Your plan to set up your friend Carey with your acquaintance Emerson is finally coming together. Both individuals have heard all about each other and they’re eager to meet for dinner. You’ve just made them a reservation for Friday night, and you’re about to text Carey the details when an unsettling thought crosses your mind: Carey is always<i> </i>late. And not just by 5 minutes; we’re talking 20 or even 30 minutes late. Carey seems to view punctuality as an oppressive relic of an earlier era. But what if you told them dinner was at 6 instead of 6:30? That way, they would almost certainly arrive on time. You really want this relationship to work, so... should you lie? Take a moment to think: what you would do?
Vaš plan da spojite prijateljicu Carey i poznanika Emersona napokon uspijeva. Oboje su čuli puno jedno o drugome i žele se naći na večeri. Baš ste im rezervirali stol za petak navečer, i samo što niste Carey poslali detalje, kada se sjetite nečega uznemirujućeg: Carey uvijek kasni. I to ne samo 5 minuta; ponekad 20 ili čak 30 minuta. Čini se da Carey točnost smatra relikvijom iz davnih vremena. No, što ako im kažete da večera počinje u 6 umjesto u 6:30? Tako bi oni gotovo sigurno stigli na vrijeme. Zaista želite da ova veza uspije. Je li, dakle, u redu lagati? Razmislite na trenutak: Što biste Vi učinili?
Maybe you should lie! You think this new relationship could be great for Carey, and you don’t want them to ruin it before it’s even begun. Sure, Emerson may eventually learn about their chronic lateness. But if Carey shows up on time just this once, the relationship will at least have a chance to take root. Your lie would pave the way for a potentially happy relationship. And if taking an action will create a better outcome for everyone involved, that’s normally a pretty good reason to take it.
Možda biste trebali lagati! Smatrate da bi ta nova veza Carey dobro došla i ne želite da ju upropasti prije nego je uopće počela. Naravno, Emerson će kad-tad saznati za njeno kronično kašnjenje. Ali ako Carey samo ovaj put dođe na vrijeme, barem će imati priliku dobro započeti vezu. Vaša bi laž mogla omogućiti sretnu vezu. Ako nešto poduzeti znači bolji ishod za sve, obično je to dobar razlog za to učiniti.
But isn't it morally wrong to lie? The absolutist position on lying, associated with German philosopher Immanuel Kant, holds that lying is always immoral, regardless of the circumstances. In other words, there’s a moral rule which forbids lying, and that rule is absolute. You might think, though, that this stance overstates the moral importance of lying. Suppose a murderer were hunting Carey down. If the killer asked you about Carey’s whereabouts, it seems odd to say that you must tell the truth at the cost of your friend’s life. From this perspective, absolutism seems too rigid.
No, nije li moralno neispravno lagati? Apsolutistički stav o laganju, vezan uz njemačkog filozofa Immanuela Kanta, smatra da je laganje uvijek nemoralno, bez obzira na okolnosti. Drugim riječima, postoji moralno pravilo koje zabranjuje laganje i to je pravilo nedvojbeno. Ipak, možda mislite da ovaj stav pretjerano naglašava moralnu značajnost laganja. Recimo da Carey lovi ubojica. Da Vas ubojica pita gdje je Carey, bilo bi čudno da mu morate reći istinu i time žrtvovati svoju prijateljicu. Iz te perspektive, apsolutizam se čini prestrogim.
By contrast, utilitarian philosopher John Stuart Mill would say lying is wrong only when it leads to less happiness overall. Now, to be fair, most lies do seem likely to create unhappiness. Someone who accepts a lie believes something which is false, and trying to conduct your life on the basis of false information doesn’t usually go well. However, in some circumstances, perhaps including your situation, lying might produce more happiness overall. In those cases, utilitarians say it’s not morally wrong to lie. In fact, it might even be your moral duty to do so.
S druge strane, utilitaristički filozof John Stuart Mill smatra da je laganje neispravno samo ako dovodi do još više nesreće. Budimo iskreni, većina laži vjerojatno dovodi do nesreće. Netko tko prihvati laž vjeruje u nešto sto je netočno, a živjeti život na bazi netočnih informacija obično ne završi dobro. Međutim, u nekim slučajevima, možda čak i Vašem, laganje bi moglo dovesti do više sreće. U takvim slučajevima utilitaristi kažu da nije moralno neispravno lagati. Zapravo, to bi mogla biti Vaša moralna dužnost.
But if absolutism seems too extreme, you might feel this stance is too lax. In other words, perhaps the utilitarian position understates the moral significance of lying. Most people generally feel some regret about lying, even when they believe it’s the right thing to do. This suggests there’s something inherently objectionable about lying— even when it leads to more happiness. In this case, lying to Carey would be an instance of Paternalism. Paternalism is interfering with another person’s choices for that person's benefit. This might be fine if that person is a literal child. But it seems disrespectful to treat a peer paternalistically. Lying to Carey would mean taking away their opportunity to handle the situation as they see fit, based on their own beliefs and values. Trying to protect Carey from what you consider to be a bad choice would show a lack of respect for their autonomy. By extension, it might also be disrespectful towards Emerson, since you would be deliberately trying to give him a false impression of Carey’s punctuality.
Ali ako je apsolutizam prestrog, možda mislite da je ovaj stav preopušten. Drugim riječima, utilitaristički stav možda ostavlja moralni značaj laganja nedorečenim. Većina ljudi osjeća krivnju kada lažu, čak i kada vjeruju da su učinili ispravnu stvar. To dovodi do zaključka da u laganju postoji nešto po sebi nepoželjno- čak i kada dovodi do više sreće. U ovom slučaju, laganje Carey bi bilo primjer paternalizma. Paternalizam označava miješanje u tuđe izbore u korist te osobe. To je možda u redu ako je ta osoba dijete. Ali se čini ponižavajuće tako se ponašati prema svome vršnjaku. Laganje Carey bi značilo oduzeti joj priliku da riješi situaciju kako želi, temeljeno na vlastitim uvjerenjima i vrijednostima. Nastojati zaštititi Carey od onoga što smatrate lošim izborom bi dokazalo manjak poštovanja prema njenoj samostalnosti. Nadalje, to bi moglo biti ponižavajuće i za Emersona, jer biste mu namjerno davali lažan dojam Careyne točnosti.
So how do you weigh potential happiness against guaranteed disrespect? Followers of Kant would say treating others with respect is the heart of moral conduct, while followers of Mill would say nothing is more important than happiness. But other philosophers believe that such conflicts can only be resolved on a case-by-case basis, depending on various details and on the individuals involved. So what will you do in Carey’s case?
Dakle, kako procijeniti između moguće sreće i zajamčenog omalovažavanja. Sljedbenici Kanta bi rekli da je poštovanje u središtu moralnog ponašanja, dok bi Millovi sljedbenici rekli da ništa nije važnije od sreće. No, drugi filozofi smatraju da se takvi sukobi mogu razriješiti na pojedinačnoj bazi, ovisno o raznim detaljima i pojedincima na koje se to odnosi. Što biste Vi učinili u Careynu slučaju?