Is it moral/appropriate to tell a lie to save a person's life?

[Keystone Phil]

Lying isn't "moral" but it is certainly justified/appropriate in this (and many other) circumstance.

[Keystone Phil]

Lying to save an innocent person's life has been found moral by most reasonable people throughout history. Take for instance those who hid the Jewish in their homes from the Nazis - it's not like they would say "Why yes, I am hiding some Jews behind that bookcase, would you care to arrest them?" when asked about it, and most would consider them paragons of virtue for taking such a risk.

Yes, that's the example we all use but I don't think that makes lying moral. In that case, it's amoral but certainly the appropriate thing to do.

[Keystone Phil]

Lying to save an innocent person's life has been found moral by most reasonable people throughout history. Take for instance those who hid the Jewish in their homes from the Nazis - it's not like they would say "Why yes, I am hiding some Jews behind that bookcase, would you care to arrest them?" when asked about it, and most would consider them paragons of virtue for taking such a risk.

Yes, that's the example we all use but I don't think that makes lying moral. In that case, it's amoral but certainly the appropriate thing to do.

Nobody ever asked if lying is moral, the question was whether lying to save someone was moral. Deceit is just one of the various tools we have available to us. You are correct in asserting that the tool itself has no moral value. It's how it is used that matters. The action of lying in order to save an innocent is viewed as a "moral action" because it has an intended "moral result".

The question centers around whether or not the act of lying becomes moral because of this situation. I don't believe the act of lying is ever "moral." I believe it is most certainly appropriate/justified.

[Keystone Phil]

Lying to save an innocent person's life has been found moral by most reasonable people throughout history. Take for instance those who hid the Jewish in their homes from the Nazis - it's not like they would say "Why yes, I am hiding some Jews behind that bookcase, would you care to arrest them?" when asked about it, and most would consider them paragons of virtue for taking such a risk.

Yes, that's the example we all use but I don't think that makes lying moral. In that case, it's amoral but certainly the appropriate thing to do.

Nobody ever asked if lying is moral, the question was whether lying to save someone was moral. Deceit is just one of the various tools we have available to us. You are correct in asserting that the tool itself has no moral value. It's how it is used that matters. The action of lying in order to save an innocent is viewed as a "moral action" because it has an intended "moral result".

The question centers around whether or not the act of lying becomes moral because of this situation. I don't believe the act of lying is ever "moral." I believe it is most certainly appropriate/justified.

Then I ask you how can any action be considered moral? Is there any single action that can only be used for moral intentions?

I'm simply saying that just because something can be used for the greater good doesn't make that act good.

[Keystone Phil]

On the other hand with a simple lie to save someone's life, I would think that most imagine a scenario where nobody is harmed by the lie, in which case there's no grey to think about.

But this is where our moral viewpoints collide - You think that as long as no one is "harmed" by something then it is fine. Then we argue over what it means to be "harmed." Not worth our time to get into all of that. 

[Keystone Phil]

My old Ethics teacher would have said no but of course any normal would do this, if they cared about the person at all anyway.

Saying that lying isn't moral doesn't mean doing this is immoral. Doing this would absolutely be the right thing to do but that doesn't make it "moral."