Final answer:
Resolving a conflict between the duty to be honest and the duty to prevent harm requires careful ethical consideration. Different philosophical theories, such as Kantianism and Utilitarianism, offer varying approaches to when lying could be ethically permissible, especially in situations where lies could protect lives or ensure greater good.
Step-by-step explanation:
The question of when it is ethical to tell a lie is deeply rooted in moral philosophy and ethics, particularly when conflicting duties arise, such as the duty to be honest and the duty to prevent harm. Consider the historical instance of the Frank family during the Holocaust, where lies were told to protect lives. Ethical frameworks address such dilemmas differently. For instance, the Kantian perspective holds that lying is never moral as it cannot be universalized. However, from a utilitarian viewpoint, the consequences of actions are paramount; if lying results in greater overall happiness or less suffering, it might be considered the right action.
Act utilitarians might argue that lying to prevent significant harm aligns with promoting the greater good. Meanwhile, some argue that governments and individuals should be truthful because it is a trait of an upstanding citizen or administration. Yet, as noted by John F. Kennedy, sometimes the 'great enemy of the truth' is not deliberate deceit but pervasive myths.
Therefore, resolving the conflict between two perfect duties requires one to consider the principles and consequences of actions, which often entail complex moral calculations and judgment calls.