Phil250 Final Term Paper – Jana Dubinovsky

Imagine that the state passed a law making it a criminal offense – punishable by incarceration for a
minimum of six months – to make false claims, even if they cause no material harm. Is the state justified
in using the weapon of law to do so?  Why?  Why not?  Be sure to address the most convincing argument
against your position and provide a brief statement of how you might reply.

Morality of Lying:

- Nonconsequentialism (categorical imperative):

o Lying is always immoral because it inhibits others to act on their rational free will
- Consequentialism (utilitarianism):
o Lying is morally permissible if it benefits the greatest number of people
- Virtue ethics:
o Honesty is a virtue, therefore lying is immoral
- Why is lying immoral? -> Lying goes against the natural purpose of speech. -> Why is speech
important? -> Expression of autonomy, expression of self-awareness/self-consciousness 1. ->
human rights?? Natural law?? I literally don’t know. If our time spent in waves hand the great
scheme of things is so fleeting, all of our actions have extreme value to ourselves and yet
nothing when compared to the concept of forever. Anyway.
- One argument & counter: lying is for the greater good and why that’s stupid
o “Lying is for the greater good” is a claim used to morally justify lying…saving a nation,
thousands of people, lying to children? This argument is flawed => basic critiques of
consequentialism, tyranny of the minority/majority, unforeseen future (+ we should
minimize treating other people as less than any other member of the same species with
our similar biological capabilities), etc.
o

- Role of the State in Regulating Speech:

o What speech ought to be regulated?
 Threats of violence? B*mb in an airport style-consequences, depending on
severity.
 Hate speech is allowed as free speech under the US constitution. 2
1 https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/self-consciousness/
2 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matal_v._Tam
  Caveat? Communities may have the power and responsibility to
enforce repercussions on members of the community that have publicly
proclaimed beliefs that can be categorized as harmful to other members
of the community when related to identity.
 “The remedy for speech that is false is speech that is true. This is the ordinary
course in a free society.” – Justice Kennedy, October 2011, United States v.
Alvarez. 3
 I will elaborate more. But not right now. Goodnight.

Should the state be able to regulate free speech by punishing lying, even when there is no
material harm caused? The short answer is no. The longer answer is also no.
In the United States, free speech and expression is a right guaranteed under the constitution.
However, when examining the role the state ought to play in this regulation, it is important to ponder
why free speech is seen as valuable in an open democratic society.
There is an argument within the bounds of utilitarianism that the value of free speech is to
reach an accordance of social and moral truth, and also to uphold the democratic process that further
facilitates the free market of ideas. An additional, tangential, claim can be made that the expression of
free speech and expression is valuable as it relates to the outward manifestation of intrinsic autonomy
and rights, which we use to define the parameters of morality…
There are limitations to complete freedom of expression that comes with the exchange of
power within a social contract. In order to live a secure life under a sovereign, we as individuals gave
up some of our complete and total liberties, including the right to say whatever we wish at any given
time, which is mitigated in order to cause the least amount of harm to individuals. Prominent examples
of this include limiting instances of yelling “fire” in a crowded movie theatre or “bomb” at an airport,
which is sure to cause tangible material harm to individuals. When examining whether or not the state
should employ punitive measures against false claim (again, it should not), it is important to examine
the context of the claim and the individual. For example, perjury, or lying under oath, is subject to
time in prison, and this is an ethical claim because a promise is undertaken by an individual that they
will tell the whole truth, and acknowledgement understood of the consequences if the truth is not told.
Prohibiting speech based on either the content of the speech or the identity of the speaker is immoral,
on the basis of inhibiting autonomy as so defined under the social contract.
3 https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/11-210d4e9.pdf