So, I posed this question before, but I want to say it again.
So, here’s a situation. You promise not to tell anyone something, then someone askes you a question relating to that something.
Is it better to lie to that person to keep the promise, or better to lie to the one you made a promise to as not to lie to the person asking?
So, basically, which is worse, lying to keep a promise, or breaking a promise so as not to lie?
It could be either. It depends on what you value. You’re assuming here that lying is inherently bad, which could be argued in and of itself.
Exactly, so what do you think?
I want to know what you all think in ilp land.
I would say that it would be better to keep your promise. Most likely you wont end up neccessarily “lying”, more or less withholding information, or withholding the “truth”. This way your not breaking a promise.
I would rather be thought of as trustworthy. NO one is going to be mad at you if you were told not to speak of it. You made a deal. They will understand.
The answer to this question depends on wether or not you assign morality to truth. Some people think any dishonesty is immoral, but in modern society most people lie to some extent.
When confronted with situations like this in my life I try to measure the benefit in telling someone the truth versus any potential pain it may cause them , and of course how much hassle the situation will bring to me as well 
Generally if being honest seems like it would do more harm then good I opt to stay silent
Obviously, do whatever will be more beneficial.
False Dilemma!
QFT. You could tell the second person that you promised the first person that you’d not say anything. You don’t have to lie at all.
We discussed this alot in class.
It depends what it’s about, I’d say. Let’s say a friend swore you to secrecy about a crime he committed. Then you get subpoenaed and forced to testify.
Is it right to keep the secret or tell the truth?
Kant, the action-oriented ethicist, would say tell the truth. It agrees with the categorical imperative, behave as you would want everyone to behave in that situation. Would you want everyone to lie in court, and all criminals to get away with it? I know I wouldn’t.
Utilitarian would say tell the truth. It benefits society to get a crook off the street. Greatest amount of good for the greatest number of people.
Neitzsche would, I think, tell the truth. He’s all about survival right? Well if you get caught for lying in court, thats a sentance for you. And your buddy who you snitched on is going to jail so you don’t have to worry about what he thinks of you.
So all in all, I’d say you tell the truth, in THIS case.
And NOT because you swore on a stack of bibles in court and are afraid to go to hell 
Don’t promise to keep a secret if you hate lying.
You could flee the country.
Kant’s ethics weren’t action orientated, from my understanding. They were ‘motive’ orientated.
Nonetheless, it’s your assumption that others feel the same way.
Depends if the net benefit of removing the criminal is greater than the net cost of imprisoning them.
No.
Unless you subsequently commit a crime and end up in the same jail.
I think that most people’s motivation has more to do with some speculative notion of a God or other deontological means of determining right and wrong. I don’t know this for a fact, but it’s what they say. ‘That’s just wrong’…
What’s the difference? By action-oriented, I mean the decision about right and wrong is based on the action not the outcome. Do they yield different results?
Yeah, that’s why I said, “I’d say” tell the truth.
Good point. That brings up the whole issue about the judicial/correctional system in North America. I don’t know too too much about that.
Come on, you’re speculating. The smart thing to do, at that point, if we are still being ethical, would obviously be not commit a crime.
World of difference between motive and outcome when it comes to ethics.
The difference between lightening and a lightening bug.
As for the OP, I would say that a gentleman is only as good as his word. However, a lot of it has to do with social entanglements and degrees of association. How much is my word worth to the person I gave it to verses how much is my word worth to the other.
It is an judgment call and depends on more variables than given in the OP.
Confucius repeatedly stressed that a gentleman oughn’t give his word lightly, and I think that this question deals with a violation of that precept. Which is why a judgment call is necessary, since it is damage control.
Hey, I said what’s the difference between action-oriented and motive-oriented, not whats the difference between motive-oriented and outcome-oriented.
And besides, Kant seems more “action” oriented than “motive” oriented, the more I think about it.
Your motive is just what motivates you. It could be utilitarian motive or whatever. Action means the ACTION is RIGHT or WRONG.
Lying is wrong, in all cases. It’s a wrong action.
The classic counter to that statement:
You are living in Nazi Germany with a family of Jews in your attic. Some SS troopers stop by and kindly ask whether you know where any Jews are.
You’d be pretty hard-pressed to argue that not-lying is the more moral action there.
I know I would. I would definitely lie.
I’m just saying, Kant would, if he had the guts/balls/gall/discipline, according to his own writings, tell the truth.
Who cares what Kant would do. He’s all poop.
Aquinas would saying lying is still an evil but that it is quite alright if you simply omit certain truths, such as the whereabouts of the Jews hiding in your addict.
I actually like this idea. Makes things simple.
I dont think lying is neccessary always bad. Its ok as long as your cause is justified. example…You have a child and one day he askes you if youv ever tried say “Cocain” and you have. Would it be wrong to tell your son you hav’nt when you have. I dont see why its neccessary he knows. And if he knows you did it then its ok for him to. Or if you pregnant wife askes if she still looks sexy , there is nothing wrong with a “white lie”.
Secrecy is based in fear and separation so a promise made to keep a secret has to be somewhat invalid to begin with. Telling the truth and breaking the promise would then be an undoing of the invalid knot that was tied to begin with. It’s not lying to the person you made the promise to in the same sense that it would be lying to the person who asked the question. You didn’t know when you made the promise that you wouldn’t necessarily keep it. Or if you do, then don’t make the promise to begin with.