In this paper, I will evaluate Christine M. Korsgaard’s position about lying to the murderer at the door. I will also discuss the two problems that arise when discussing her reasoning, neither of which come from any propositions central to Kant’s argument. Then, I will argue that though these problems may be objected by Korsgaard, she is ultimately incapable of creating neither a persuasive argument nor defense.
I will begin by introducing several crucial terms that will aid in the understanding of these arguments. First, the Categorical Imperative may best be defined by its first formulation or the Formula of Universal Law: to act only in accordance to a maxim so that you should will it to become universal law1. Secondly, the second form or Formula of Humanity: acting so that you should treat humanity (as a whole) as an end and never a means2. The next term, maxim, will be referred to as a set of principles that simply govern our actions. Lastly, Kantian …show more content…
This is crucial to Korsgaard’s argument as she is now able to use Non-Ideal Theory in order to explain how the murderer at the door acts against unjustly, creating a Non-Ideal situation, that justifies lying to him about the location. To clarify Kant’s suggestion of Ideal-Theory, he argues that it would disrespectful to act unjustly to those in a society where everyone is found to be good-willed. However in this case, the murderer’s non-ideal conditions leave him morally unprotected and that justifies the need for this lying maxim to be universalized.
While attempting to argue in defense of key aspects of his argument, Korsgaard leaves the broad majority of his argument still unaccounted for. She makes a myriad of compelling claims, yet I maintain that she fails to make a persuasive argument against lying to the murderer at the door. When evaluating these claims, we find that her argument spawns two problems that she will have to object