preservation of one’ s own life; and the killing of the aggressor … The one is intended, the other is not.”( John Paul II, 545). It is legitimate to insist on respect for another’ s life for the same justification: we are all God’ s creation.
Furthermore, while the act of insisting might constitute a blow, or in this case a lie, against the murderer, because the consequences are unintended, the individual cannot realistically be held responsible for wanting respect for their own or another’ s life. Because the individual is not setting out to deceive, but to protect, it is morally justifiable. This differs from Kant in the simple way that the overall morality of the action is predicated on the fact that the individual is protecting their own or another’ s life, which is a moral consequence, distinct from the Categorical Imperative. This concept of going against specific rules in particular situations contradicts Kant in spirit if not in letter. Yes, there is a universal set of decrees, but some of those rules can be broken by other rules. It is not a simple conundrum.
Additionally,“ The murderer and those who cooperate voluntarily in murder commit a sin that cries out to heaven to vengeance … The moral law prohibits exposing someone to mortal danger without grave reason, as well as refusing assistance to a person in grave danger.”( John Paul II, 547). Under no circumstances should one sin, says the Bible, but if one is weighing committing one of the gravest sins,“ that cries out to heaven to vengeance,” to a lie, a very minuscule sin, it is difficult to argue against lying, especially when it can save a person’ s life.
This notion is in total contradiction with Kant’ s idea of the Categorical Imperative. The primary focus is on the consequences of an action, along with its justification, rather than on whether the act is moral or immoral. Moreover, Kant explicitly argues against teleological thinking, stating that consequences do not justify the morality of actions.
42 | Travesía • revista estudiantil