be the motivation behind telling his partner what he had done, CPOS should reflect on this sense of shame and interpret his experiences. This is a way for CPOS to ensure that the situation makes sense to him, rather than making a quick decision by siding with fixed principles. Kant regards moral conduct as the forefront of his philosophy, but morality and rationality are not synonymous. When we use our reason, we respect our and others’ autonomy. By having a clear rationale of why we do what we do, we set up expectations for our future selves and act with consideration.

I am going to ask you again, would you want to be stuck in a world where lying has become the new truth? No. No one would. No one should have to! You, me, the fiancee, and every other single person on this planet are worthy of the truth. Nevertheless, in the wise words of Lizzo, “Truth hurts.” Yes, the truth hurts and may temporarily crush our spirits, but with the truth, we can grow and live a life free of bullshit. Kant declares that it is our duty to mankind to be honest, and with the explanation of why CPOS should admit to his adultery we can see that Kant’s ideology is correct. Consequences are dubious, in that no one can predict what is going to happen and relying on them unmasks underlying intentions. We need to base our decisions on acting out of duty, as it creates a society of good will. Yet, before we do this we must reflect on the situation and create meaning. All in all, CPOS values his autonomy and that of his partner when he understands the full extent of the importance of truth-telling.