{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.02567027952082145, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 4.925675675675675, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Truth and Truthfulness: A Reply to Dr. Schwarz

Kant's article, "On a Supposed Right to Lie from Altruistic Motives,"' has drawn so much attention to itself because it seemed to set forth a clear application of the philosopher's doctrine as it appears in his main works on ethics. The principle of autonomy is shown in a practical situation which fully exhibits its strength and weakness. Kant's worst enemies could not have constructed a harder test for its validity. For this reason, the article has very often dominated discussions of Kant's ethics and was reinterpreted by Kant's friends and antagonists again and again. Dr. Schwarz can obviously be counted among his friends. His attempt to defend Kant's position raises many interesting questions worth thorough reflection. Although I would consider myself-if this classification is appropriate-a friend of Kant, or, rather, because of that, I disagree with the defense put forward by Schwarz. Besides my main objection, I have two others which I shall discuss only briefly. These refer to Kant's evaluation of noxa and laesio and his use of the term Menschenliebe. My main criticism concentrates on the fact that Schwarz overlooked the distinction Kant made between truth and truthfulness. This, in my opinion, makes his whole attempt to justify Kant's position very questionable and, in fact, increases Kant's accessibility to the attacks of his critics. In addition to the historical aspect of this discussion and the question as to what place Kant's article occupies within the philosopher's writings on ethics, this problem seems above all to be one of philosophical relevance because it articulates the whole issue of moral and legal responsibility. In this reply, I shall restrict myself to