Final answer:
The justification of lying in certain situations is a subject of ethical debate, with Act Utilitarianism sometimes allowing it to prevent greater harm, whereas Rule Utilitarianism warns against the long-term damage to trust. Philosophers emphasize the importance of moral character and the potential slippery slope when governments justify lies.
Step-by-step explanation:
The question of whether lying can ever be justified is a complex moral issue that engages philosophers, ethicists, and political scientists. Situations where lying might be considered can include conflicts between different moral duties or in utilitarian calculations of the greater good. Philosophers attempt to discern and apply moral principles, often debating whether there are ever circumstances where lying is the most ethical action. For example, Act Utilitarianism may justify a lie if it leads to the greatest good for the most people by preventing harm, as illustrated by a hypothetical scenario where a doctor might lie to a terminally ill patient to allow them to enjoy their remaining time without despair.
Conversely, Rule Utilitarianism considers the long-term consequences of lying, suggesting that if doctors regularly lied to patients, trust in the medical profession could erode, causing more harm than good. Similarly, the notion of never telling a lie contradicts the concept of universalizability, as the act of lying presupposes that truth-telling is the norm. Conflicts also arise between perfect duties, such as the duty to tell the truth versus the duty to avoid harming someone.
In the end, whether governments or individuals believe they are justified in lying is often weighed against the definitions of what constitutes a good citizen or a good government. The dilemma is not only about the act itself but also about the character of the person or entity engaging in it, and the ultimate impact on the public's trust and the common good.