Question

How could you paraphrase or rewrite this one

Kant's example of lying to the murderer at the door has been a cherished source of scorn for thinkers with little sympathy for Kant's philosophy and a source of deep puzzlement for those more favorably inclined. The problem is that Kant seems to say that it is always wrong to lie- even to a murderer asking for the whereabouts of his victim-and that if one does lie and despite one's good intentions the lie leads to the murderer's capture of the victim, then the liar is partially responsible for the killing of the victim. If this is correct, then Kant's account seems not only to require us to respect the murderer more than the victim, but also that somehow, we can be responsible for the consequences of another's wrongdoing. After World War Il our spontaneous, negative reaction to this apparently absurd line of argument is made even starker by replacing the murderer at the door with a Nazi officer looking for Jews hidden in people's homes.

Answer 1

The example of 'lying to the murderer at the door' given by Kant has been a source of extreme bewilderment for thinkers who support him and a treasured source of contempt for those who oppose his philosophy. The issue here is with Kant 's argument that it is always incorrect to lie, even when replying to a killer searching for his victim - and that despite lying on fair intentions, the lie directs to the capture and killing of the victim, then the liar is also part of the crime. If this statement is true, then obviously Kant's philosophy leads us not only to respect the predator more than the prey but also makes us accountable for another person's sins. Our spontaneous negative response to this philosophically absurd argument is quite obvious when we replace the killer with a Nazi officer searching for Jews hidden in other homes in the post World War II scenario.