Criticism About ‘The Good Lie’ And Its Function In People

Criticism about ‘The Good Lie’ and its function in people

The freedom of action that characterizes man leads to constant decision making. However, these actions are apart from their way of thinking, beliefs, values and principles, so that it achieves good and their degree of dissatisfaction is reduced. Aristotle said in Ethics to NicómacBut is that end of realization as a person?. To perform as a person is not only related to the end, but also to the way to get to that end, it is precisely just as his ethics come out.

Ethics lies in the correct (good) way of acting, because man can bow to incorrect ways to achieve a good. This infers that although man looks for good, he does not necessarily act well;For example, achieving friendship is a good, but if it is achieved by acting falsely, reaching good would not contribute to realization as a person. However, there are some seemingly bad actions that can lead us to achieve good and self-realize;For example, in the film "The Schindler list", Schindler buys Jews to save their lives, and at the same time betray the ideologies of the nation of him. Are the bad actions of him justify to save the Jews?. The same happens in the movie "The Good Lie".

In The Good Lie, the same thing happens in Schindler’s list, it lies selflessly to save the life of a loved one, both Theo lies to the soldiers and Mammer lies to Sudanese migration. These people develop in the film as faithful to their values and principles, however, they come to lie and fall into an ethically incorrect action;However, it is an ethically justifiable action.

With this, there is no reference to a situational ethic, which can fall into relativism;but in an ethic of duty, in fact, some philosophers postulate that social ethics must be priority to individual ethics. For example, both Theo and Mammer were bosses when falling into lies, and their ethical codes such as bosses and their duty to protect their brothers put the family as the main value at the costs of falling into dishonesty. Therefore the actions of both are justified if they are seen from that point of view, very close to deontological ethics.

From other ethical perspectives, the lie can also be justified, since it works as a means to achieve a supreme good, to protect. From the utilitarian perspective, the lie made by Theo at the beginning of the film is ethically good, because he sacrifices himself to save the lives of his brothers and friends, so it is more useful to sacrifice a life to save five. Finally, we can see it from a voluntary angle, which says that every action that is done with good will is good without restriction, clearly the will of Theo and Mammer is saving lives, and such is a good intention.

However, taking justifiable actions can become a custom and that is where a habit of performing non -ethical actions is adopted, and this could cause a dilemma between principles and actions;This inconsistency is precisely thinking-to be the one that Socrates was anticipated, who preferred to die rather than commit an action against its principle. Another refutation that could arise from the "good lies" is Kant’s application, which says that we cannot know the real consequences of an action, so lying does not guarantee the real consequences that this lie can cause.

But, another way of seeing this action is through the lesser evil, which is the greatest possible good, this doctrine says that when there are only two alternatives that lead to negative effects (none has ideal conditions) it is ethically valid to choose the one that mostPositive results produce, in this case Mammer decided to lie so that Theo Journey to the United States and healing rheumatic fever. Therefore, even if it is impossible to know the real consequences of each situation, making use of reason, man can anticipate and weigh the probabilities that one or the other pass, in order to approach the real consequences and this leads to a supreme goodor a common good. In addition, if we use Kant’s golden rule "treat others as you would want to treat you", and who would not like life to save him?.

Being a person consists in realization and self-determination, participating in a good delivering everything of himself. As happened with Theo and Mammer, it has happened on numerous occasions, some of them documented in books and others that we have even had to live. But such conflicts between moral laws are even exposed in the Bible, where the dignity of life is put in the first place;When someone lies to save human lives, it violates a minor absolute (being honest) to keep one greater (respect human life), but if it were the opposite, it violates an absolute for their own benefit, we are not only being dishonest but also selfish;what obviously does not make us people.