Final answer:
A counterexample to 'lying is always wrong' is a scenario in which lying prevents harm to an individual, suggesting that some situations may require a balance between conflicting moral duties. This situation and the context of government ethics show the complexity of rigidly applying moral absolutes, as they can conflict with other values like protecting individuals or national security.
Step-by-step explanation:
A possible counterexample to the principle that lying is always wrong could be a scenario where lying is necessary to avoid harming someone. For instance, imagine a situation where telling the truth would result in direct harm to an individual's well-being, such as during wartime, where lying about the whereabouts of fugitives can protect them from harm. This situation presents a moral dilemma where one must choose between two conflicting duties: the duty to not lie and the duty to prevent harm.
These moral complexities show that absolutist principles like 'lying is always wrong' can sometimes be called into question, given specific contexts. Ethicists argue about whether such exceptions can morally justify lying, and this debate involves analyzing the relative value of different moral principles and the consequences of adhering to them rigidly. Notably, some philosophers have suggested that such dilemmas indicate that moral truths could be relative, which contradicts the notion of lying as a universally unacceptable act.
In addition to personal dilemmas, government ethics also provides insights. For example, some argue that governments believe they are justified in lying to protect national security or the public interest, which challenges the universality of the principle against lying, suggesting that the context in which the lie occurs might influence its moral standing.