This preview shows pages 1–2. Sign up to view the full content.
This preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.View Full Document
Unformatted text preview: against lying”. Describing how a universal law would not be successful was the first argument. Rachels explained that if there was a universal law for lying, then no one would believe each other because you cannot know when the person is telling the truth or not. The second argument for lying is that no one is certain of the consequences of each action; therefore lying should not be chosen because the consequences cannot be chosen. I thought Rachels summary of Kant’s work was very well stated. The arguments were clear and well thought out. I thought they were strong because the arguments against a universal law for lying were convincing, and it demonstrates how there cannot be a universal law for lying because no one would ever know if the truth is being told, thus it is not a ideal universal law for society today....
View Full Document
This document was uploaded on 10/26/2011 for the course PHIL 164 at UMass (Amherst).
- Fall '07