"Concequentailists will lie to save a persons life. But then they are treating those to whom they lie as a mere means to the end of saving others. So their actions cannot be justified" "Concequentailists will lie to save a persons life. But then they are treating those to whom they lie as a mere means to the end of saving others. So their actions cannot be justified" This statement evidently states a contradiction in ethics. A consequentaialist duty is to bring about the best overall state of affairs judged from an impartial perspective. From an impartial perspective, what reason these people are being hunted down is considered to be irrelevant. Yet to bring the best happiness, this reason becomes very relevant. From a Kantian perspective, the "˜situation' in which this person has got himself into is a rational basis to decide on ones life, such ...view middle of the document...
Yet is it valid for this individual to use you as a mean to an end of the person you are hiding? Is it their duty to make ones end your judgment? This may turn into a redundant circle of who it treating who as means and as an end. It is conclusive to say that using someone as a mere means to save another's life brings about a greater happiness than to be used as an end to the ones life in which you are protecting. Accordingly if one is to lie to another in order to save one from death it is valid to use another as a mere means to saving another's end.Any rational being exists as an end in himself, not merely as a means to be arbitrarily used by this or that will, but in all his reactions, weather they concern himself or other rational beings, must be always regarded at the same time as an end. I wish to agree that depending on the circumstances that person you are lying for, is being looked for, should influence you decision to give them up or not. In the case of a murder, one should give them up as a greater decision for that society. You have to ask yourself if you feel safe in a community who shelters criminals from justice? Contrary to when the Jews were being discriminated for their religion and eye color; this is an acceptable reason to lie in order to save a life. Why, because in this case you are lying to save an innocent life. It can be argued, it is not your decision to decide who is innocent and who is guilty. Yet as Kant supports, in obvious circumstances it is suitable to make a judgmental decision. Rationalizing it is justified to lie for and innocent person.Lying to someone to preserve another's life is justified by a consequentialist, yet using someone, as a means to the end of saving others is not. In regards to deontology it is more just to use someone as a means than opposed to an end. Therefor from an ethical point of view it is safe to say that; it is just to lie to someone to save an innocent person even-though you are using another person as a mere means because a means is more "˜just' that an end.
