Lying is ingrained in global culture. It has become almost fundamental in all societies and is present almost everywhere in the world. But paradoxically, she is also doomed. All major religions, legal statutes, and even community standards advise against telling lies. Philosophers as ancient as Immanuel Kant have pontificated on the ideology of lying; in its framework of intervention which was ethics or the emphasis placed on duty and morality, without emotion. His basic idea was that universalization dictates the ethics of an action (or inaction). But other great minds have spoken out against these ideas. John Stuart Mills oriented his philosophies around utilitarianism, the practice of achieving the greatest societal happiness, even to the dismay of the minority. Thus, within the window of these two parties, the lie must find a moral or immoral basis. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”? Get an original essay A lie can take many forms. Society courses exist in different ways. Little “white lies” that are almost unimportant and have no real consequences. Then other, more serious lies, lies that can tear families, even countries, apart. Sometimes it seems that a person's morality tells them to lie, that it is their duty to keep the peace, and that all reason is supposed to lie. As Immanuel Kant said of reason: “…Reason as a practical faculty…its true function must be to produce a will which is good, not for other ends, as a means, but good in self” (PP W2-3). So how can a person know, truly know and understand whether lying is wrong if their reason means that it is beneficial? Kant argues that reason is what makes us moral creatures; that being able to be emotionless and make logical choices helps us to be rational. It must be argued that there should be another way to determine whether a lie is moral or immoral than simply relying on reason. Because even though Kant says that reason must be good in itself and not a means, it is almost impossible for a sane human to completely remove themselves from any equation they might be involved in. But reason eliminates many types of lies. It could be argued here that Kant is saying that any lie that benefits you and you alone or simply causes harm to others is not moral. That lying to be cruel or to help yourself is not an ethical choice and should not even be a rational choice. This reason should oppose such untruths. While lies that are only beneficial to oneself qualify as unethical, the question of how to discern between other rational choices about when lying is right or wrong comes into play. Kant also has an answer to this question . Hypothetically, a person (A) helps another person (B) get home. In one storyline, the two are returning home from a party. A leads the way and is slightly lost, B asks if A is drunk. A lies and says no, it's a lie but they still arrive home safe and sound. Now, if this were to be universalized, with A driving home and lying about drinking, it would immediately become immoral, unethical, and dangerous for all parties. Kant states in his article "Foundations of the Metaphysics of Morals" that "I ask myself: would I really be happy if my maxim (getting out of a difficult situation by means of a false promise) was considered a universal law? (for myself and formyself) ? others)…” (Kant, 739). Kant emphasizes that he believes that the true basis of lying, and therefore the basis of morality, comes from the idea that an action must be respectful and capable of being universalized. That if this action is performed only once, it must be able to be performed in all possible circumstances of this event. If this cannot be done whenever possible, then it is not universally ethical and therefore not ethical in the first place. Kant would say that a lie is always bad. A person cannot lie because this maxim would be false in certain circumstances. Be as harmless as agreeing with someone when you don't; It would first have to be included in the context of the global lie. It therefore seems that Kant is generally opposed to all forms of lying. He would say that a lie that benefits only oneself as a means to an end is immoral, as is any lie that cannot be universalized. It therefore seems that no lie can be truly universalized. Because, really, how could a society prosper or even a community survive if all its customers know that everyone else is lying and that they themselves are lying? He would crumble into dust; because no group of people, no matter how large, can exist together if truth cannot exist within it. According to Kant's writings, lying would always be a mistake. But Kant could be wrong. Instead of universalization, just imagine that ninety-nine point nine percent of all people thrive on feeling ethically capable of lying. One percent may suffer, they may feel like they can't trust anyone or that no one can really trust them and hate this society with every fiber of their being, disagree with everything. But it's a small percentage. Overall, this is a happy society. This company is thriving, growing and doing well. People don't always lie, but they don't always have to tell the truth. A lie or lie can even help advance them as a people. A controversial lie throughout American history is that of President Lincoln's assassin, whether John Wilkes Booth was arrested before his death or not. The lie told to generations of this country is that he was cornered and killed in a barn. This made the country at the time feel safer and shut down, while now shutting down the nation as a whole. But historians and Booth's descendants believe he escaped and lived out his days. This is a lie that millions of people know, but one that harms living family history and the historians who study this era. But it helped and pacified the masses. Philosopher John Stuart Mills argued that “according to the greatest happiness principle…the end [consequence] of human action is necessarily the standard of morality” (PP W2-3). By this he means that if the greatest number of people are happy, if they are satisfied with this action, it is a moral action. This means that even if a group is disadvantaged or even harmed, it matters less because the majority matters more than the minority. By Mills' scope, it would appear to be lying. is sometimes moral, although it has a much broader scope than Kant's. A lie must benefit more people than it could potentially harm, otherwise it would be deemed immoral by Mills if a leader lied about why his country was going to war. , this would be terribly immoral as it would result in unnecessary loss of life. Yet if a leader lied to end a war, it would protect lives and result in more benefit than harm. , a lie should not?