Deceptive means to reach good ends...is deception always immoral?

[Quatsch]

I posted the title of this thread as a broad subject, but I am interested in a particular example of this.

On facebook I posted a link about a woman going into Planned Parenthood undercover and recording the meeting between the woman and the PP staff member. Here is the link, it also contains the resulting video (edited, not only original uncut footage): Planned Parenthood Staffer Caught on Tape, Misleads Woman on Abortion

In the subsequent discussion on facebook, someone accused the woman’s practice as being deceptive and therefore immoral.

In Catholic moral teaching the ends can’t justify the means, i.e. to have a good end all of the means must also be good.

With this in mind, my question is: Is the woman’s action of posing to be curious about an abortion when she is really only interested in trapping the PP staffer on camera good or not?

This is important because if it is not good, then based on Catholic moral teaching (or my limited understanding of it at least), it can not be used to obtain a good end.

Please discuss…Biblical examples to help flush this out would be appreciated as well

 

[TheQuestioner]

I posted the title of this thread as a broad subject, but I am interested in a particular example of this.

On facebook I posted a link about a woman going into Planned Parenthood undercover and recording the meeting between the woman and the PP staff member. Here is the link, it also contains the resulting video (edited, not only original uncut footage): Planned Parenthood Staffer Caught on Tape, Misleads Woman on Abortion

In the subsequent discussion on facebook, someone accused the woman’s practice as being deceptive and therefore immoral.

In Catholic moral teaching the ends can’t justify the means, i.e. to have a good end all of the means must also be good.

With this in mind, my question is: Is the woman’s action of posing to be curious about an abortion when she is really only interested in trapping the PP staffer on camera good or not?

This is important because if it is not good, then based on Catholic moral teaching (or my limited understanding of it at least), it can not be used to obtain a good end.

Please discuss…Biblical examples to help flush this out would be appreciated as well

Well if the Dr. never asked them if they had a camera on them, then how could they be deceiving. They aren’t lying right?

 

[Quatsch]

Well if the Dr. never asked them if they had a camera on them, then how could they be deceiving. They aren’t lying right?

Deception can still come in the form of omitting truths, and the question is whether that is morally permissible.

I’m not sure how to approach it because my moral theology knowledge is lacking. It seems that if we say it depends on the circumstances, then that would be utilitarian (judging the means by their ends). On the other hand, we see with Rahab hiding Israel’s spies and lying to the authorities to conceal them that it can be permissible.

 

[LilyM]

Deception can still come in the form of omitting truths, and the question is whether that is morally permissible.

I’m not sure how to approach it because my moral theology knowledge is lacking. It seems that if we say it depends on the circumstances, then that would be utilitarian (judging the means by their ends). On the other hand, we see with Rahab hiding Israel’s spies and lying to the authorities to conceal them that it can be permissible.

Rahab quite possibly didn’t lie, on a careful reading of that episode.

Note that she was asked about the whereabouts of ‘the two men who entered your house’, and was told that they were spies, which means they were foreigners. Note - not Israelites, not any specified nationality, just foreign spies

Now Rahab being a prostitute, her house was presumably also her place of ‘business’. Almost certainly she was visited by numerous foreign men in the course of a day. That would probably be WHY the spies went to her, because it wouldn’t be especially unusual for foreign men to go there and they’d be less likely to be noticed.

Given that the inquirers didn’t actually specify WHICH two men, it’s quite possible that she could’ve been telling the truth about two OTHER of her foreign visitors who DID leave the town as the gates were shutting, as she said they did.

 

[Quatsch]

Rahab quite possibly didn’t lie, on a careful reading of that episode.

Note that she was asked about the whereabouts of ‘the two men who entered your house’, and was told that they were spies, which means they were foreigners. Note - not Israelites, not any specified nationality, just foreign spies

Now Rahab being a prostitute, her house was presumably also her place of ‘business’. Almost certainly she was visited by numerous foreign men in the course of a day. That would probably be WHY the spies went to her, because it wouldn’t be especially unusual for foreign men to go there and they’d be less likely to be noticed.

Given that the inquirers didn’t actually specify WHICH two men, it’s quite possible that she could’ve been telling the truth about two OTHER of her foreign visitors who DID leave the town as the gates were shutting, as she said they did.

Mmmm, kind of a stretch I think. It’s pretty likely that she knew exactly who they were looking for. But I like the way you think

 

[stephe1987]

How is that bad? She actually was curious about how Planned Parenthood would answer her questions. Many times they have broken the laws of the state in regards to parental consent, and they do not report sexual abuse in minors, even though anyone else (doctor, teacher, etc.) is required by law to report these things.

And taping them is not dishonest, either. They didn’t ask if they were being taped, so she didn’t lie. And it’s better that the public knows the truth about Planned Parenthood. Where I come from, most people think Planned Parenthood is a great organization designed to help counsel young people about family planning. In reality, they are a business trying to sell birth control and abortions, not interested in helping people fight STDs or help pregnant girls and women since they don’t encourage abstinence, and many women who’ve had abortions since it was legalized have come forward and expressed their regret. If it wasn’t legal, they wouldn’t have had the abortion. (And don’t give me this “If it’s legal people will be safer and not do it at home” propaganda. Before abortion was legal, 9/10 abortions were performed at a doctor’s office. And since it has become legal, there are dumpster babies and still people who perform their own abortions at home.)

 

[roveau]

I always say that the end never justifies the means…

There are many example of deception on the Old Testament, such as Sarah and Abraham lying about their marriage status to Pharaoh; Isaac was ‘fooled’ by Jacob and his mother stealing the blessing intended for Esau… as a spectacular example… there are others.

But we are under the New Testament now where the love of Christ and of mankind should be our primary concern.

There was an interesting example here in Sydney where a reporter volunteered in two nursing homes for three weeks to find out how the elderly are really cared for. She made her observations in a very systematic way… and it was an independant observation. The story was not a nice one and brought the plight of some of the elderly to public focus in a way that otherwise couldn’t be done. I recognized the truth in the story as I work in the field myself. It is stories like this that bring about change in the care of the elderly (nursing homes, dementia care and retirement villages) due to the publicity.

In the case above I would argue that she did volunteer but recognize that it did involve deception even though the end result was a good one for the many in nursing homes. Hmmm.

 

[Newbie2]

I posted the title of this thread as a broad subject, but I am interested in a particular example of this.

On facebook I posted a link about a woman going into Planned Parenthood undercover and recording the meeting between the woman and the PP staff member. Here is the link, it also contains the resulting video (edited, not only original uncut footage): Planned Parenthood Staffer Caught on Tape, Misleads Woman on Abortion

In the subsequent discussion on facebook, someone accused the woman’s practice as being deceptive and therefore immoral.

In Catholic moral teaching the ends can’t justify the means, i.e. to have a good end all of the means must also be good.

With this in mind, my question is: Is the woman’s action of posing to be curious about an abortion when she is really only interested in trapping the PP staffer on camera good or not?

This is important because if it is not good, then based on Catholic moral teaching (or my limited understanding of it at least), it can not be used to obtain a good end.

Please discuss…Biblical examples to help flush this out would be appreciated as well

The morality of the means is really the crux of the question, right? The classic end-means example is hiding Jews in the basement in Nazi Germany and telling the Gestapo that you are hiding nobody.

One way of looking at the morality of the means is to consider if the action is cooperating with evil. In the case of hiding Jews, granted, you are not given the choice of not participating; you either have to tell the absolute truth and doom them or deceive the Nazis…you have to choose one of two evils.

Taping in an abortion clinic is something that is planned, you have the option not to participate. However, in a way if you are in a position and are motivated to do such taping, in a way if you decide not to do so you could be cooperating with the evil of allowing the abortions to continue un-checked or at least un-monitored.

It would seem that deception is not always amoral i.e. that in some circumstances the means do justify the end, if strictly interpreted.

Take a benign example. I want to have a surprise party for my spouse. I use deception to get her to go to the mall while everyone gathers at my house. You’d have a hard time convincing many others that such deception is amoral.

So does the gravity of the greater evil trump the morality of the deceptive act? One cannot morally kill an abortion doctor, or even morally torch an abortion clinic.

Great topic.

 

[Big_Dummy]

Police use deception to catch the bad guys. That lady used deception to expose evil. There is a woman in the faith hall of fame Hebrews 11:1-12:3 who is there because she used deception to protect Isreal’s spies. That person simply does not like the use of deception there because it exposed something they approve of, abortion. I can’t think of any examples off the top of my head, but Liberals have used deception to try to expose Conservatives. For example, right now if you google “boycott home depot” you will see tons of gross pro-gay sound alike sites to make it hard to find the boycottthehomedepot.com site which redirects you to action.afa.net/item.aspx?id=2147496231.

 

[LilyM]

I always say that the end never justifies the means…

There are many example of deception on the Old Testament, such as Sarah and Abraham lying about their marriage status to Pharaoh; Isaac was ‘fooled’ by Jacob and his mother stealing the blessing intended for Esau… as a spectacular example… there are others.

Yes, and look at all the trouble that resulted from their lies! You think that because they did these things they were acting in accordance with God’s will at the time? Perhaps - perhaps, more like, God loved them in spite of their sins, and not because they were sinless, in these matters.

 

[Joe_Kelley]

. . .; Isaac was ‘fooled’ by Jacob and his mother stealing the blessing intended for Esau… as a spectacular example… there are others.
. . .

Note that Jacob and his mother were promptly punished for their action by being separated and never seeing each other again. Jacob was further punished when his sons used the same type of deception on him persuading him that Joseph was dead.

 

[didymus]

If something becomes sufficiently common does that change its morality?

Police & their informants secretly record people and that is not considered wrong because it is a necessary ?] part of law enforcement.
Reporters do it, perhaps slimy, but generally not considered immoral.

Now “citizen journalism” is growing which is what I think the woman investigating PP was engaging in.
She doesn’t have an “official journalist” union card but she used their tactics to cover a story they are ignoring.

Last, I assume she was acting legally. Most states (like NY where I live) have a “one-party” law, i.e., both parties to a conversation own it and either party is free to record and make it public w/o the consent of the other party*.

I think she is acquitted on the charge of deception because the PP worker “knew or should have known” (as the lawyers say) that it’s legal for anyone to record her.

*Massachusetts is a “two-party” state, you can’t record anyone w/o their permission. There was recently a case where a guy was being shaken down by cops and got it on tape – he was arrested for recording it and the tapes couldn’t be used as evidence.

 

[ab75]

I posted the title of this thread as a broad subject, but I am interested in a particular example of this.

On facebook I posted a link about a woman going into Planned Parenthood undercover and recording the meeting between the woman and the PP staff member. Here is the link, it also contains the resulting video (edited, not only original uncut footage): Planned Parenthood Staffer Caught on Tape, Misleads Woman on Abortion

In the subsequent discussion on facebook, someone accused the woman’s practice as being deceptive and therefore immoral.

In Catholic moral teaching the ends can’t justify the means, i.e. to have a good end all of the means must also be good.

With this in mind, my question is: Is the woman’s action of posing to be curious about an abortion when she is really only interested in trapping the PP staffer on camera good or not?

This is important because if it is not good, then based on Catholic moral teaching (or my limited understanding of it at least), it can not be used to obtain a good end.

Please discuss…Biblical examples to help flush this out would be appreciated as well

My wife is throwing her parents a suprise 50th anniversary party and needed to tell a half-truth about why she needed information off their computer to get addresses. I just can’t picture God being a “got ya” God that views that as immoral.

 

[Neil_Anthony]

Deception can still come in the form of omitting truths, and the question is whether that is morally permissible.

I’m not sure how to approach it because my moral theology knowledge is lacking. It seems that if we say it depends on the circumstances, then that would be utilitarian (judging the means by their ends). On the other hand, we see with Rahab hiding Israel’s spies and lying to the authorities to conceal them that it can be permissible.

You’re correct that you can’t do something immoral even to achieve a good end.

The morality of deception revolves around the right of the person to the information that you’re keeping from them. If someone has a right to know that you are recording them, or that you are investigating them, then it would be wrong to not tell them.

In this particular case, I would think that Planned Parenthood, being engaged in horrible crimes against the most innocent and vulnerable, do not have the right to know if they are being investigated or recorded, but that’s purely my own judgement call, I don’t know if the church gets into specifics like that. I’m sure you could find Catholic theologians on both sides of the issue. The principles are clear, but applying them is not easy.

 

[Tiffany_M_S]

For example, right now if you google “boycott home depot” you will see tons of gross pro-gay sound alike sites to make it hard to find the boycottthehomedepot.com site which redirects you to action.afa.net/item.aspx?id=2147496231.

I’m bisexual, and I’m abstaining. Now, I know you mean well, for me, as well as other bi/lesbian/gay individuals, but was this a porn site, a site supporting gay rights, or both?

I know this is hard to believe, and I mean you no ill will. I am not angry. But I have a brother who’s gay, and a sister who’s a lesbian. Neither of them believe in God. But we’re not bad people. Maybe misguided sinners, but not bad people. I’ve never violated a small child. My sister would give the shirt off of her back to a total and complete stranger if she needed it. My brother once saved a man’s life, because he was working with a sand-blaster in a shipyard and was so high on pot that it could have ripped him apart.

Please tell me that you hate the sin and not the sinner, because, with the way I grew up, judging a person by a single, minor characteristic (and no, I’m not talking murder, rape, or steal), such as sexual orientation is wrong. It is right to judge what they are doing, but please leave the judgement up to God.

Heck, I’m not even angry with you. I think that you, as a person, are wonderful, but am I really gross to you? Because that is not my intention. I’m just trying to get by. God gives me what strength I need to abstain, day by day. Thank Him that he has given me a wonderful boyfriend who understands, and helps with these matters. Not to mention, believe it or not, I have an excellent sense of self-control.

Please, tell me that I’m not absolutely disgusting to you. It’s hard enough, as it is.

 

[Tiffany_M_S]

Alright. I’m sorry. I hadn’t looked at the site first, and that was rather foolish of me. But I thought that, by “gross” you mean “pornographic.”

Hope you can forgive me. Just be careful of the words you use.

 

[LilyM]

My wife is throwing her parents a suprise 50th anniversary party and needed to tell a half-truth about why she needed information off their computer to get addresses. I just can’t picture God being a “got ya” God that views that as immoral.

Well, it’s part of the social contract understood by all that someone planning a surprise party will not reveal their plan.

It’s understood among members of society that some situations may involve saying more or less than the strict truth.

For example, that someone asks a question like ‘do you like these shoes’? or ‘does my bum look big in this’ purely for reassurance, and the expectation is that you will tell them ‘yes’ even if it’s not what you actually think.

Just like when a host asks ‘how do you do’ as they greet you at the door at the start of a party, it’s understood between you that it’s simply a polite greeting to which you respond ‘fine’ and perhaps move on.

And that the words are rarely, if ever, meant as they sound - they are not an honest inquiry inviting you to tell the person all about your latest bout of flu or your son’s winning his spelling bee - at least not at that time. Maybe later, after they’ve had the opportunity to greet other guests and are at leisure for real conversation.

These sorts of exchanges, IMHO, don’t fall into the category of ‘deception’ because no-one is genuinely deceived. Your wife, for example, if she’s like most surprise-party-throwers, does so often enough that people like her parents who know her would know that it’s at least a possibility.

 

[Tiffany_M_S]

I would agree with another person on this post. It’s all a matter of ethics: you have to choose between the lesser of the two evils. If, in doing this, the woman has done her part to try and stop abortion (murder), then this deception (bearing false witness) is justified.

At the same time, from what I heard, all sins are the same, according to God. No one sin is greater than the other. Each wrong is seen as the same.

Therefore, according to my resources (please correct me if I’m wrong), her sin is no better or worse than the woman who was trying to justify the act of the abortion.

However, I am new to the Catholic faith. I have heard that there are two different kinds of sins: veniel and mortal. This being said, it is possible that, as a Catholic, it should be demanded of me that I see these two sins as different from each other, that the murder is greater than the deception. So please correct me if I’m wrong.

 

[Tiffany_M_S]

Alright. I’m sorry. I hadn’t looked at the site first, and that was rather foolish of me. But I thought that, by “gross” you mean “pornographic.”

Hope you can forgive me. Just be careful of the words you use.

I’m looking over my post, and I realized that I explained myself wrong. It was not “pornographic” that I thought you meant. It’s hard to put this into words, so I’ll try the best I can: though I can see how it’s wrong, I see nothing wrong or gross of a gay float. I will agree about the matter of the children.

Again, I am sorry. And, no, I do not blame this on you. I need to learn to bite my lip at times and go through the entire post before saying anything. I hope you can forgive me. It’s just that living this way is not easy for me. It is something I deal with every day.

So, therefore, I resume the original topic.

 

[LilyM]

I would agree with another person on this post. It’s all a matter of ethics: you have to choose between the lesser of the two evils.

You really think God created a world where we EVER have no choice but evil of one kind or another and so EVER have literally no option but to choose the lesser evil? What little faith in a God who wants us to be like Him and to save us from sin - all sin!

Jesus said ‘be perfect’ - ie ‘choose no evil, even the least’. He wasn’t lying or deceiving us by commanding the impossible here - it IS possible to be perfect and act perfectly at all times. It’s not easy by any means, but it’s possible.