Here is anotherscenario for your consideration. It is one that a reviewer of Kant's ethics raised when Kant published his bookFoundations of the Metaphysics of Morals (1785): Imagine that someone you know is fleeing from a murderer and tells you he is going home to hide. The assassin comes up to you, acting innocent, and asks where your friend went. You have good reasons to believe that if you tell this assassin the truth, he will find the other man and kill him. Suppose, further, that the assassin is already heading in the right direction, and if you say nothing, he will search the other man's home and find him. Should you remain silent, or should you throw the assassin off the trail by telling a lie? Kant responded to this challenge in an essay titled "On a Supposed Right to Lie from Altruistic Motives." His answer was that one is always obligated to tell the truth, or at least not to tell a lie. We may be tempted to make exceptions to the rule "Do not lie" because we think that the consequences of truthfulness will be bad and the consequences of lying will be good. However, we can never be certain about what the consequences will actually be until afterwards. Therefore, the best policy is to avoid the known evil, lying, and let the consequences come as they may. Even if the consequences are bad, they will not be our fault, for we will have done our duty. Are there any problems with this line of reasoning? If so, what is the problem? Is Kant's answer anecessary implicationof his moral theory, or did he just make a simple mistake?