sat suite question viewer
Philosophers note that many people have an intuitive sense that while we ought not to lie, there may be circumstances in which lying is permissible. If this intuition is correct and we lack an inviolable duty to speak truthfully, what grounds opposition to lying in the first place? Japa Pallikkathayil has advanced one answer by appealing to a duty to respect others’ agential interests: the possession of false beliefs constrains agency, and thus we ought not to impede the formation of true beliefs unless doing so prevents a greater constraint on someone’s agency or an otherwise impermissible end.
Which choice best states the main idea of the text?
Explanation
Choice A is the best answer because it most accurately states the main idea of the text. The text begins by noting a common intuition that lying might sometimes be permissible, which raises the question of what is the reason for being against lying. The text then presents Pallikkathayil’s answer to this question: we have a duty to respect others’ agential interests (that is, we have an obligation to allow people to exercise their free will in order to best serve their own ends), false beliefs constrain agency (the implication here being that people who are deceived about what is true are impeded in acting in their own best interests), and so we should not hinder the formation of true beliefs (we should not deliberately deceive a person) unless doing so prevents a greater limitation on someone’s agency or prevents some otherwise impermissible end (for example, it might be morally permissible to lie to someone in the rare circumstance where a false belief would lead a person to act in their own best interest, and where they would not do so if they knew the truth). Thus, the main idea of the text is that Pallikkathayil offers a potential justification for opposing lying based on respecting agency, while still allowing for exceptions in specific circumstances.
Choice B is incorrect because the text doesn’t focus on people’s lack of a principled way to identify circumstances where lying is permissible or indicate that Pallikkathayil’s argument resolves this specific problem. Rather, the text presents Pallikkathayil’s argument that lies limit agency but may be permitted in very specific situations (to prevent a greater limitation on someone’s agency or an otherwise unacceptable outcome) as one of a number of possible arguments about why lies are undesirable but sometimes permissible. Choice C is incorrect because it directly contradicts the text. Pallikkathayil’s argument, as described in the text, wouldn’t lead to an "inviolable duty to speak truthfully." On the contrary, the text explicitly states that Pallikkathayil’s position is that interfering with people developing accurate beliefs is wrong, except when such interference prevents either a more significant limitation on someone’s agency or an outcome that would be unacceptable for other reasons. This indicates that Pallikkathayil’s argument allows for some exceptions to the duty to speak truthfully, making it not inviolable. Choice D is incorrect because Pallikkathayil’s argument doesn’t suggest that if it is permissible to lie in at least some circumstances, then it is unclear whether there are good reasons for opposing lying in any circumstances. Instead, the text presents Pallikkathayil as offering a specific ground for opposing lying (respecting others’ ability to act in their own best interests) while qualifying that assertion by presenting a situation in which lying might sometimes be morally permissible.