Under what circumstances is it ok to lie for the public good? (Explain)
Sample solution
Dante Alighieri played a critical role in the literature world through his poem Divine Comedy that was written in the 14th century. The poem contains Inferno, Purgatorio, and Paradiso. The Inferno is a description of the nine circles of torment that are found on the earth. It depicts the realms of the people that have gone against the spiritual values and who, instead, have chosen bestial appetite, violence, or fraud and malice. The nine circles of hell are limbo, lust, gluttony, greed and wrath. Others are heresy, violence, fraud, and treachery. The purpose of this paper is to examine the Dante’s Inferno in the perspective of its portrayal of God’s image and the justification of hell.
In this epic poem, God is portrayed as a super being guilty of multiple weaknesses including being egotistic, unjust, and hypocritical. Dante, in this poem, depicts God as being more human than divine by challenging God’s omnipotence. Additionally, the manner in which Dante describes Hell is in full contradiction to the morals of God as written in the Bible. When god arranges Hell to flatter Himself, He commits egotism, a sin that is common among human beings (Cheney, 2016). The weakness is depicted in Limbo and on the Gate of Hell where, for instance, God sends those who do not worship Him to Hell. This implies that failure to worship Him is a sin.
God is also depicted as lacking justice in His actions thus removing the godly image. The injustice is portrayed by the manner in which the sodomites and opportunists are treated. The opportunists are subjected to banner chasing in their lives after death followed by being stung by insects and maggots. They are known to having done neither good nor bad during their lifetimes and, therefore, justice could have demanded that they be granted a neutral punishment having lived a neutral life. The sodomites are also punished unfairly by God when Brunetto Lattini is condemned to hell despite being a good leader (Babor, T. F., McGovern, T., & Robaina, K. (2017). While he commited sodomy, God chooses to ignore all the other good deeds that Brunetto did.
Finally, God is also portrayed as being hypocritical in His actions, a sin that further diminishes His godliness and makes Him more human. A case in point is when God condemns the sin of egotism and goes ahead to commit it repeatedly. Proverbs 29:23 states that “arrogance will bring your downfall, but if you are humble, you will be respected.” When Slattery condemns Dante’s human state as being weak, doubtful, and limited, he is proving God’s hypocrisy because He is also human (Verdicchio, 2015). The actions of God in Hell as portrayed by Dante are inconsistent with the Biblical literature. Both Dante and God are prone to making mistakes, something common among human beings thus making God more human.
To wrap it up, Dante portrays God is more human since He commits the same sins that humans commit: egotism, hypocrisy, and injustice. Hell is justified as being a destination for victims of the mistakes committed by God. The Hell is presented as being a totally different place as compared to what is written about it in the Bible. As a result, reading through the text gives an image of God who is prone to the very mistakes common to humans thus ripping Him off His lofty status of divine and, instead, making Him a mere human. Whether or not Dante did it intentionally is subject to debate but one thing is clear in the poem: the misconstrued notion of God is revealed to future generations.
References
Babor, T. F., McGovern, T., & Robaina, K. (2017). Dante’s inferno: Seven deadly sins in scientific publishing and how to avoid them. Addiction Science: A Guide for the Perplexed, 267.
Cheney, L. D. G. (2016). Illustrations for Dante’s Inferno: A Comparative Study of Sandro Botticelli, Giovanni Stradano, and Federico Zuccaro. Cultural and Religious Studies, 4(8), 487.
Verdicchio, M. (2015). Irony and Desire in Dante’s” Inferno” 27. Italica, 285-297.
Sample Answer
Sample Answer
Title: Ethical Dilemma: The Justification of Lying for the Public Good
Introduction
The ethical question of whether it is acceptable to lie for the public good poses a complex moral dilemma that challenges traditional notions of honesty and integrity. This essay will explore the circumstances under which lying for the public good may be justified, considering ethical considerations and potential implications.
Justification for Lying for the Public Good
1. Prevention of Harm: In situations where disclosing the truth could lead to significant harm or danger to individuals or the public, a lie may be justified to prevent imminent threats and protect safety.
2. National Security: Lying for the purpose of national security, such as in cases of covert operations or intelligence gathering, may be deemed necessary to safeguard the interests and well-being of a nation.
3. Protection of Vulnerable Populations: Lying to protect vulnerable populations, such as children, victims of abuse, or marginalized communities, from harm or exploitation may be considered a morally justifiable act.
4. Promotion of Social Justice: Lying to expose corruption, injustice, or human rights violations that would otherwise remain hidden can serve the greater good by promoting transparency, accountability, and social justice.
5. Crisis Management: During times of crisis or emergencies, providing false information to maintain order, prevent panic, or ensure effective response and coordination efforts may be necessary for public safety and well-being.
Ethical Considerations
1. Transparency and Trust: Lying for the public good raises concerns about transparency and trust, as deception erodes trust in institutions, authorities, and information sources.
2. Accountability and Consequences: Individuals who choose to lie for the public good must consider the potential consequences of their actions, including loss of credibility, legal implications, and ethical repercussions.
3. Balancing Conflicting Values: Ethical dilemmas involving lying for the public good require a delicate balance between competing values, such as honesty, beneficence, justice, and respect for autonomy.
4. Alternative Strategies: Exploring alternative strategies, such as selective disclosure, confidentiality agreements, or diplomatic language, may offer ethical solutions that avoid outright deception while addressing concerns for public safety and well-being.
5. Public Perception and Consent: Consideration should be given to how the public perceives and responds to lies told for the public good, as well as whether informed consent or justification is required to uphold ethical principles.
Conclusion
The ethical dilemma of lying for the public good necessitates careful deliberation and ethical reasoning to navigate complex situations where truth-telling may conflict with broader societal interests or values. While there may be instances where lying is deemed necessary to prevent harm, protect vulnerable populations, or promote social justice, individuals must weigh the ethical considerations, consequences, and alternative options before resorting to deception. By engaging in thoughtful ethical reflection and upholding principles of integrity, transparency, and accountability, individuals can navigate challenging moral dilemmas with a commitment to ethical conduct that serves the greater good while respecting fundamental values of honesty and trust in society.
