it's a quarter after one, i'm a little drunk and i

can lies ever be justified?

i've been reading a little on moral philosophy and i thought it'd be interesting to look at such a question from an academic's viewpoint, though i'm probably the most ill-equipped person around to attempt something like that. but considering that i've been lied to again, and again, and again (who hasn't anyway), i think looking at things from a rational and detached point of view would be composing.

there are 2 main different school of thoughts with regards to the differentiation of what is right and what is wrong: utilitarianism and deontology.

the utilitarians believe that an action is right if it leads to the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people it affects. happiness is accordingly defined as pleasure and the absence of pain. and thus, each action is determined not by the act itself, but by its consequence. stuart mill commented and further refined this theory by suggesting that there are 'higher' pleasures, and consequently, 'lesser' pleasures.

take for example the pleasure derived from being in love and the enjoying a candy. the pleasure derived from being in love is considered 'higher' pleasure, something more valuable, and thus, people are willing to put up with more pain to enjoy the 'higher' pleasure as compared to the pain that one will choose to undergo for a candy.

deonotologists view the right/wrong issue in a more straightforward manner, and in my opinion, something that i more or less agree most with. deontology states that we all have duties - actions that we must do, or refrain from, and it is these actions that are considered right or wrong, not their consequences.

so our duties include not lying, not murdering and so forth. murdering, murder is defined as intentionally and deliberately ending the life of another, not accidental killing, is wrong, even if it means assassinating a despot seeking to save lives.

and here's the biggest difference between the 2 thinkings. a utilitarian would consider killing a killer as correct, because it would bring about the greatest amount of happiness to the greatest amount of people, with the least pain the least amount of people.

therefore, looking at this from an utilitarian's point of view, lying to matthew ta would be right if, and only if, a greatest amount of pleasure was derived, with the least pain incurred. but was that the case? the feeling of being betrayed is bitter and i'm unsure if the pleasure that was gained.

the only way possible argument that i can come up with to defend those actions is that by lying, a lot more pain to alot more people was saved, and therefore, this is considered the lesser of 2 evils. but this is a flawed argument because now that i know the truth, i'm actually saved whole deal of agonising and second-guessing and uncertainty. so there's a problem, and now that i know exactly what it is, i can attempt fix it, to the best of my ability. also, the bitter taste of betrayal is difficult to swallow.

deontology claims that certain actions are inherently wrong, and so it would appear that deotologists would readily agree that lying to matthew ta is wrong.

nonetheless, there is a counter-argument. while lying to matthew is wrong, not betraying the trust placed in you by a friend is a duty that we all have. and so, not lying to matthew would incorrect too, because not doing so would mean betraying someone else. right?

so what happens when our different duties appear to come into conflict? most deontologists believe a true collision of our duties cannot happen. should there appear to be a conflict, then we have misunderstood our duties.

and so my answer is a resounding 'no'! one could have not lied while keeping their promises of secrecy. these were blatant lies, mind you, statements of utter untruth, not subtle insinuations that is might have been misconstrued.

i'm going to end here, and you can make up your own minds about what i have to say, or not. i've always found writing to be composing and this is why i always enjoy writing to sort my thoughts out.

i'm going to head out for a nice long run now, because working out has always been my favored outlet (football's still the best, but i don't have anyone to play ball with right now). i haven't been running since napha, with one thing after another, and it is high time that i got re-started.

i'm going to make myself a good lunch after that - i'm thinking scrambled eggs because i haven't had them for sometime, and maybe a sandwich - and then i'm going to fix things.