Behind these two viewpoints are actually two different ethical positions:

1. Absolute (absolutely cannot lie)

   • Representative figure: Immanuel Kant

   • Logic: Lying fundamentally undermines trust and truth, and no matter how well motivated, it corrodes the foundation of society and interpersonal relationships.

   • For example, even if you lie to protect others, it is unethical because it violates their right to know.

   • Advantages: Clear stance, not easily diluted by "special reasons".

   • Disadvantage: In extreme situations, it may cause greater harm, such as having to conceal the truth from the perpetrator in order to protect innocent people.

2. Relativity/Situational Ethics (Lying is allowed in special circumstances)

   • Representative figure: Joseph Fletcher, Situational Ethics

   • Logic: The morality of lying depends on the context and consequences, and if it can avoid greater harm, it can be accepted.

   • For example, during World War II, many people lied to the Nazis to protect Jews, which is widely recognized as a "white lie".

   • Advantages: More flexible and humane, able to balance justice and compassion.

   • Disadvantage: It is easy to be abused because everyone can find "special reasons" for their lies.

My opinion
I tend toBased on the core principle of "sincerity", with very few and clear exceptions retained。

• In most cases, maintaining honesty is necessary because once lies become the norm, trust will collapse.

• But in extreme situations such as life safety and protecting others from significant harm, lying is morally justifiable.

• The key is to ensure that one is not trying to evade responsibility or seek personal gain, but truly for a higher good.

In other words, my principle is:

Not lying for personal gain, but lying to save people.