The Consequences Of Lying

hypothesis because it is said that not all people can judge precisely and unmistakably what the results of a specific activity might be particularly in the event that it benefits them, that they are blinded by the few benefits and ignore the negative consequences. I agreed with Mill’s consequentialism theory and truly appreciated it for the most part, so I feel the same for his idea on lying. I feel that people are more fit for judging in the case of coming clean would make hurt another and not do as such, at that point to dependably come clean when they know another will be hurt. I trust individuals generally are more trustworthy and compassionate, than not.
Advising a lie so as to shield another from hurt can't be viewed as wrong. There are many occurrences where a lie is much more advantageous to a person than reality. A good example of this is lies told to the German Nazi SS Officers by the general population who were hiding Jewish individuals in their homes. To have come clean would have implied unavoidable demise for the general population hiding from everything. How could sentencing people to death be viewed as
Ideally in the Nazi circumstance, this would hold in that by deceiving the German officer he would leave as opposed to taking the Jews to their demise. Mill's hypothesis however is substantially worthier in that the choice to carry on in a way that brings the best result for the vast majority brings the most ethical promise. To deceive the German officer, with a specific end goal to keep the Jewish individuals from getting hurt, as well as the way that they are placing themselves in peril in doing so, can't be considered anything other than great and moral. Not the slightest bit is the German officer being specifically hurt by this double