Skip to content
Carmelics
TopicsThinkersChangesContributorsLoading account…

    Carmelics

    A reasoning platform. Break down any belief into clear reasons, explore both sides, and weigh the evidence honestly.

    Navigate

    • Topics
    • Search
    • Recent Changes
    • Contribute
    • How It Works
    • Glossary
    • Thinkers
    • Contributors
    • About
    • Statistics
    • Terms
    • Privacy

    Database

    Statements
    —
    Perspectives
    —
    Topics
    —

    Press ? for keyboard shortcuts

    LoyalLoyalJusticeJustice
    Made withinDC&Austin
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    It is irrational to make a lying promise to obtain needed... — Carmelics
    Home/Moral Responsibility
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    It is irrational to make a lying promise to obtain needed money.

    ConsequentialismMoral Responsibility
    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.
    1 reason for
    2 reasons against

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.It is irrational to perform an action if that action's maxim contradicts itself once made into a universal law of nature.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.The maxim 'I will make lying promises when it achieves something I want' generates a contradiction when universalized as a law of nature that all rational agents must lie when doing so gets them what they want.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.The rationality of an action is determined by its consequences for welfare, not by the logical universalizability of its maxim.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.A lying promise that prevents serious harm produces better outcomes than strict adherence to truth-telling, making it the rational choice.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Kant's universalizability test mistakes a logical contradiction in conception for a genuine practical irrationality, conflating two distinct normative domains.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.The contradiction Kant identifies depends on an already-existing social practice of promise-keeping, making the argument circular rather than a priori.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If no general practice of promise-keeping existed, universalizing lying promises would not self-destruct but would instead produce a world without promises altogether, which is not logically incoherent.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Sign in or register to share your perspective on this statement.

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Strongest counterpoint
    Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.

    Topics

    Moral ResponsibilityConsequentialism

    Connections

    1 topic

    Philosophy of Language1 linked

    Related

    A lying promise that prevents serious harm produces better outcomes than strict ...If no general practice of promise-keeping existed, universalizing lying promises...It is irrational to perform an action if that action's maxim contradicts itself ...Kant's universalizability test mistakes a logical contradiction in conception fo...
    +3 moreShow less
    The contradiction Kant identifies depends on an already-existing social practice...The maxim 'I will make lying promises when it achieves something I want' generat...The rationality of an action is determined by its consequences for welfare, not ...

    Similar

    It is forbidden to act on the maxim of making a deceptive promise to g...82%One ought not escape a difficulty by making a lying promise.82%Breaking a promise is tantamount to deceiving those to whom the promis...79%The maxim 'I will make lying promises when it achieves something I wan...76%

    Source

    AI-extracted1/3 agreementValid
    SEP: kant-moral
    View source passageHide passage
    Kant’s example of a perfect duty to others concerns a promise you might consider making but have no intention of keeping in order to get needed money. Naturally, being rational requires not contradicting oneself, but there is no self-contradiction in the maxim “I will make lying promises when it achieves something I want.” An immoral action clearly does not involve a self-contradiction in this sense (as would the maxim of finding a married bachelor). Kant’s position is that it is irrational to p
    Extraction notes

    Validity: Extracted via Max plan + API grounding/validity checks

    Details

    Type
    claim
    Perspectives
    3 (1 for, 2 against)
    Edits
    1 edit