1

In this question what is judging when and where we ought to tell the truth? Is it utilitarianism? If so how can it tell us to lie when it is telling us to be honest, at the same time? So to avoid that paradox, lets assume that what is dictating our truth-telling is either, A) the Kantian perspective of being obligated to always tell the truth, or B) the realistic world where morality is varied and subjective, but there are norms and generalities. If truth is our obligation then we can answer no to the question, but if it comes to the real world where we know that we will lie, then one can answer yes. A) It is very hard to judge situations where one is so uncertain in what to do, such as addressing

what others actually desire and what will feel right to others. We live in a world of variation, our evolution has created many different types of humans, we are all technically different and not equal in every aspect. There are taller, more athletic people, there are introverts with autism, and there are people discovering secrets of the universe. Even though we all can be said to have quite similar anatomy and social structure, internally we are all unique and separate, to the extent that no one will ever know or feel your thoughts and inner workings exactly as you do. One can never know what is actually within the consciousness of another, so rationally we shouldnt be so quick to judge what others want; we can never know. We can come to know a person more so to understand what would make them happy, but any stranger or person that isnt so known to us, we cant positively know what would make them happy. Since we cant know what another actually wants, we should not do things that have a fair possibility of giving them displeasure. That includes lying to them. One example people use a lot to support lying as increasing happiness or being good is the simple lie of telling someone they look good or did a good job in order to boost their self-esteem. I dont feel this is necessarily good to do because, I personally dislike when I am lied to, and I know I am not the only one. I dont mind looking bad or doing badly, it is part of life and one should be able to accept their failures or lesser parts of themselves. I am no genius or amazing artist so if something I do in those regards isnt the greatest, then that is fine. I dont need to be lied to for a self-esteem boost. One should either tell the truth or not answer/be neutral, in the face of such opposing feelings and opinions. This shows how varied humans actually are. When confronted with this predicament, it may

not always be best to be neutral, but telling the truth has some merit always. Just as Kant felt that truth is universally good because we are rational beings, our universal happiness as these beings is driven by how advanced we are in knowledge, science, evolution, and culture. Correct information, facts, and truth only allow the development of those to increase. If I do something stupid or mediocre I want to know. I want to know in order to better myself, and if telling me is so bad that I will feel bad, then it is so bad that I should fix it and improve upon it. Otherwise I want to improve on it anyways, because bettering myself in all aspects that I feel I should better is the only way for me to reach my highest potential for happiness. Utilitarianism includes all people, especially oneself, since ones happiness betters their ability to make others happier. Being healthier, accepting myself, understanding myself, and learning about the world only allow me to become a better me. This will only allow for one to be happier in a technical sense, as their body and minds are much better prepared for all that inhibits happiness. Truth should only help one to obtain a better life as the truth can always be useful. Also, it is not like when telling the truth one has to be blunt and mean or not give it in a kindly and calm manner. If the truth is given properly the one receiving it can easily come to terms with it, and if the truth is so bad that they cannot, then it is probably severe enough to need correcting. Being neutral and saying things such as, I dont know, or maybe, or anything like that can be not so good in certain cases. Sometimes it is fine, when what it concerns isnt very serious, but at other times it can be dangerous to not tell the truth, such as not saying where a serial killer is if you know. What is common in utilitarian thought is if you can prevent something bad from happening it is your responsibility to do so; for example Peter Singers view on having to help people in foreign countries that are starving, if one wants to be morally good. One should not be neutral if they can help with telling the truth. However, there are many cases in which one can be neutral and it will be completely fine, like expressing your desires (if someone asks which you prefer and you say you dont care or something along those lines). When truth is essentially good, we have no need to lie, we can increase happiness more with being neutral or telling the truth.

B)

On the other hand, when it comes to the outcomes in the observed world, we usually use lying

frequently and understand its usefulness. Especially when lying comes to values, and changing them artificially, it is possible to only better happiness. An example is the small lies we make with the monetary values of student loans and taxes, just to keep a little extra for ourselves. The amount each individual gets on an exponential scale is more than if the government had it pooled because it gets such divided use (you can fill a jar more with sand than with marbles). Doing this may only better the individuals life, having such a miniscule effect on the gigantic sum of government funds and spendings. When the truth is insignificant, and the lie allows for an increase in a good value of some sort, such as ones overall money, then lying can be an actual good thing. Another example is if I cheat to get a higher test score or assignment score in school. The reality is that the education system isnt perfectly suited for every individual, as it is established humans are all different, so a graded performance or work of mine may not accurately represent my abilities. There is a lot of ambiguity and variation with how people learn and present their abilities, so there are many cases where education doesnt represent those properly. There are also many situational errors that can arise and make someone appear less than they are, such as sickness or injury or technical issues with online submission. However, if my mark is raised then I can only better my own life, and in the bettering of my life I will automatically better others. If someone cheats to get better grades and that enables them to do harm to humanity somehow, then that is not a good thing, but many people, including myself, will only help their society by having more opportunities. In my case the lie allows me to have a happier life and the misinformation of my grade really doesnt inhibit anybody, it merely allows for me to be accepted into higher areas in life that I may not be able to reach due to circumstance, prejudice and/or the education system not suiting every person correctly. Since there are at least those situations in which happiness is only increased by lying, then it is possible to be a utilitarian and lie in a situation that most would probably say we shouldnt lie. Even though some will always be on the side that lying and cheating are automatically bad, that doesnt make it actually so; the majority isnt always right as can be seen with how our ancestors dealt with racism and how even now we deal with feminism. The majority should never be seen as automatically

being correct, this is usually accepted as a good thing. Why should morals be any different? When it comes down to it, lying and cheating may not harm anybody at times, so even though they are deemed as morally wrong automatically (and one illegal), it doesnt mean they are actually bad. There are societies with moral codes that tell them to murder others and to subjugate women. Our society was like that at one point. As people with a much higher understanding of what is logically right and wrong, we should understand that something isnt wrong just because it is said to be, or because it is made illegal. If I lie and no other individuals happiness is harmed, and only mine is increased, then why would it be bad? Lying can increase my money or grades but all the lie does is change a very small number on a very large database of even more numbers. It doesnt actually harm anybody or take away something from them. Even though this view of utilitarianism is different from others, it still meets the general lines of wanting to better the happiness of everyone, counting myself. Since there are many situations where lying cannot really involve a person being lied to and that can make one happier, then we can logically and safely lie in those certain situations where no one is harmed. Some might think that since cheating is illegal, we shouldnt do it at all. As a person in society working towards its betterment and happiness, I should not risk doing something illegal as it obstructs the social order, misrepresents myself and in the end makes me a person in society that cant perfectly help it, since I am willing to lie to it. They may feel that I should devote my efforts to helping others as much as I can, like Peter Singer, and not myself, because ideally if everyone did this then I would end up being helped too and everyone would be happy. So cheating will of course be seen as bad by many, but if one understands that society is not a person and does not have an amount of happiness that I am taking away from it when I lie to it, then they can see that it is not always a bad thing. My grades increasing from 76 to 82 wont change how people view me, hurt society, or make something bad happen to someone else based on a change in statistics. Any effect of my grade increasing by 6 points on a test out of hundreds to thousands of other tests would be very insignificant and could hardly be said to realistically affect anyone very negatively. What would most likely remain would be me being happier, which would just add to the overall happiness of the world. With more happiness and a better life, the people that are affected by me will have better lives as well. It may be hard to let go of the

moral prejudices of not lying and cheating, but when looked at what is objective it is clear that there is nothing wrong with it under specific circumstances. However, this should not be looked at universally. Utilitarianism takes any given circumstance and asks one to maximize happiness. Just because cheating in some cases can produce only good results there are many cases in which cheating is detrimental to happiness. People, I have noticed, may instantly use the argument of what if everyone lied/cheated? This is a hypothetical world that I assume most people would not actually believe to be the case if they lie or cheat in any given situation. People lie daily, and for good reasons at times, such as to help a friend out of trouble that they dont deserve to be in, and doing this will not make it so everyone only tells lies. I can also cheat on an assignment for a friend and do it for them, because maybe they just couldnt reach their computer, but they knew how to do the work. Additionally, if everyone in the world cheated/lied in all situations, utilitarianism would tell us that cant be the case, since it would most likely be bad for our happiness. If everyone lied and cheated in situations where the only result is happiness, then that wouldnt be such a bad world, and would be really slightly similar to our own. We all lie, it is hard to live in society otherwise, and part of the way we interact is from deceit. We tell each other that we look nice and we congratulate each other all the time. We say we feel fine to get on with the day and not place our burdens onto other people. Lying is an essential part of society and living happily, there is no way to put a universal on not lying and expect to have maximum happiness at the same time.