Ethical dilemma: Would you lie? - Sarah Stroud

Prevoditelj: Ozren Blagaić Recezent: Ivan Luka Sabolović

Your plan to set up your friend Carey with your acquaintance Emerson

Vaš plan da spojite prijateljicu Carey i poznanika Emersona

is finally coming together.

napokon uspijeva.

Both individuals have heard all about each other

Oboje su čuli puno jedno o drugome

and they’re eager to meet for dinner.

i žele se naći na večeri.

You’ve just made them a reservation for Friday night,

Baš ste im rezervirali stol za petak navečer,

and you’re about to text Carey the details

i samo što niste Carey poslali detalje,

when an unsettling thought crosses your mind:

kada se sjetite nečega uznemirujućeg:

Carey is always late.

Carey uvijek kasni.

And not just by 5 minutes;

I to ne samo 5 minuta;

we’re talking 20 or even 30 minutes late.

ponekad 20 ili čak 30 minuta.

Carey seems to view punctuality as an oppressive relic of an earlier era.

Čini se da Carey točnost smatra relikvijom iz davnih vremena.

But what if you told them dinner was at 6 instead of 6:30?

No, što ako im kažete da večera počinje u 6 umjesto u 6:30?

That way, they would almost certainly arrive on time.

Tako bi oni gotovo sigurno stigli na vrijeme.

You really want this relationship to work, so... should you lie?

Zaista želite da ova veza uspije. Je li, dakle, u redu lagati?

Take a moment to think: what you would do?

Razmislite na trenutak: Što biste Vi učinili?

Maybe you should lie!

Možda biste trebali lagati!

You think this new relationship could be great for Carey,

Smatrate da bi ta nova veza Carey dobro došla

and you don’t want them to ruin it before it’s even begun.

i ne želite da ju upropasti prije nego je uopće počela.

Sure, Emerson may eventually learn about their chronic lateness.

Naravno, Emerson će kad-tad saznati za njeno kronično kašnjenje.

But if Carey shows up on time just this once,

Ali ako Carey samo ovaj put dođe na vrijeme,

the relationship will at least have a chance to take root.

barem će imati priliku dobro započeti vezu.

Your lie would pave the way for a potentially happy relationship.

Vaša bi laž mogla omogućiti sretnu vezu.

And if taking an action will create a better outcome for everyone involved,

Ako nešto poduzeti znači bolji ishod za sve,

that’s normally a pretty good reason to take it.

obično je to dobar razlog za to učiniti.

But isn't it morally wrong to lie?

No, nije li moralno neispravno lagati?

The absolutist position on lying,

Apsolutistički stav o laganju,

associated with German philosopher Immanuel Kant,

vezan uz njemačkog filozofa Immanuela Kanta,

holds that lying is always immoral, regardless of the circumstances.

smatra da je laganje uvijek nemoralno, bez obzira na okolnosti.

In other words, there’s a moral rule which forbids lying,

Drugim riječima, postoji moralno pravilo koje zabranjuje laganje

and that rule is absolute.

i to je pravilo nedvojbeno.

You might think, though, that this stance overstates

Ipak, možda mislite da ovaj stav pretjerano naglašava

the moral importance of lying.

moralnu značajnost laganja.

Suppose a murderer were hunting Carey down.

Recimo da Carey lovi ubojica.

If the killer asked you about Carey’s whereabouts,

Da Vas ubojica pita gdje je Carey,

it seems odd to say that you must tell the truth

bilo bi čudno da mu morate reći istinu

at the cost of your friend’s life.

i time žrtvovati svoju prijateljicu.

From this perspective, absolutism seems too rigid.

Iz te perspektive, apsolutizam se čini prestrogim.

By contrast, utilitarian philosopher John Stuart Mill

S druge strane, utilitaristički filozof John Stuart Mill

would say lying is wrong only when it leads to less happiness overall.

smatra da je laganje neispravno samo ako dovodi do još više nesreće.

Now, to be fair, most lies do seem likely to create unhappiness.

Budimo iskreni, većina laži vjerojatno dovodi do nesreće.

Someone who accepts a lie believes something which is false,

Netko tko prihvati laž vjeruje u nešto sto je netočno,

and trying to conduct your life on the basis of false information

a živjeti život na bazi netočnih informacija

doesn’t usually go well.

obično ne završi dobro.

However, in some circumstances, perhaps including your situation,

Međutim, u nekim slučajevima, možda čak i Vašem,

lying might produce more happiness overall.

laganje bi moglo dovesti do više sreće.

In those cases, utilitarians say it’s not morally wrong to lie.

U takvim slučajevima utilitaristi kažu da nije moralno neispravno lagati.

In fact, it might even be your moral duty to do so.

Zapravo, to bi mogla biti Vaša moralna dužnost.

But if absolutism seems too extreme, you might feel this stance is too lax.

Ali ako je apsolutizam prestrog, možda mislite da je ovaj stav preopušten.

In other words, perhaps the utilitarian position understates

Drugim riječima, utilitaristički stav možda ostavlja

the moral significance of lying.

moralni značaj laganja nedorečenim.

Most people generally feel some regret about lying,

Većina ljudi osjeća krivnju kada lažu,

even when they believe it’s the right thing to do.

čak i kada vjeruju da su učinili ispravnu stvar.

This suggests there’s something inherently objectionable about lying—

To dovodi do zaključka da u laganju postoji nešto po sebi nepoželjno-

even when it leads to more happiness.

čak i kada dovodi do više sreće.

In this case, lying to Carey would be an instance of Paternalism.

U ovom slučaju, laganje Carey bi bilo primjer paternalizma.

Paternalism is interfering with another person’s choices

Paternalizam označava miješanje u tuđe izbore

for that person's benefit.

u korist te osobe.

This might be fine if that person is a literal child.

To je možda u redu ako je ta osoba dijete.

But it seems disrespectful to treat a peer paternalistically.

Ali se čini ponižavajuće tako se ponašati prema svome vršnjaku.

Lying to Carey would mean taking away their opportunity

Laganje Carey bi značilo oduzeti joj priliku da

to handle the situation as they see fit, based on their own beliefs and values.

riješi situaciju kako želi, temeljeno na vlastitim uvjerenjima i vrijednostima.

Trying to protect Carey from what you consider

Nastojati zaštititi Carey od onoga što smatrate

to be a bad choice would show a lack of respect for their autonomy.

lošim izborom bi dokazalo manjak poštovanja prema njenoj samostalnosti.

By extension, it might also be disrespectful towards Emerson,

Nadalje, to bi moglo biti ponižavajuće i za Emersona,

since you would be deliberately trying to give him a false impression

jer biste mu namjerno davali lažan dojam

of Carey’s punctuality.

Careyne točnosti.

So how do you weigh potential happiness against guaranteed disrespect?

Dakle, kako procijeniti između moguće sreće i zajamčenog omalovažavanja.

Followers of Kant would say treating others with respect

Sljedbenici Kanta bi rekli da je poštovanje

is the heart of moral conduct,

u središtu moralnog ponašanja,

while followers of Mill would say nothing is more important than happiness.

dok bi Millovi sljedbenici rekli da ništa nije važnije od sreće.

But other philosophers believe that such conflicts can only be resolved

No, drugi filozofi smatraju da se takvi sukobi mogu razriješiti

on a case-by-case basis,

na pojedinačnoj bazi,

depending on various details and on the individuals involved.

ovisno o raznim detaljima i pojedincima na koje se to odnosi.

So what will you do in Carey’s case?

Što biste Vi učinili u Careynu slučaju?