And I agree, you're using a "common definition" for "ethical". But ethics is really about how to live "the good life" - how to set standards for what one ought to do. It sounds as if you're saying something like "First, do no harm - or at least, as little as possible." In that interpretation, lying could be more ethical than telling the truth if it leads to less harm.
But the problem is this - not only is harm subjective, the evaluation of harm can even change over time. DDT was considered harmless for quite a while. But in the long run, it caused more harm than good. So maybe a lie would cause less harm (as you evaluate "harm") immediately - but it might make for more difficult times in future. How do you evaluate that possibility? |
