Kant on lies, candour and reticence

Kantian Review 7:102-133 (2003)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

Like several prominent moral philosophers before him, such as St Augustine and St Thomas Aquinas, Kant held that it is never morally permissible to tell a lie. Although a great deal has been written on why and how he argued for this conclusion, comparatively little has been written on what, precisely, Kant considered a lie to be, and on how he differentiated between being truthful and being candid, between telling a lie and being reticent, and between telling a lie and other forms of linguistic deception. That is to say, very little has been written on the scope of Kant's prohibition against lying. In this article I will argue that the scope of the prohibition against lying is narrower than it is commonly supposed to be

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 91,202

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Analytics

Added to PP
2009-01-28

Downloads
234 (#82,240)

6 months
27 (#104,509)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

James Mahon
Lehman College (CUNY)

References found in this work

The intent to deceive.Roderick M. Chisholm & Thomas D. Feehan - 1977 - Journal of Philosophy 74 (3):143-159.
The right to lie: Kant on dealing with evil.Christine M. Korsgaard - 1986 - Philosophy and Public Affairs 15 (4):325-349.
The Faintest Passion.Harry Frankfurt - 1992 - Proceedings and Addresses of the American Philosophical Association 66 (3):5-16.
Right and wrong.Charles Fried - 1978 - Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.

View all 38 references / Add more references