A Lie for a Lie

Answer choices

1. A

   Bad Match13% picked this

   Responding to pathological behavior with pathological behavior

   If we were to respond to a pathological liar by lying to them, are we responding with pathological behavior? No. Pathologically lying vs. regular ol' lying, means compulsive and continuous lying. If we lie to a liar to teach them a lesson or give them their just desserts, we haven't suddenly switched into being compulsive liars. If this answer said, responding to pathological behavior with an example of that pathological behavior is irrational, it would help us argue that Kant (who likes being rational) would agree with A that we shouldn't lie to a pathological liar.

   13%
2. B

   Correct52% picked this

   Rationality cannot be reasonably attributed to

   Why this is right

   According to this answer, the pathological lying of a pathological liar cannot be considered "the product of a rational decision". If the lying isn't a rational decision, then we're not triggering the conditional at the end of Passage B's first paragraph. Thus, Kant is not telling us that "hey, lying to that pathological liar would be treating them as a rational being". So there's no longer any conflict between A's advice (don't lie to the liar) and Kant's advice (you should lie to the liar, if it was the product of a rational decision). This answer made these two views compatible.

   Skill tested: Strengthen · how this choice captures the passage's function is the move to repeat next time.

   52%
3. C

   Opposite13% picked this

   Pathological liars, if harmless, deserve to be treated as rational beings

   This reinforces the incompatibility. If the pathological liar should be treated as a rational being, then Kant would say we should lie to them, whereas passage A would say we do not have sufficient reason to lie to them.

   13%
4. D

   Bad Match: Not Compatible with Kant19% picked this

   Having the right to lie to a pathological liar is not equivalent to having a

   We already heard this idea in the final paragraph of Passage B. In a sense, the author of passage B already made the takeaway from Passage A (you have the right to lie to a liar, but not a duty / not sufficient reason to lie to them". So the author of passage B ends up making Kant's view compatible with passage A by saying, "his view does not imply a duty, just a right." But for this question stem to make any sense, we needed to initially assumed some incompatibility with passage A and the Kantian argument in the 1st paragraph of B. The question stem essentially forces us to interpret Kant's argument the way the author ends up saying we shouldn't interpret it. If our initial two positions are in conflict, are potentially incompatible, we need to think of them as, A: even though you have the right to lie to a liar, you don't have sufficient reason to do so B: if the lying was the product of a rational decision, then lying to a liar is treating them as a rational being (you do have sufficient reason to do so) Kant isn't using the word duty, but in order for us to see a inconsistency between A's and Kant's position, we sort of need to act like that's what Kant's argument is saying. Thus, this answer would essentially contradict the Kantian position, not make it compatible with the position from passage A. We might think, "This makes it compatible, because it settles the issue -- Passage A was right and Kant was wrong." But the correct answer is saying, "Both passage A and Kant were right -- they can agree we wouldn't lie to a pathological liar since a pathological liar's lies aren't the products of rational decision making."

   19%
5. E

   Bad Match: Not Compatible with Kant2% picked this

   To model one's behavior on that of a pathological liar is to lower

   This would support the idea that we shouldn't lie to a liar, but that means it's making Kant sound wrong. He was saying, "Maybe you should lie to a liar, since that would be treating them as a rational being". This doesn't find a way to reconcile Kant's position with A's position. It basically just takes A's side.

   2%