Can someone here clarify what Kant meant with the following statement:
if you have by a lie prevented someone just now bent on murder from committing the deed, then you are legally accountable for all the consequences that might arise from it. But if you have kept strictly to the truth, then public justice can hold nothing against you, whatever the unforeseen consequences might be
Now I get that lying is considered wrong in Kant's moral philosophy no matter the circumstances. What I don't understand is why Kant believed you are responsible for the consequences of your lies but not of the truth.
So in the "Murderer at the door" scenario, you could either tell the murderer the truth, in which case his enemy will most likely be found and killed, or lie and risk that your lie would end up causing his enemy to be killed.
Why did Kant believe you are not responsible for the consequences of providing someone the truth, but are responsible when providing information you believe is false?
The way I understand it you are morally responsibly only for the act of lying itself, while the murderer is responsible for anything immoral he ends up doing using the information you provided. The fact that you believed the information was false might have helped the murderer find his enemy, but the decision to kill him was still made only by the murderer, who should therefore be fully responsible for the murder.