Module 1: Lying We generally think of lying as negative, and lying is sometimes referred to as fraud or cheating and might lead to severe punishment. However, is it possible for lies to be justified? In module one, a lie in military and a lie in business were presented. In the military case ‘Operation Fortitude’, the Allies fooled the Nazis by creating fake invasion signals. In the business case, Harold provided fake documents to the bank to get a loan in order to pay salaries in his business. Are these two lies justified? In the following content, I would analyze the ‘Operation Fortitude’ and the fake document for loan from a utilitarian point of view and a deontological point of view. Then I would give my own opinion on whether I think it is ethical to lie in these two cases. From a Utilitarian point of view, an ethical action is an action that maximizes utility. In the example of three grandchildren taking care of their grandmother, despite the three children having different motives, it is considered ethical in a utilitarian point of view as long as the children show up and take care of the grandmother. Another example raised in class is whether to give a waiter tips in a restaurant that you will not likely visit in the future. In a utilitarian point of view, as long as the result is the waiter receiving the tips, which generates utility to him, no matter what the motives of giving the tip is, the customer is ethical. The deception of the Allies resulted in the success in the battle, and maximized the utility of the countries in the war (mainly the ones invaded) by shortening the battle and ending the German invasion. Thus, the ‘Operation Fortitude’ is justified. In the other case, if Harold ends up paying back the loan with interest and no one in his company misses a paycheck, his deception at the first place would make everyone better off. His actions will be considered ethical from a utilitarian aspect. However, if he fails to pay back the loan and the employee still miss pay checks, he might be in serious trouble because of his “unethical” action, which is in a utilitarian aspect, lowers everyone’s utility. In a Deontological point of view, reasons why decisions are made are more important than the results of the decisions and deontologists value human dignity. Referring to the example of three grandchildren taking care of their grandmother, a deontologist would argue that the reason behind why taking care is important to determine whether ethical or not. If the grandchild is taking care of grandma because of fear of bad outcomes of not doing so, then it is not ethical in the deontologist point of view. The child who takes care of grandma because of love might be justified as moral since loving grandma values her dignity, but it is still not the best reason for being ethical since this child might stop taking care of grandma when he doesn’t like grandma anymore. In Immanuel Kant’s point of view, grandma has to be taken care of not because she needs compassion or because you feel like doing so or because you are afraid of the results of not doing so but because grandma has the right to be taken care of. It is the grandchildren’s duty to take care of grandma. Thus, only the grandchild that feels the obligation to take care of grandma is considered ethical by Kant. Similarly, in the other example of whether to give the waiter tips, the deontologists would argue that it is actually the waiter’s right to receive the tip and you are just doing your duty in giving the tip. Merely being compassionate of the waiter’s low salary or being afraid of bad consequences is not ethical reasons of giving the tip. The reason of the deception of the Allies was because of wanting to win the war and save the allies from the Nazi invasion. From a deontological perspective, it is important to determine whether wanting to win the war is a moral reason. Nazi troops were notorious for their brutal crimes so in this case it seems moral to want to defeat them in a war. However, since wars often involve bad behaviors from both sides, wanting to win the war seems not always a justified reason for a deception from a deontological point of view. In the other case, Harold decision of creating fake documents seems to be illegal, but the reason behind the deception is to not miss payrolls and take good care of his employees. This is a moral reason and thus his deceptions would be justified in terms of deontologists no matter whether he turns out getting caught or not. In my opinion, I support the deontological point of view on determining whether the reasons are ethical instead of the results. To me, an ethical action needs to be accompanied by a good attitude and I agree with Kant that every person has a unique dignity that cannot be ignored even you are trying to do something that will benefit them. Whether a lie is ethical or not also depends on the reason of lying. If the cheating is justified by ethical reasons, and especially in situations where deception is accepted and expected, such as wars in the first scenario, I would definitely stand by the Allies. I would support Harold in the second scenario, because I view his reason of lying as ethical, yet I would not recommend him doing so because it is too risky and definitely illegal.