Resolved: that there are moral absolutes.

I hope for a civil and fair debate. I will advocate that lying is moral, depending on the circumstances. To do this, we should first agree upon the definitions of some words. I will be using the Merriam Webster dictionary. Lie: an untrue or inaccurate statement that may or may not be believed true by the speaker Moral: of or relating to principles of right and wrong in behavior. Rebuttals "My arguments are Kantian, so my opponent should be quite familiar with Kant's moral theory. I put no restrictions on the opponent, but be forewarned that I have a doctorate in philosophy, and I have taught for 25 years. I'm only trying to say that I have a good deal of practice and experience in this area. " I hope you don't intend to appeal to authority. "If we accept that there are circumstances when lying is not wrong, we soon learn that we cannot believe anything anyone says to us. (Whenever someone says something, I wonder “is this a circumstance in which he thinks lying is not wrong? ")" I don't see any problem with not believe anyone says with 100% certainty. People don't have to believe in anyone 100% for society to function well. In fact, 100% certainty is a bit absurd, considering that people are unpredictable. Questioning whether someone would have a reason to lie is perfectly normal, and is certainly not amoral. It's a good idea to be skeptical of people's statements. "If we cannot believe anything anyone says to us, then no one can lie. Thus, the rule that allows lying makes lying impossible. The negative, “it is false that lying is not wrong,” or “lying is always wrong” is true. " People can lie, even if others don't believe them. For example, I could tell an officer I wasn't speeding, when I actually was. He doesn't believe the lie, since he used a radar gun to track my speed. It is still a lie nonetheless, even if he doesn't believe me. Another example is when a person believes someone will most likely tell the truth the him. If a teacher asks a straight-A student if he did his homework without cheating, the cheating student could lie and say he didn't. The teacher, knowing that the student usually does well in the class, will take his word on it, even though she has doesn't think it's 100% certain that the student did his homework without cheating. These two examples show how people can lie, even if the person being lied to is unconvinced, or convinced to a degree. Thus, lying is possible even if people don't believe in others with 100% certainty. Arguments I will now argue that lying can in fact by moral. There are many types of lies, which include : Bad Lie: lying to oneself. (like thinking one could do something that they couldn't) Barefaced Lie: one that is obviously a lie to those who are hearing it Big Lie: attempts to trick the victim into believing something major which will likely be contradicted by some information the victim already possesses, or by their common sense. (like my officer example) Contextual Lie: One can state part of the truth out of context, knowing that without complete information, it gives a false impression. Fabrication: when someone submits a statement as truth, without knowing for certain whether or not it actually is true. Honest Lie: verbal statements or actions that inaccurately describe history, background, and present situations. There is typically no intent to deceive and the individual is unaware that their information is false. Perjury: making verifiably false statements on a material matter under oath or affirmation in a court of law White lies: minor lies which could be considered to be harmless, or even beneficial, in the long term. White lies are also considered to be used for greater good. Emergency Lie: a strategic lie told when the truth may not be told because, for example, harm to a third party would result As you can see, there are various lies that one could say. It's easy to tell that some lies are more moral than other ones. For example, a minor lie is much better to make than perjury. Out of all of these lies, I believe the most moral would be the emergency lie. Here's a scenario: There is a terrorist who wishes to blow up a city. In order to do so, he must get the codes to a bomb in order to detonate it. A soldier, who knows these codes, will be able to endure the suffering if he does not tell the terrorist that he knows the codes. Since the terrorist would eventually give up, the city would be saved. If the soldier was honest, and said he knew the codes, the soldier knew he'd be tortured until he gave the codes, and in turn the city would be destroyed. Is it moral to lie in order to save millions of lives, with the only person not benefitted from this lie is the terrorist and his organization? I think the obvious answer is yes. The morality of action should depend on whether a greater good is made by that action. Since the action of saving a million lives outweighs the action of telling a person a lie, making that lie is a morally justifiable thing to do. I'll let you respond now.