Final answer:
Resolving the conflict between the duties to never lie and to avoid causing harm requires evaluating the principles behind these obligations and their outcomes.
Step-by-step explanation:
To resolve a conflict between two perfect duties, such as the duty to never tell a lie and the duty to avoid harming someone, it's necessary to scrutinize the principles behind these duties.
The universal law formulation of the categorical imperative sets forth the idea that one should "Act only according to that maxim through which you can at the same time will that it become a universal law" (Kant). Essentially, what this proposes is that actions should be based on rules one wishes everyone could follow.
Lying is inherently problematic in this framework because if lying were universalized, trust would erode, eliminating the very benefit sought by the liar.
Furthermore, when faced with a conflict of duties, one might consider the outcomes of each choice. This involves the principle that truth corresponds to fact and coheres with other established truths.
Following this notion, one may argue that if telling the truth results in unnecessary harm, it may be justified to prioritize the prevention of harm over the strict adherence to the truth because, ultimately, the comprehensive consequences affect the well-being of all concerned.
The moral dilemma involving whether to lie to protect a parent who has committed theft or to tell the truth and uphold the law exemplifies this ethical conundrum. In such a situation, determining which principle to prioritize requires a nuanced understanding of both the value of truth and the potential outcomes of its disclosure.