In Mark Haddon's novel The Curious Incident of the Dog in the Night-Time, Christopher's father lies to him about his mother's death. This raises the ethical question of whether it is ever justified to lie to someone, especially in cases where the lie is intended to protect the person from harm. In this essay, I will evaluate Christopher's father's decision to lie to his son, drawing on Ericsson's criticism of white lies and my own ethical principles.
Ericsson argues that white lies, or minor falsehoods that are intended to protect someone's feelings or prevent harm, are problematic because they erode trust and create a culture of deceit. While some may argue that Christopher's father's lie was a white lie intended to protect him from the
…show more content…
I believe that the end does not always justify the means and that there are absolute ethical principles that we must follow, regardless of the outcome. In this case, lying to Christopher was wrong because it violated the principle of honesty and undermined Christopher's trust in his father.
Christopher's father's reason for lying about Christopher's mother was to protect him from the truth about her abandonment. He believed that Christopher was not capable of handling the truth and that revealing it to him would cause him significant emotional distress. However, this justification is flawed. Christopher was already aware that his mother had left and had been struggling with the emotional consequences of her absence. Lying to him only served to further confuse and distress him, as he struggled to reconcile the lie with his own experiences.
Moreover, Christopher's father's lie was motivated by his own self-interest. He lied to protect himself from Christopher's rejection and to avoid having to face the difficult emotions associated with his wife's abandonment. In doing so, he put his own needs above those of his son, violating the principle of parental