A question about lying to save lives

[summasix]

And that’s unfortunate, but beside the point. You may never perform an evil action so as to prevent an evil action, not ever.

True. However I don’t think this action can be summed up in a simple dichotomy.

To facilitate the act of murder (e.g. tell a Nazi of the location of Jews) is a violation of the Fifth Commandment. But if you in any way attempt to conceal this knowledge, this is deception, a violation of the Eighth Commandment. So, either way you commit a sin. Thus you separate yourself from God by being in that particular situation. This does not seem to bear any resemblance to God’s intentions in the slightest.

In this case, I would hypothesize that obedience to the Fifth Commandment trumps the Eighth Commandment due to the immediate consequences of the action (much in the same way that the Supreme Court ruled that “clear and present danger” trumps the Constitutional right to free speech in Schenk v. U.S.).

Also, the person conceals the knowledge of the whereabouts of any Jews with the primary intention to save their lives. Thus obedience to the Fifth Commandment constitutes the heart of the action, while deception is a bad but unavoidable byproduct, generated not by the person acting in a righteous manner but the sinful circumstances that triggered the incident in the first place. The Gestapo knew perfectly well that in order to preserve the life of Jews, well intentioned people would lie to them. Thus, since they thrust two options that alone are sinful, they take the full blame for any lies a person says. The person acting in good faith takes two unappealing choices and swallows down the one that causes the least spiritual chaos, thus in this case excusing the sinfulness of lying.

This is all on the assumption you make that the deception is a lie, when I would argue that it was the use of discretion, which the Church says is not sinful.

 

[summasix]

You have painted a picture of the world that is, in some, small way, not true. This harms them. Though even if it didn’t, this would only be a problem in my attempt to understand the immorality of lying, not the factuality of it.

Firstly, could you explain how impeding the act of murder by means of concealment harms the ones intending to commit the act?

If it does not harm the Nazi, as I assert, then I don’t understand the problem. The problem, I infer, is the immorality of lying. The factuality of lying is significant only that it is tyed to the moral consequence.

For example, I woke up late this morning. So what? Unless this had moral implications, no big deal.

Lying is not wrong because it is a bad action, it is because it displeases God. So, if God is not displeased in the instance, then there is nothing wrong with it. So then I would again ask you, so what if it is lying?

 

[Verbum_Caro]

yes it would, I don’t have to tell you how old I am because you have no right to know–if you were the deputy registrar for auto licenses, that would be another story. If someone asks me a personal question I can refuse to answer, or give a frivolous or false answer and it is not a lie, in the sense of a sin. Lying to save some one is not an evil action and is not even a lie, because if the obvious intent of the person asking the question is evil they, by definition, have no right to the information.

Puzzleannie,

I’m not sure that I expressed myself clearly. I was attempting to point out that just because someone (let’s say you) doesn’t have a right to know the truth (let’s say, my age), it does not seem to give me license to tell you, unsolicited, that I am 14, or 7, or 112.

That would be a false representation and a lie. Hence we can say, at the very least, that just because someone doesn’t have the right to *know *the truth does *not *mean that the person doesn’t have the right to be told the truth. In other words, just because no one on the board has the right to know my real name, it doesn’t give me license to tell everyone that my name is Harrison Ford.

Now, admittedly in your first post you did use examples where someone was *inquiring *after something that they didn’t have the right to know. But, I was only trying to point out that your first sentence:

puzzleannie:

speaking an untruth is a lie and a sin only if told to someone who has a right to know.

seemed inaccurate and too broad.

VC

 

[LilyM]

But puzzleannie, that definition doesn’t seem to hold water in an absolute sense. For instance you don’t have “the right” to know how old I am, do you? – but that wouldn’t seem to give me license to tell you that I am 14 or 78, would it?

VC

True - if you can get away with not telling people your age at all you’d obviously be wrong to lie instead. On the other hand, imagine a ‘Soylent Green’ type situation where people over a certain age are being systematically murdered because they’re a drain on society - in that case you’d need to think carefully about whether it may be necessary to lie about your age to preserve your life.

 

[LilyM]

I didn’t mean to imply that.

Lets discuss “white lies” such as: “He’s not in the office, can I take a message?” or “Yes, the meatloaf is excellent.”

That’s where polite evasion comes in as an alternative to lying, at least where it’s possible - ‘He’s not available’ instead of ‘He’s not in the office’, or ‘Well, I do prefer your (insert favourite dish they make here)’ instead of ‘yes, your meatloaf is brilliant’.

 

[Caesar517]

That’s where polite evasion comes in as an alternative to lying, at least where it’s possible - ‘He’s not available’ instead of ‘He’s not in the office’, or ‘Well, I do prefer your (insert favourite dish they make here)’ instead of ‘yes, your meatloaf is brilliant’.

Polite evasion is always preferable, but it doesn’t always cut it. If the person realizes that the question was dodged (happens all the time), that can be tantamount to telling them that the meatloaf really was nasty.

 

[Ron_Conte]

Intrinsically evil acts, such as lying, are always immoral. The circumstances can reduce the culpability, but they can never entirely remove the culpability. If you lie to save someone’s life from being unjustly taken away, the lie is still a (venial) sin. And no one’s life is truly lost, because the just are given eternal life. So a lie is not justified to save a life.

 

[Caesar517]

Intrinsically evil acts, such as lying, are always immoral. The circumstances can reduce the culpability, but they can never entirely remove the culpability. If you lie to save someone’s life from being unjustly taken away, the lie is still a (venial) sin. And no one’s life is truly lost, because the just are given eternal life. So a lie is not justified to save a life.

Have you read post #21? How do you respond to that?

 

[bilop]

Intrinsically evil acts, such as lying, are always immoral. The circumstances can reduce the culpability, but they can never entirely remove the culpability. If you lie to save someone’s life from being unjustly taken away, the lie is still a (venial) sin. And no one’s life is truly lost, because the just are given eternal life. So a lie is not justified to save a life.

What if you lie to save someone who is in mortal sin?

God Bless

 

[LilyM]

Polite evasion is always preferable, but it doesn’t always cut it. If the person realizes that the question was dodged (happens all the time), that can be tantamount to telling them that the meatloaf really was nasty.

I know that

On the other hand, if it’s the truth then sometimes you’ve got to say it even if it hurts feelings a little. Someone who calls for the boss should accept that they’re not available anyway, and the cook should take the hint and not make meatloaf for you again (at least not until they perfect the recipe). You can soften it, for example, by saying that you appreciate the effort it must’ve taken to make it.

I wouldn’t want to say any food was great when it wasn’t, otherwise they might cook it for you all the time.

 

[LilyM]

What if you lie to save someone who is in mortal sin?

God Bless

No. Someone who knows the truth and will sin mortally anyway doesn’t have a proper love of God, and that wouldn’t change even if you lied to them.

They might not sin mortally in that one instance any more, but there’d be others…

 

[Caesar517]

I wouldn’t want to say any food was great when it wasn’t, otherwise they might cook it for you all the time.

Haha, the irony. I was envisioning a senario where there was no threat of future meals (a distant relative or a family reunion).

Although in some cases I would rather suffer through a thousand nasty meals that hurt someone’s self confidence (it can be so delicate sometimes).

 

[puzzleannie]

I am simply astounded, that on the Moral Theology forum of one of the most prominent Catholic apologetics sites, we can spend 4 pages debating about the morality of lying to a Nazi hunting Jews, but ignore the morality of the culture which allowed the Holocaust to happen. And how can you justify this debate and ignore the morality of the culture that is brewing–in the same cesspool that spawned national socialism–evils that dwarf what even those satanic minds envisioned.

 

[Caesar517]

I am simply astounded, that on the Moral Theology forum of one of the most prominent Catholic apologetics sites, we can spend 4 pages debating about the morality of lying to a Nazi hunting Jews, but ignore the morality of the culture which allowed the Holocaust to happen. And how can you justify this debate and ignore the morality of the culture that is brewing–in the same cesspool that spawned national socialism–evils that dwarf what even those satanic minds envisioned.

I don’t think we’re ignoring them. There are many other threads here; one for every topic imaginable.

 

[LilyM]

Haha, the irony. I was envisioning a senario where there was no threat of future meals (a distant relative or a family reunion).

Although in some cases I would rather suffer through a thousand nasty meals that hurt someone’s self confidence (it can be so delicate sometimes).

Of course there are difficult cases - young kids who are just learning to cook and such. I think, though, that even with those whose self confidence may be low it’s worth the effort to try to find a tactful way to encourage them to improve rather than falsely say they’re great if they’re not - which can lead to an undue sense of laziness and ‘entitlement’ that we see in so many kids today.

I think my parents did well - they have the attitude of lifelong learning and lifelong improvement in everything they do. Seeing them take this attitude with themselves as well meant that even if they didn’t always give us glowing compliments on everything we knew why, and knew it wasn’t the end of the world or anything.

 

[Caesar517]

I think my parents did well - they have the attitude of lifelong learning and lifelong improvement in everything they do.

That’s how I was raised and that’s how I plan to raise my children.

 

[Verbum_Caro]

Well, as always, this topic proves to be stimulating.

Taking a survey of the thread so far I would say that LilyM, Rob Conte, and Blaine Tog are on one side, and VociMike, wjp94, Tietjen, and puzzleannie are on the other. (I’m not sure about Ceaser51 yet!)

I throw my lot in with the first group (Lily, Rob, and Blaine) – and let me try to sum up the position as I see it (of course, I don’t want to speak for you folks, please amend or correct as you see fit!).

1. • If a person has the right to the truth, we violate this right either by lying or remaining silent. For example, when a child is questioned by his parent regarding last evening’s wheareabouts.
   • If a person does not have a right to the truth, we may withhold the truth either by silence or some form of evasion (mental reservation) – but we cannot affirmatively lie.
     This position is based on the premise that lying violates natural law because:
   • A) the purpose and primary end of speech is to communicate what is in one’s mind, and second
   • B) It is vital to human society that speech be used to truthfully to communicate what is on one’s mind.
   In regard to exigent circumstances (such as the Nazi example): while the culpability may be lessened (i.e. a venial sin, or NO sin due to duress, fear, etc) the objective nature of the sinfulness of the act of lying would remain if no lawful evasion was employed in the alternative.
   
   You can’t make an appeal to the principle of self-defense or defense of others in this case because when one uses physical force to defend oneself against unjust application of force one is using one’s powers (the ability to apply force) in a legitimate way – in this case to repel unjust force. BUT, in the case of lying one is frustrating the primary end of the act of communicating. Making ill use of a faculty does not become permissible just because of difficult circumstances. One cannot do evil to obtain the good.
   
   VC

 

[Tietjen]

And that’s unfortunate, but beside the point. You may never perform an evil action so as to prevent an evil action, not ever.

If lies are from Satan, then they are, by definition, sinful. They may be venially sinful, but that doesn’t mean you should ever do them for any reason.

And again, there is a line between saying nothing and letting them draw their own conclusions, and saying something with the intention of making them draw false conclusions.

BlaineTog,
I’d lie to save you. You can be disappointed and call my act a sin if you wish, but I’d still do it. Perhaps I am just an evil person. Pray for me and God bless.

 

[Tietjen]

That’s where polite evasion comes in as an alternative to lying, at least where it’s possible - ‘He’s not available’ instead of ‘He’s not in the office’, or ‘Well, I do prefer your (insert favourite dish they make here)’ instead of ‘yes, your meatloaf is brilliant’.

Yes, and teach your children to tell the truth when and stranger calls and asks to speak to their mommy or daddy when they are out running an errand? “My mommy and daddy aren’t here right now.” Or as my children were taught, “My dad is in the shower, can I have him call you back when he gets out?”

 

[Tietjen]

No. Someone who knows the truth and will sin mortally anyway doesn’t have a proper love of God, and that wouldn’t change even if you lied to them.

They might not sin mortally in that one instance any more, but there’d be others…

I think we should be real careful now, because it sounds a whole lot like you are saying that anyone who commits a mortal sin has no chance of salvation. Sorry, I’m not buyng that one. If I misunderstood your post, I apologize.