Topic:Is telling truth always better than telling lie or only partial truths?

Life always changes as the clouds never stop moving. If one desires to succeed in life, he will have to adjust his methods regularly. Thus, there are no acceptable or unacceptable methods but just pragmatic or impractical, which means telling lies and partial truths is sometimes considered more efficient than just telling truths always.

At schools, medics learn only about medicine but also how to assure patients by telling lies. Yet, how is about a patient who practiced speaking of untruths to himself? Was it prodigious that he overcame his cancer and succeeded greatly by repeating lie frequently; visioning that it would become truths one day? Yes, it is Lance Armstrong, the 38 year-old man who won Tour De France seven times and become a legend after struggling with his testicular cancer for 3 years. In his autobiography "It's Not about the Bike: My Journey Back to Life", Lance Armstrong describes the mental treatments he did for himself was always practicing telling positive lies about his future, his career and his health. He kept doing this so regularly that it became his routine, giving him courage to live although he just got forty percent of living. Then miracle happened. Lance Armstrong started to get better and tried his best to practice for Tour De France. Now looking back, he admits that if he had not lied himself he would not have been a legend nowadays.

Some may argue that even telling lies can help lots of patients it still causes disbelief, contrasts, and chaos. But, in fact, when being used properly, speaking of lies can bring peace to this world. For instance, when examining human history carefully, we can see that many wars ended soon due to the act of keeping secrets and telling lies of generals. Being considered as the most crucial operation in World War II, D-day required exacting act of keeping secrets even for the soldiers. Nevertheless, insuring the information not revealed was not enough, thus, the Allied had to trick Nazi Germany, distract its attention from Normandy beaches. By deliberately letting Germans catch and decode messages easily, the Allied had successfully misled them to the time and the place of D-day. Besides, Allied double agents also told lies about number of the troops, spreading fallacious news, providing untruths for German. Thus, Germans moved their troops to the further East, where they thought the invasion would take place leading to the success of Normandy Operation.

If Lance Armstrong and the Allied had just considered which method was moral then we would have ripped the legend and our history would have changed. What does it mean when acceptable moral methods bring about nothing? Telling lies or partial truths can not be considered immoral method but another solution to problems instead of telling truths always. There is one saying: "If the end does not justify the means-what can?-Edward Abbey", so take a look at how methods work before judging whether they are acceptable or not.

Note: Please have a meticulous look at my essay and strongly advice me what should I do more to improve it :-). Thank you and have a nice day

Consider Immanuel Kant's discussion of a categorical imperative and make at least one mention of it.

I am sorry but I do not know how to implement Immanuel Kant's discussion of a catergorical imperative" in my essay. Can you show me a clear example?

Can anyone spend little time advising me how to make this essay better? :-)

Yep, every article I have seen about this kind of issue involves a reference to Kant. You can also talk about the difference between Kant's deontological ethics and Mill's utilitarianism. It is a great subject to study! But for now let's work on the essay.

Yet, how is about a patient who practices the speaking of untruths to himself?

Now looking back, he admits that if he had not lied himself he would not have been a legend nowadays.--- wow, very impressive!! You have a good point.

Sometimes it is necessary to lie to others to compensate for their unreasonableness, ha ha... like when they have a knife and are waving it around, you can say, hey, the cops are on the way! Even if they are not...

Hey, actually it really would be good to look into absolutism vs. utilitarianism. Here is a link:

I think you will enjoy that. This is about utilitarian ethics:
"If the end does not justify the means-what can?-Edward Abbey"

The way to improve the essay is to revise to speak in terms of the discussion of whether Kant is correct that lying should be categorically forbidden or whether Mill is correct that the end justifies the means.