Do you need this or any other assignment done for you from scratch?
We have qualified writers to help you.
We assure you a quality paper that is 100% free from plagiarism and AI.
You can choose either format of your choice ( Apa, Mla, Havard, Chicago, or any other)
NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.
NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.
Children grow up knowing that lying is wrong or evil in most societies. The implication is that they portray the truth as an objective moral norm that should never be compromised. However, when faced with a dilemma like lying to a kidnapper about the whereabouts of a child or pleading not guilty to a crime to avoid a twenty years jail term, then the absoluteness of truth is gauged. Are their circumstances when it is morally right to lie? Are there differences in vices such as lies, deception, and half-truths? These questions challenge the mind to conceive truth as relative and subject to reason. The other point of contention is whether virtues can be weighed or measured to determine their circumstantial relevance. In their respective essays, Mill and Gomez-Lobo present different perspectives on utilitarianism and natural law respectively. Although Mill and Gomez-Lobo provide solid arguments for their stance, sometimes presenting similar reasoning, the natural law upholds integrity without yielding to the selfish desire for pleasure at the expense of others.
Theories on the Basic Principles of Morality
The basic principle of utilitarianism is to choose whatever brings the ultimate pleasure. The principle of utility must be good at weighing conflicting utilities and determining the aspects in which one proponent the other (Mill 23). He further postulates that all past experiences provide sufficient resources for learning and understanding what will bring the ultimate joy. Noteworthy, the theory further asserts and cautions that the ultimate pursuit should be higher pleasures such as relationships, intellect, culture, and knowledge, and not the lower pleasures, which are sensual. There is no excuse for ignorance since man has gained all manner of prudence and morality as is fitting for decision-making. Mill concludes that the primary reason for morality is happiness, and they should use sense in determining the path that leads to happiness.
Conversely, Gomez-Lobo posits that there are eternal laws which are fundamental and source from all human rationality and natural law. The basic laws are truly self-evident and not just instrumental; they cannot be listed in a hierarchy or weighed. The basic goods, according to Gomez-Lobo, include life, family, work and play, friendship, the experience of beauty, integrity, and theoretical knowledge. Notably, Gomez-Lobos theory does not measure pleasure and minimizing pains as one of the goods that moral actions produce.
Perspectives on Moral Norms
The utilitarian perspective views lie as morally acceptable if they minimize harm or maximize benefits. Remarkably, he explains that it is expedient to monetarily lie to self or others to avoid getting an embarrassment (Mill 24). Despite this stance, Mill understands that lies kill trust and have the capacity to ruin the social wellness, virtue, civilization, and foundation of human happiness on a large scale. However, he gives a rationale that the harm to humans due to lies is justifiable in some circumstances, such withholding terrible news from a person who is dangerously ill or a malefactor (Mill 23). A person must weigh the implication of lying against telling the truth and decide on the advantageous side.
Comparatively, natural theories view lying as morally wrong because of its effect on values such as trust and friendship, which are part of the human good. The definition given for lying is an expression of words that contradicts the thoughts with an intent to deceive a person who has the right to know. Consequently, not lying to self or others is perceived as the basic moral norm as it preserves friendship (Gomez-Lobo 69). However, the philosopher cautions that much as people always want to hold on to their values, there are times when veracity can have negative implications. He calls for rationality in making distinctions between words such as deception and lies, equivocation and mental reservation, and half-truths, among others. Thus, the intrinsic reason for not saying the absolute truth is guided by consciousness for upholding the basic goods.
Opinion and Rationale for Best Theory
Noteworthy, the two theories emanate from different schools of thought. They bear some similarities in so far as the decision to lie is concerned. For instance, both theories postulate that there is a universal right, which can be determined by knowing the consequence of an Action. The utilitarian perspective assumes that people have experiences from time memorial that they can use to prudently decide what is right (Mill 23). Similarly, the natural law postulates that a fundamental moral order informs the conscious to understand what is right in a given circumstance. The implication is that if they found a Nazi looking for a Jew, they would withhold the full information.
The main problem with utilitarianism theory is that it has logical flaws when presented within a sorites paradox. For instance, since the ultimate goal is choosing the most pleasure, it could be acceptable to deceive and kill one organ donor and save a hundred patients. The morality of killing two or three people to save a hundred people will still be acceptable to the proponents of utilitarianism. The implication is that the theory fails to make a distinction between one dead donor and two or three. The only focus is on what alleviates the most pain and brings the most joy.
Conversely, when faced with a similar situation in which a doctor is asked to kill one person and save the rest, natural will have a different solution. Notably, good human tradition makes an unwillingness to easily give up important values (Gomez-Lobo 69). One of the fundamental virtue is the preservation of human life. The implication is that from this perspective, it will be impossible for the medic cannot lie and take an organ from one person to save the majority. The nature law seeks to create pleasure without compromising the fundamental virtues. Therefore, since there is no justification for deceiving to end the life of a person, the natural theory has no sorites paradox.
In conclusion, lying is a vice that goes against the moral norms of most societies. It breaks trust, misleads people, and strains relationships. However, the utilitarian theory posits that lies are morally permissible as long as they result in happiness and eradicate pain. It further claims that people know from experience what would cause more pleasure. Similarly, Gomez-Lobo theory of natural law has some tolerance to lies if it results in fundamental good. The theory uses some distinctions, such as lies and deceptions, to differentiate between what is acceptable and what continues upholding the values. However, the two schools of thought are distinct when the need to gain the most happiness contradicts the basic human good such as life. In other words, while those who hold to utilitarian perspective can kill a few people to save many such reasoning is unacceptable for natural law. Thus, the latter has a higher moral stance and is without logical flaws in reasoning and justification of dilemma.
Works Cited
Gomez-Lobo, Alfonso. Morality and the Human Goods. pp. 68-70
Mill, Struart, J. What Utilitarianism Is? pp. 22-23
Do you need this or any other assignment done for you from scratch?
We have qualified writers to help you.
We assure you a quality paper that is 100% free from plagiarism and AI.
You can choose either format of your choice ( Apa, Mla, Havard, Chicago, or any other)
NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.
NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.