Final answer:
Sanctions for lying may be mitigated when the act of lying prevents greater harm or is done under duress, with plea bargaining provided as a legal example. Governments may also justify lying for the public interest or national security, showing the complexity between ethics and governance.
Step-by-step explanation:
Under certain circumstances, sanctions for lying may be mitigated when a conflict arises between two perfect duties: the duty to tell the truth and the duty to avoid harming others. For example, if telling the truth would cause significant harm to another person, it may be deemed more ethical to lie in order to prevent that harm. This type of ethical dilemma often requires a nuanced approach, weighing the consequences of each action.
Sanctions for lying might itself be lessened if the lie is told under duress, or in a situation where telling the truth would lead to an unjust outcome. An instance could be in a court case where a false confession is extracted through coercion. Furthermore, policies such as plea bargaining allow defendants to plead guilty to a lesser charge and receive a lighter punishment in exchange for waiving their right to an appeal and testifying to their crimes, thus creating a legal framework that can mitigate the consequences of lying.
In some cases, governments justify lying for the public interest or during diplomatic dealings, arguing that such actions can be necessary for national security or for protecting citizens. This perspective highlights the complex interplay between ethical principles and practical governance where lying might be seen as a tool rather than a transgression.