On A Supposed Right To Lie From Philanthropy And Kantian Ethics

In On a supposed right to lie from philanthropy(On lying),Kant points out that even to save the life of an innocent friend hiding in your house,you should not lie to a murderer who stands at the door and asks for his whereabouts.Constant criticized Kant from an ethical point of view,pointing out that telling the truth is a moral duty,but it should not be unconditional,that is,there should be exceptions to the duty to tell the truth.Curiously,Kant responded to Constant from the point of view of right,pointing out that we do not have any right to lie,even philanthropic,or any duty to lie.Because lying damages the source of right,which is the injustice of humanity generally.This response of Kant is obviously against his principle of right and theory of emergency right.Kant's response to Constant was based on the consideration of public right and the relationship between right and politics.Since Kant wants to focus the discussion on the field of public law,the essay does not deal with the ethical aspects.If from an ethical point of view,can Kantian ethics answer the criticism of Constant and others?Kant's absolute prohibition on lying stems largely from his categorical imperative.It is generally believed,and Kant himself seems to think so,that the duty to strictly prohibit on lying can be derived from all the formulations of categorical imperative.But if we examine the formulations of categorical imperative and Kantian ethics,we find that this is not the case.The Formula of Universal Law forbids on lying;However,out of respect for autonomy,The Formula of Humanity and The Formula of the Kingdom of Ends can allow the existence of some form of lying,and lying is not contrary to respect for the autonomy of others.This will allow formulations of categorical imperative to lead to different results for the same behavior.This does not seem to be consistent with the general belief that all moral duties can be derived from these three formulations separately.This view is actually unreasonable.We cannot see the three formulations in isolation.They must be used in combination.This understanding is more in line with the value requirement of realizing autonomy in Kantian ethics.Criticism of the rigorism of Kantian ethics by Constant and others,which permits lying to the murderer at the door,is unwarranted.