Legality of Lying - Research Proposal Example

? The legality of lying Introduction It is apparent that there are few occasions in life when lying has been viewed as being acceptable in life. There are, however, some circumstances where lying is allowed, and this depends on the specific circumstance that will sanction the lying. Philosopher Emmanuel Kant as cited by Kunz (1998) is of the opinion that it is wrong to lie. To him, a lie, no matter what the case, dehumanizes that person. Thomas Aquinas (Wippel 2000) on the other hand, documented that not all lying is bad and that one is forgiven for telling either an officious lie, which is done to help the recipient or a jocose lie that is told between two friends having fun with each other. This is not always the case, and later in this discussion, it will come to light that not all lies are bad and not all lies are good either. Project overview In the efforts to find effective conclusions, the study will be guided by the objective of assessing the legality of lying. In order for the study, to achieve its objectives, a wide range of literatures will be consulted. This will include books, internet search, journals, and relevant researches. In this regard, a clear articulation of concepts related to lying and their legalities will be prioritised. This can be argued to be necessary because the law has been under siege for the allegations of it being selective in its application. For example, when a policemen lies before a court of law by a way of exaggerating the situation in order irritate the accused in bid to pressure him/her tell the truth, this kind of lying could be necessary in helping the court assess the truth. The study finds it necessary to utilise secondary data in its methodology because they will give a wide range of information, which will help understand the phenomena at hand. In the analysis of the data, grounded theory will be utilised in order to have a comprehensive analysis. The study will benefit various legal institutions and open up a wider view of how the issue lying is applicable in various legal concepts. Politicians Basing one’s argument on the sensitivity of their positions in society, the question then beckons; is it okay to lie? A politician is always under scrutiny from the public either directly or through intermediaries like the media on all actions that they take whether in their public or private lives. There are at times justifications where lying is acceptable. It is often in cases where politicians cannot really explain their actions, for example, in international affairs that they find solace in lying (Mearsheimer 2011). When British parliamentarians made claims to the exchequer for additional funds through making false claims, there was an uproar which saw them return the excess funds and apologize for having done so. This is a case where lies were made to benefit the politicians. Looking at this case study, the question that lingers on one’s mind is what are the benefits that accrue to lying? For example, a government can opt to exaggerate the situation at hand in order to obtain grants or monetary assistance from the international community. Nevertheless, some politicians have tendencies of using lies for their own personal gains. This can be viewed as a breach of law. On the other hand, although it can be claimed that some forms of lying can be recognised as being legal, it depends with the gravity of the consequences of that particular lying, and how the party involved can defend their actions legally. The severity of lying coming from a politician will mainly depend on the matter at hand. Every leader’s main goal in life is to ensure that the best interests of his country are upheld. If a leader finds it necessary to lie about a certain leader who oppresses people and that if those lies help remove the oppressor from power and that this will benefit the greater majority of citizens, in such a case, though unprofessional, the lie will be justified. On the other hand, if a leader lies to protect his/her personal interests example lying about the mileage that they used to get to their constituents in order to get more money, they will have broken the trust accorded to them and in such a case have to be sanctioned (Mearsheimer 2011). Doctors When the case is that of a doctor to his patient, there are a number of influencing factors that will in a sense guide the path that the doctor will take with the patient. One of these factors is the cost-benefit analysis (Veatch 1977). This simply means that the doctor will evaluate the pros and cons of telling a patient with a chronic ailment that they have only a few days to live. While this is clearly a moral dilemma, it must be looked at on the basis of how the patient will react to the information that they are about to die. For a person who is not timorous, this will lead to them having a fresh look at life, organize their affairs and see to it that their dependents are taken care of through a will or other appropriate means. When looking at this perspective, one would, therefore, not politely look to the doctor who lies to such a patient causing him/her to spend a lot of money on a futile pursuit (Veatch 1977). Conversely, if the patient is timorous, the doctor will be forgiven for telling the patient that he/she still has a fighting chance as this will allow the person to have a good frame of mind to take proper medication and, therefore, spend the remaining part of their lives well and, therefore, in a sense of saving them (Veatch 1977). The Hippocratic oath guides the doctor to use his decision to act to protect the interest of the patient and, thus if the doctor tells the lie to protect the patient, philosophers like Kant then will be proven wrong that it is not always good to lie. As indicated above, there is a clear boundary between when the decision to tell the truth and when to lie. If the information is or is not harmful, it would appear that the doctor has to tell the truth or ration the truth as he/she sees best. There is a lot that must be looked at to arrive at the final answer, which is this paper can not elucidate. What is apparent is that that decision is in the hands of the doctor. The doctor must not, however, rush to make decisions. Lying may appear to be the safe option to the doctor, but this may not be the best option to the patient (Robert 1977). Lawyers Question is, is it okay for a lawyer to lie? This is a concern on issues related to ethics and morality. Lawyers do not really need to personally involve themselves with the affairs of their clients (Markovits 2009). They do not have to confirm knowledge of the further details of their clients that are not open to the court. The issue of lying for a lawyer like a doctor is a sensitive one. On the one hand, he/she might know information that might help the opposing counsel’s case but defeat his/her side. The lawyer is bound by ethics to withhold that information under the attorney-client privilege. Breaking this would have repercussions for both the lawyer as well as the client by losing the case for the client, thus possible imprisonment and punishment or disbarment for the lawyer. On the other hand, a lawyer is expected to be forthright with the client as this will give the client a picture of what to expect. In the above example, there is therefore, a point when it is okay to lie and when it isn’t. It is not strictly speaking acceptable to lie but then there are boundaries that must not be crossed. Divulging information about one’s client is one thing that must not be crossed. Lying to the Queen/Crown Perjury is an offence. That must be understood. It is illegal to lie to the state officers. The court, for example, has laws that proscribe lying to a judge in court. It is also an offence to lie to the police officer who is seeking justice as this constitutes obstruction of justice. In this writer’s opinion, it is wrong to lie to the Queen. Conclusion Most professional bodies frown upon lies as this discredits them. This is, however, not the practice in many professions. An officer who tells a distraught parent that the police force is doing all within its power find their lost child while he/she knows that the child is not going to be found as the perpetrator has probably killed the child since this is not the first time he/she has kidnapped a child could be justified. As a consequence, this article finds that most people are forced by circumstances to lie especially when it is for the greater good. Bibliography: Kunz G., 1998. The Paradox of Power and Weakness: Levinas and an Alternative Paradigm for Psychology. New York: SUNY Press. Markovits D., 2009. A Modern Legal Ethics: Adversary Advocacy in a Democratic Age. New Jersey: Princeton University Press. Mearsheimer J. J., 2011. Why Leaders Lie: The Truth About Lying in International Politics. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Veatch R M., 1977. Case Studies in Medical Ethics. Massachusetts: Harvard University Press. Wippel J.F., 2000. The Metaphysical thought of Thomas Aquinas: From Finite Being to Uncreated Being. Washington DC: CUA Press. Read More