Non-Consequentialism

Kant's position is based on the idea of deontology. Deontology is derived from the Greek word "deontos" meaning duty and is commonly known to be defined as an ethical theory that the morality of an action should be based on whether that action itself is right or wrong under a series of rules, rather than based on the consequences of the action. Based on the definition, alone, I concur with Kant because of the conflict in consequences when a particular action is done. In class, the example was brought up about if an axe murderer was chasing after your friend and you hid your friend in your closet. Would you lie when the axe murderer came to the door and point him in the direction that your friend went? Many of us answered with "yes", of course and said that it would be a noble lie because your friend's life would be saved. However, if you told the axe murderer the direction that your friend went and unknowingly, your friend had actually gone in that direction and ended up dead, then we said the lie would still be a "noble" one. Therefore, I agree with Kant in the matter that the extent of the lie cannot be judged by if the consequences are good or bad. I feel that we can decide if a lie is "noble" or not based on the intentions of the action rather than the consequence. Nevertheless, Kant's Motive of Duty states that, "A human action is good not because it is done out of inclination or self-interest but because of the sake of duty alone." This means that there really couldn't be a such thing as Plato's famous "noble lie" because a lie is bad in itself due to its lack of truth and morality, no matter the circumstances.