LNAT Sample Essay - Is Lying Ever Justified?

Like manipulation, lying is generally recognised by all to be an act associated with immorality, as it is bad faith to conceal and amend the truth in an interaction with another party. That said, I argue that lying can be justified in circumstances to get one out of imminent threat or danger, as well as when there is an external situation that can be avoided with lying; in which the Consequentialist school of thought justifies the act.

Firstly, lying is indeed justified when an individual is under serious threat or danger, governed by the principle of Consequentialism. In such situations, an act of lying is not only justified but necessary to ensure that lives are not being compromised. To ground this in an example - imagine a woman hiding inside her friend’s house to take cover from her abusive husband that wishes to murder her. When confronted and asked if the woman is hiding in the house, the friend ought to lie to protect the life of the woman and claim that she is not in fact in. The outcome of lying here exhibits its benefits and vitality, as it potentially saved a life, elucidating that it can be justified. However, critics that uphold a deontological moral reasoning will claim that whilst the outcome is ideal, this does not change the fundamental nature of lying being immoral. The process here outweighs that of the outcome, and hence lying is still unjustified. I would argue though that such a view is untenable, as lying is what we claim as ‘pro tanto wrong’, which means that when an intervening factor is such as saving a life is significant enough, the act of lying is not done out of bad faith and is not ‘immoral’ in itself. As such, the justification of lying still stands.

My second argument is that lying is indeed justified to avoid dire situations that might jeopardise a person’s life. In everyday situations and interactions, lying can indeed be justified if the outcome of doing so is guaranteed to prevent a calamity from happening. Say a teen’s parents wish to invest a large sum of capital into a risky investment stock that has poor fundamentals which might lead to financial distress to the family were the investment to fail. Society would recognise and agree that indeed, if the teen could lie and deter the parents from investing, this could be of utmost significance in the end. In such situations, I believe lying is again justified and can cumulatively prevent problems from engendering.

Critics arguing against the justification of lying posit that if done often, lying in society could plague our moral compass and result in a world that has many manipulative individuals. The ubiquity of lying that might come from justifying the act could ultimately blur the lines between right and wrong in society, which is undesirable. I strongly believe that this is why as a society, we can only allow lying in very specific instances such as those aforementioned, and must still stand firm to disapprove of white lies and lies that are purely done to manipulate others. As a result, our society’s moral compass is sustained and the justification of lying, when done precariously, will still have a net benefit to society. Therefore, i argue that justifying lying will not necessarily compromise on society’s values.

In all, I proffer that following the Consequentialist school of thought, lying is indeed justified in and only in circumstances whereby lives are in danger or threat, or to prevent adverse situations for individuals; as the benefit of such desirable outcomes outweighs the wrongfulness of lying.

#LNAT #Essay