[Carry_Okie]

Classic means and ends argument. My answer to you is twofold:

First, it is a false premise to presume the lie was the ONLY means the officer had at his disposal, which is not true.

Second, I'm going to paraphrase Aristotle from the Nichomachean Ethics: 'No one selects an end unless it is a means to something else. There are no ends; there are only means.'

It is our means that distinguish us. While it is ethical to lie to save a life, it is not if there is an alternative.

[TheConservator]

Here is a proposed rule:

1. It is permissible for police to lie about the circumstances of the crime in order to solicit a confession.

2. It is not permissible for police to lie, or to make false threats, about collateral matters where doing so might induce a person to confess to the crime for reasons other than his own guilt.

3. In any criminal prosecution in which police are found to have lied about a material matter to a defendant, and the defendant is subsequently acquitted, the police shall be required to reimburse the defendant for the reasonable attorney’s fees and costs incurred defending himself against the charges for which he was indicted.

[TurboZamboni]

Like an “exigent circumstance”. You can kick in the door if you hear screaming and noises like someone is being beaten to death.

You can’t kick it in and enter just because you the door is locked and you want to go in.

[Respond Code Three]

"While it is ethical to lie to save a life, it is not if there is an alternative."

Regardless, the scenario stands as is. The detective found your missing relative alive. Do you thank him or curse him.

[cornelis]

Second, I'm going to paraphrase Aristotle from the Nichomachean Ethics: 'No one selects an end unless it is a means to something else. There are no ends; there are only means.'

Where did you learn that? You aren't paraphrasing Aristotle. You're getting this from someone else or making it up yourself.