This week has been particularly productive in terms of the topics we studied and explored. At times I think that it is difficult to choose the most interesting one. Still, I would stop and focus on social contract theory. In my opinion, the theory sparks much ethical controversy. However, it also represents an important lens of ethical analysis and decision making. According to Friend, social contract theory is about an informal agreement or contract between a person and the society. It is a form of obligation taken by every society member to follow the rules of the society, in which he/she lives. This topic sparked my interest, because I always associated social contract with life in a civilized and well-developed society. One of my strongest beliefs is that civilized humans have a social obligation to comply with the norms of morality and ethics prescribed by a given society. Moreover, such society becomes civilized only when all its members voluntarily agree not to violate the existing social rules. The topic also relates to the issue of care, which we discussed and analyzed last week. Friend shares an interesting idea that social contract theory is limited from the perspective of care ethics. More specifically, it simply delineates the rights and obligations of every society member, but fails to extend the scope of morality and ethics to incorporate the elements of care. In my opinion, even if the elements of care are limited or not present in social contract theory, it is still a useful instrument of ethical decision making. It sets the stage for the evolution of moral and ethical principles, making the society more organized. Moreover, it leaves enough room for developing and using the other models of human relationships based on morality, justice and care. Lying Every person knows what it means to be a liar. Everybody lies. The question, however, is whether it is morally permissible to lie to someone. Immanuel Kant’s philosophy offers an answer to this question. According to Kant, every person has a moral duty to act according to the rule which he/she would like to transform into a universal law. Lying is commonly treated as a serious violation of moral rules. Consequently, if a person wants others to tell the truth, he/she should also be open and truthful with others. Kant believes that lying is morally inacceptable in all situations. In his view, lying corrupts the human ability to be a rational decision-maker and deprives the other people of their right to make rational decisions on the basis of complete and truthful information. With all these compelling arguments, I cannot fully support Kant’s position on lies. Very often, lying is a better alternative to telling the truth as long as it keeps another person from moral pain and physical sufferings. For example, it is ethically appropriate to tell the party host that the cake she has baked is certainly delicious even when it is not. It is also morally justifiable to tell a terminally ill relative that his chances to recover are high even when they are not. In the former case, lying does not lead to any harmful consequences. On the contrary, it helps to maintain and preserve positive human relationships. In the latter case, lies have the potential to inspire and motivate the terminally ill relative to struggle for health and recovery. The deontological theory in ways presented by Kant sounds too radical and inflexible. Meanwhile, life situations are changeable and diverse. Humans need to be more flexible in their ethical decisions. They should consider the multiple effects their choices are likely to have on others. Apart from the deontological rules proposed by Kant, possible consequences of personal actions should also be considered. Humans are equally rational and emotional, and it is the circumstances that dictate the best mode of moral action in each situation. This material was provided by Stacy Сolins,  who is a talented memo writer.