Discussion Prompt:

For this forum, choose one of the following topics to respond to for your initial post. When you respond to your peers please respond, if possible, to a learner who has posted a contrary view on the topic you selected and then, at a minimum respond to at least one learner who has posted on the topic you did not select.

Topic A: Is Lying Wrong?

For Kant, following universalizable rules and respecting autonomy are paramount. As such, there were very few rules that qualified, truthfulness was one. Certainly, no one likes to be lied to. An absolute duty to truthfulness is also supported by Kants claim that we ought never to use persons merely as means to an end. Contrasted with consequentialist approaches, Kants theory may seem too rigid and inflexible a little, white lie never hurt anyone, right? But it also accords with folk notions like honesty is the best policy. With reference to the readings/videos (especially Kants Axe), analyze Kant’s argument against lying. What does Kant get right/wrong with regard to always telling the truth?

Topic B: Kantian Autonomy and Self-Determination

See the section on and review the shaded box called On the Morality of Suicide in Chapter 6 in the textbook.

Is there a contradiction in suggesting that personal autonomy is morally paramount, but just not in the case of choosing when and how to die? Does this dilemma extend to other matters of self-determination, like drug use, or other risky behaviors?

Please be sure to tie your responses directly to the material in the lesson, readings, and videos provided and cite them directly.

Peer Reply Guidance:

When replying to peers, focus on advancing the discussion by engaging thoughtfully with their ideas. Use examples from the readings or research to support your points and ask questions that encourage deeper thinking. If you disagree, explain why respectfully and consider how Kants ideas apply to real-world situations or other ethical issues.

This discussion aligns with the following:

• Course Objective:

Rubrics

• RAMP LD Discussion Rubric v.5

reply to:

• Daniel Wilkinson posted Mar 9, 2026 2:34 PM
• Happy Monday from Tennessee, hope everyone else’s weather this last weekend was better than here. It did however give me some time to get a jump start on this week’s topics.
• I actually did my project last week on the ethics of assisted suicide.
• For this week, I looked into the idea of Kantian autonomy and how it fits (or doesn’t fit) with assisted suicide. I can be a somewhat confusing topic because Kant talks a lot about how humans should be “ends in themselves” and not just tools for something else.
• In the Crash Course video it says that we have “absolute moral worth” because we are rational beings who can make our own choices. You would think that being autonomous means we get to choose everything about our own lives to include when and how it ends. But Kant would disagree, he says in the readings that if a person kills themselves, they are treating their own life like a “thing” instead of respecting their own dignity. He basically thinks you are using your own body as a means to stop pain, which violates his rules about never using people as tools. (Crash Course, 2016)
• I think there is a big contradiction, how can we be “morally paramount” and in charge of our own lives then be told we aren’t allowed to make the most personal decision there is? It feels as if Kant is giving us freedom and then taking it away.
• If we follow Kant, we are “slaves to our passions” if we do things that hurt our ability to think clearly. But if we are truly self-determined it feels like those should be our choices to make even if they are risky. (School of Life, 2015)
• -Dan
• References:
• “Kant & Categorical Imperatives: Crash Course Philosophy #35. “YouTube, uploaded by Crash Course, 14 Nov 2016. .
• “Philosophy: Immanual Kant.” YouTube, uploaded by The School of Life, 13 Nov 2015. .
• 1 Unread
• 1
• Unread
• 1 Replies
• 1
• Replies
• 3 Views
• 3
• Views
• View profile card for Frederick Kiser
• Last post yesterday at 4:57 PM by Frederick Kiser

Week 6 Topic A

• Contains unread posts
• Frederick Kiser posted Mar 10, 2026 4:34 PM
• Hello Class,
• For this weeks discussion I went with Topic A, and whether lying is acceptable or not. I do agree that honesty is often the best policy, but not all the time. The truth is, it really does depend on the scenario. Kants argument against lying is grounded in his belief that morality must be based on universal principles and respect for rational autonomy. Because a lie cannot be universal without contradiction, Kant concludes that lying is always morally impermissible. As Andrew Chapman explains, Kant sees lying as a violation of the Categorical Imperative because it manipulates another persons ability to make rational choices.
• However, Kants axe exposes the tension in Kants theory. In a BBC Radio 4 video I found, the narrator describes the classic case, a situation we have ALL been in: a murderer comes to your door asking for the location of an innocent person. Kant still insists that lying is wrong, even here. His reasoning is that moral worth depends on acting from duty, not on predicting consequences we cannot fully control. If you lie and the victim is harmed anyway, Kant argues you bear responsibility for the lie; if you tell the truth and the victim is harmed, the wrongdoing lies solely with the murderer. This is what I mean when I say that honesty works in most cases, but not all. If a lie would save the life of one person or multiple, then that should be permissible.
• Now, Kant is right to emphasize the importance of honesty for moral relationships. The School of Lifes overview of Kant highlights that truthfulness protects the rational agency of others and prevents us from using people merely as tools for our gain. Kant also grounds morality in intention so that this helps maintain a stable moral framework that does not shift based on convenience or personal preference. However, Kants absolutism becomes difficult to defend in extreme cases. In Kants Axe example here shows that rigid adherence to truthfulness can lead to morally troubling outcomes. I found Kranaks notes in which many argue that context matters, and that protective deception may be morally justified when it prevents serious harm. Kants refusal to consider consequences at all makes his theory feel disconnected from the realworld when it comes to moral decisionmaking, where protecting innocent life is usually the higher priority above most other things.
• Kant helps us in understanding why honesty matters, he emphasizes on universal principles and respect for autonomy and provides a strong foundation for moral reasoning. However, Kant’s Axe scenario reveals that an absolute prohibition on lying can lead to worse consequences and worse outcomes. While honesty should remain the default in most circumstances, there are some cases where protecting others outweighs the duty to tell the truth.
• BBC Radio 4. 2014. Kants Axe. YouTube. .
• Chapman, Andrew. 2014. Deontology: Kantian Ethics. 1000Word Philosophy. .
• Kranak, John. 2019. Kantian Deontology. Rebus Community. .
• The School of Life. 2015. PHILOSOPHY: Immanuel Kant. YouTube.