Are These Lies?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Julia_Mae
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
J

Julia_Mae

Guest
A. Hortense is invited to a party by her boss and wants every much to avoid it. “Oh, drat!” she says looking sad, “I’m going out be out-of-town that week-end!” (Hortense lives two blocks from the boundary between her suburb and the next and is “out of town” every time she goes to the store or buys gas and she shops every week-end. She was not planning to do anything that week-end than shop, buy gas and hang around the house.)

B. Ted is at a singles bar and wants to get to know Alice, but he heard her say she’d never date another lawyer, and he is a lawyer. He introduces himself and offers to buy her a drink and she says, “Are you a lawyer?” Ted puts a look of bemused surprise on his face and says, “Well, when I thought about being a lawyer, once, I got a degree in accounting. Why, are you a lawyer?” (Ted is a tax lawyer.)
 
IMHO yes, they are lies. They intentionally mislead and in doing so, they bear false witness.
 
Julia_Mae said:
A. Hortense is invited to a party by her boss and wants every much to avoid it. “Oh, drat!” she says looking sad, “I’m going out be out-of-town that week-end!” (Hortense lives two blocks from the boundary between her suburb and the next and is “out of town” every time she goes to the store or buys gas and she shops every week-end. She was not planning to do anything that week-end than shop, buy gas and hang around the house.)

B. Ted is at a singles bar and wants to get to know Alice, but he heard her say she’d never date another lawyer, and he is a lawyer. He introduces himself and offers to buy her a drink and she says, “Are you a lawyer?” Ted puts a look of bemused surprise on his face and says, “Well, when I thought about being a lawyer, once, I got a degree in accounting. Why, are you a lawyer?” (Ted is a tax lawyer.)
Click to expand...
I believe they are both lies.

In example A, if she lied because she did not want to offend her boss, if she didn’t want to put her job in jeopardy, if she did not want him to feel rejected, hurt, embarrased, etc… and as long as this lie didn’t harm anyone, then it’s “not the end of the world.” It depends on her reason - sometimes lies can be justified. For example, let’s say she needs her job to pay the rent, feed her children, pay the bills, etc… why would she put her job in jeopardy? You know what I’m getting at - we all live in the real world.
I still feel she should go to confession about it, or at the very minimum, do some sort of penance and say a prayer for God’s forgiveness.

In example B, he lied because he had an interest in the woman. It’s nice that he has an interest in her but at the same time, it’s wrong to deceive her. I think this lie is worse than the lie in example A because he is “leading her on.” If she starts to develop an interest in him, then sooner or later she will find out the truth. It’s possible that things work out but I believe chances are that they won’t if she really can’t stand lawyers. This kind of lying will bring about an inevitable fight. Maybe if they end up together, it will still be in the back of her mind in the future and that leads to trust issues, who knows? I may be pushing it here but let’s say she falls in love with him. She fell in love with what she thought was him, and not what was really him. My advice to him would be: “don’t lie to the girl, just be honest and try to show her that not all lawyers are the same.”

Both examples are lies - they decieve. Both violate the 8th Commandment. Both examples require penance. I would say that example B is far worse.
 
Both are lies.

To lie is to deceive someone, and that is what both of them are doing. The fact that what was said is technically true does not change that misleading was the intent.

(I liked the out of town one, though. I live near an international crossing; and folks used to “leave the country” just for lunch :):))

ICXC NIKA
 
Julia_Mae said:
A. Hortense is invited to a party by her boss and wants every much to avoid it. “Oh, drat!” she says looking sad, “I’m going out be out-of-town that week-end!” (Hortense lives two blocks from the boundary between her suburb and the next and is “out of town” every time she goes to the store or buys gas and she shops every week-end. She was not planning to do anything that week-end than shop, buy gas and hang around the house.)

B. Ted is at a singles bar and wants to get to know Alice, but he heard her say she’d never date another lawyer, and he is a lawyer. He introduces himself and offers to buy her a drink and she says, “Are you a lawyer?” Ted puts a look of bemused surprise on his face and says, “Well, when I thought about being a lawyer, once, I got a degree in accounting. Why, are you a lawyer?” (Ted is a tax lawyer.)
Click to expand...
Neither of them are objective lies because they are not false statements.
In the first case the comment is acceptable because the boss does not have the right to know what she is doing when not going to the party.
In the second case truth is being used to deceive a person that has the right to know and thus such a behavior is sinful. In the second case I am working on the assumption that the goal of the guy is to date the woman. However, if that is not his intention then he does not owe her a complete response.
 
While they are both lies, and as such, bear false witness, I do not believe the first has a malicious intent, while the second might have one since the lie will eventually carry out during his attempts to court her in the future. He is directly deceiving Alice of something that he is not, and using technicalities to do so.

The first situation has a little bit more merit, since there is no obligation on her part to attend the party. This, however, should be stated without “beating around the bush”, and using other ways of avoiding it. If she genuinely did not want to attend, she must have reason not to, and as such, should be encouraged to explain that to her boss. The boss should have no reason to be offended, and if he/she becomes offended, it is entirely on their own will to be as such.
 
Gidras05 said:
While they are both lies, and as such, bear false witness, I do not believe the first has a malicious intent, while the second might have one since the lie will eventually carry out during his attempts to court her in the future. He is directly deceiving Alice of something that he is not, and using technicalities to do so.

The first situation has a little bit more merit, since there is no obligation on her part to attend the party. This, however, should be stated without “beating around the bush”, and using other ways of avoiding it. If she genuinely did not want to attend, she must have reason not to, and as such, should be encouraged to explain that to her boss. The boss should have no reason to be offended, and if he/she becomes offended, it is entirely on their own will to be as such.
Click to expand...
The problem is that if the boss becomes offended she might lose her job.

Preserving one’s job might be an extenuating circumstance for a minor deception of this kind. “Picking up someone” romantically, however, is not, especially when the one being picked up is also the one being lied to, since relationships require full trust, and the lie would come to light in time.

ICXC NIKA
 
GEddie said:
The problem is that if the boss becomes offended she might lose her job.

Preserving one’s job might be an extenuating circumstance for a minor deception of this kind. “Picking up someone” romantically, however, is not, especially when the one being picked up is also the one being lied to, since relationships require full trust, and the lie would come to light in time.

ICXC NIKA
Click to expand...
Wow, good point. To what extent is a minor deception okay though? If the deception would prevent something bad, like a death or a loss of someone’s job? Hm. It’s time for me to do some Apologetics searching 😉
 
Yes, they are lies.

All Hortense has to do is say “Sorry, I can’t make it.” If pressed further, “I already made plans.”

Ted is just a jerk. 😃
 
Gidras05 said:
Wow, good point. To what extent is a minor deception okay though? If the deception would prevent something bad, like a death or a loss of someone’s job? Hm. It’s time for me to do some Apologetics searching 😉
Click to expand...
To prevent someone’s death, a minor deception is definitely ok, since the good of physical aliveness far outweighs the wrong involved in the deception. And since work is needed to
live life in civil society, preserving it would extenuate a minor SOCIAL deception such as described. It would not necessarily extenuate lying about a work situation or a colleague.

Deception is in general something to avoid, because trust is good; but not everybody has the right to every truth.

ICXC NIKA
 
I cannot understand how people in this forum called them lies. They are objectively true statements does they are not lies. :confused:

The only question is if the individuals had the right to hear the complete truth. In the first case the answer is no. In the second case the answer is yes because there is a clear dependence of reactive action based on the knowledge of the truth, thus delivery of partial truth is sinful deception because is meant to eliminate the possibility of a choice for the receiver of the information. To deceive is to cause someone to accept as true or valid what is false or invalid. In the second case the the goal is for the lady to accept the fact that the guy is not a lawyer thus the deception.
 
Cristiano said:
I cannot understand how people in this forum called them lies. They are objectively true statements does they are not lies. :confused:

The only question is if the individuals had the right to hear the complete truth. In the first case the answer is no. In the second case the answer is yes because there is a clear dependence of reactive action based on the knowledge of the truth, thus delivery of partial truth is sinful deception because is meant to eliminate the possibility of a choice for the receiver of the information. To deceive is to cause someone to accept as true or valid what is false or invalid. In the second case the the goal is for the lady to accept the fact that the guy is not a lawyer thus the deception.
Click to expand...
I suppose this is true, unless the definition of lying to some might be concealing truth, which is oft taken as such in our society, even if this might not be the exact definition in a dictionary.

Yes, you are correct that the bigger question might be whether a person has the right to hear the complete truth.
 
Gidras05 said:
I suppose this is true, unless the definition of lying to some might be concealing truth, which is oft taken as such in our society, even if this might not be the exact definition in a dictionary.

Yes, you are correct that the bigger question might be whether a person has the right to hear the complete truth.
Click to expand...
I was using lying as defined in the CCC because here we are discussing about moral theology.
CCC par 2483:
Lying is the most direct offense against the truth. To lie is to speak or act against the truth in order to lead into error someone who has the right to know the truth. By injuring man’s relation to truth and to his neighbor, a lie offends against the fundamental relation of man and of his word to the Lord.
Click to expand...
However the CCC is quite exhaustive in the discussion about truth as a virtue and how it is wrong to use true statement to achieve immoral gains. The CCC (2475 → 2487) says that using objectively true information can still be an offense against Truth.

To tell a lie is always wrong, to withhold the complete truth can be morally appropriate.
 
Cristiano said:
However the CCC is quite exhaustive in the discussion about truth as a virtue and how** it is wrong to use true statement to achieve immoral gains. **The CCC (2475 → 2487) says that using objectively true information can still be an offense against Truth.
Click to expand...
I think this is what I was thinking of. (Interesting discussion, BTW, folks.) I think it’ also interesting that the CCC qualifies lying, (lieing? shoot) and includes a phrase like “has a right to know the truth.”

So if we make it simpler and leave Nazi death squads looking for the Jews in the basement out of it, can we agree that stating a fact in such a way as to mislead another into believing a different fact or set of facts, is a lie? Taking out the seriousness of the sin, can we agree this is a sin.

(BTW, Ted just wanted to get Alice into the sack and then didn’t intend to see her again. Unfortunately, he became quite infatuated with her and when she found out he started their relationship with a lie, walked away. He learned a sad lesson.)
 
Julia_Mae said:
I think this is what I was thinking of. (Interesting discussion, BTW, folks.) I think it’ also interesting that the CCC qualifies lying, (lieing? shoot) and includes a phrase like “has a right to know the truth.”

So if we make it simpler and leave Nazi death squads looking for the Jews in the basement out of it, can we agree that stating a fact in such a way as to mislead another into believing a different fact or set of facts, is a lie? Taking out the seriousness of the sin, can we agree this is a sin.

(BTW, Ted just wanted to get Alice into the sack and then didn’t intend to see her again. Unfortunately, he became quite infatuated with her and when she found out he started their relationship with a lie, walked away. He learned a sad lesson.)
Click to expand...
Well, I apologize for being a slacker and I just cut and pasted from the Vatican web site where they have the older version of the CCC. The newer version that I have in print states:
CCC par 2483:
Lying is the most direct offense against the truth. To lie is to speak or act against the truth in order to lead into error someone . By injuring man’s relation to truth and to his neighbor, a lie offends against the fundamental relation of man and of his word to the Lord.
Click to expand...
As you can see the section “who has the right to know the truth” has been removed. That clearly explain that is wrong to lie to anyone whether they have the right to know the truth or not. However, to tell the incomplete truth to someone that does not have the right to know the whole truth is also called mental reservation and it could me morally acceptable, mental reservation is a good topic of debate among theologians.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top