Encourage lying?

[Rence]

Whats the point about discussing what the scenario i made up implies and does not imply? She will kill the baby to secure the job.

And that its not completely out of question is because the question arose as i read about a women who probably will have in the next 2-3 weeks an abortion because of a rather similar situation (do not know her personally, hence i do not know all details).

Uh, no, she’s NOT having an abortion to secure a job. It’s impossible to say that a woman had an abortion in order to secure a job because she doesn’t have to even tell them she is pregnant when she applies or accepts the position. She doesn’t need to discuss anything until she’s ready to give appropriate notice of materity leave. So discussing a senario about a woman having to lie about being pregnant to get a job is just being dishonest because the senario doesn’t exist.

 

[TheDoctor]

“A” can simply tell the employer that she is not pregnant. It is not a lie.

In order for me to lie to you, the first fundamental that must exist is that the person asking the question must have a valid right to the information. The employer has no valid right to the information as to “A”'s reproductive state therefore there is no lie in saying she is not when she is or is when she is not.

This same silly argument has been used thus: If a Catholic was hiding a Jew during WWII and the Nazi’s came to the door and asked “Any Jews here?” must the Catholic tell the truth since he is not supposed to lie. Obviously, the Nazi has no valid right to that information because they would kill the Jew, therefore the Catholic can answer “nope, ain’t no Jews here” with a clear conscience.

 

[StJudeprayforme]

“A” can simply tell the employer that she is not pregnant. It is not a lie.

In order for me to lie to you, the first fundamental that must exist is that the person asking the question must have a valid right to the information. The employer has no valid right to the information as to “A”'s reproductive state therefore there is no lie in saying she is not when she is or is when she is not.

This same silly argument has been used thus: If a Catholic was hiding a Jew during WWII and the Nazi’s came to the door and asked “Any Jews here?” must the Catholic tell the truth since he is not supposed to lie. Obviously, the Nazi has no valid right to that information because they would kill the Jew, therefore the Catholic can answer “nope, ain’t no Jews here” with a clear conscience.

This is not the overwhelming Catholic moral tradition. Catholic moral tradition allows for equivocation and ambiguous phrasing under such circumstances, but direct lying is always wrong. Aquinas, Augustine, the Catechism of Trent, and the Catechism of the Catholic Church make this clear. As noted above, the type of mental reservation you are referring to is considered to be the same as a lie by the Church.

 

[TheDoctor]

This is not the overwhelming Catholic moral tradition. Catholic moral tradition allows for equivocation and ambiguous phrasing under such circumstances, but direct lying is always wrong. Aquinas, Augustine, the Catechism of Trent, and the Catechism of the Catholic Church make this clear. As noted above, the type of mental reservation you are referring to is considered to be the same as a lie by the Church.

From the Catchism:

2488 The right to the communication of the truth is not unconditional. Everyone must conform his life to the Gospel precept of fraternal love. This requires us in concrete situations to judge whether or not it is appropriate to reveal the truth to someone who asks for it.
2489 Charity and respect for the truth should dictate the response to every request for information or communication. the good and safety of others, respect for privacy, and the common good are sufficient reasons for being silent about what ought not be known or for making use of a discreet language. the duty to avoid scandal often commands strict discretion**. No one is bound to reveal the truth to someone who does not have the right to know it.**

Do we agree “A”'s employer has no right to know the truth? If yes, “A” can answer as she wishes as long as that response does not do harm to another. It is not a lie.

 

[StJudeprayforme]

From the Catchism:

2488 The right to the communication of the truth is not unconditional. Everyone must conform his life to the Gospel precept of fraternal love. This requires us in concrete situations to judge whether or not it is appropriate to reveal the truth to someone who asks for it.
2489 Charity and respect for the truth should dictate the response to every request for information or communication. the good and safety of others, respect for privacy, and the common good are sufficient reasons for being silent about what ought not be known or for making use of a discreet language. the duty to avoid scandal often commands strict discretion**. No one is bound to reveal the truth to someone who does not have the right to know it.**

Do we agree “A”'s employer has no right to know the truth? If yes, “A” can answer as she wishes as long as that response does not do harm to another. It is not a lie.

2489 mentions nothing about lying. You will notice that it doesn’t say that you have a right to knowingly spread false information to someone who doesn’t have a right to the truth. This would be like my asking the doctor “What did Bob tell you about his medical history” and his responding “You have no right to know.” Not “Bob is perfectly healthy” when in reality Bob has cancer.

There is a big difference between “not revealing” the truth and “…] to speak or act against the truth in order to lead someone into error” which is the Catechism definition of lying (CCC 2483). I would suggest reading Augustine and Aquinas on these questions.

 

[carn]

Uh, no, she’s NOT having an abortion to secure a job.

Well, thats what she said. And from what i gathered from the internet forum, she might well already got her baby killed.

 

[Fairwinds]

There is never a right to lie, even to save a life. St. Augustine addresses the concept of “lying to save a life” rather bluntly when he compares it to fornicating with someone in order to prevent them from hanging themselves. You would never consider doing that he says, so why should it be any different with lying?

Also, US vs. German law doesn’t matter. You are getting into the legal vs. ethical distinction. In Germany, it very well may be legal to lie about this, but it would never be ethical. In this case, the woman should just say “I’m sorry, but you have no right to ask that question.” or something similar to that.

if there’s no right to the truth, how is any response? you wouldn’t be very good at playing poker much less hiding Jews from the nazis.

 

[StJudeprayforme]

if there’s no right to the truth, how is any response? you wouldn’t be very good at playing poker much less hiding Jews from the nazis.

I am quite good at poker. You will notice in poker that you don’t actually say “I have a Full House” when all you actually have is a seven-high. You put the chips in without saying anything. Games are a false analogy anyway because cheating/lying may be a built in component to the game (like BS) and addressed in the rules, so a lie in some of them would be the equivalent of a “Not guilty” plea in court. Saying you are playing three five-cards when you are really playing a two and a five takes on a special meaning in the context of the game (like a “Not guilty” plea in a court of law).

To the matter at hand: again, there is a difference between not saying anything or using ambiguous phrasing to someone who has no right to know the truth (morally permissible), and lying to them and telling them something blatantly false. In the cancer analogy I used earlier, this would be the difference between “Your father is in perfect health” and “I’m sorry, I cannot disclose that information to you without his consent.” The former is a lie, the latter is recognizing that the person has no right to know the truth.

In the example of the Nazi and the Jews, since the justification for lying is almost always based upon a consequentialist mentality (better to lie to the Nazi than to tell the truth and have him kill the Jews) the very easy counterargument is that you are not God, and thus you don’t know what effects your lie will have. It is quite possible that your lie of “No” will cause him to go to another house where there are more Jews and find them, ending more lives, or even worse, to call your bluff, and search the house harder than he would have before, making him find the Jews that he wouldn’t have found if you had invited him to search on your own. The point here is: since we never know the outcome of a lie, good consequences cannot be used to justify it. I do not think that you should show the Nazi where the Jews are hidden, but I do not think you have the right to lie. Silence or ambiguous answers are the morally acceptable option in this case.

Again, read Augustine and Aquinas. Bl. John Paul II also has some interesting things to say about how circumstances are unable to turn intrinsic evils into subjective goods in “Veritatis Splendor”. The Catechism, when read in the context of itself, the ordinary Magisterium, and the Catholic moral tradition is clearly not giving an excuse to lie.

 

[Fairwinds]

disregard 27.

I am quite good at poker. You will notice in poker that you don’t actually say “I have a Full House” when all you actually have is a seven-high.

if you’re a good poker player you’ve talked people into folding without even seeing your own cards or knowing you have a busted hand.

I “lie” in poker all the time. every bluff or semi-bluff is a misrepresentation of the strength of a hand, and often the amount of a raise can signal a specific kind of hand or potential hand a hand and a very good player will take advantage of a good player often.this way. I can announce “I’ve made a flush” on sixth street and induce folding or freeze betting/raising. I can swear on all that’s holy that I’m going to reraise you while you’re still acting and just call or fold unless I’ve made a nonverbal motion when its my turn. while it is true that cards speak, this is at the showdown and only after someone has paid to see. anyone who’d trust a verbal representation (outside of a few limited situations) is not an experienced poker player.

You put the chips in without saying anything. Games are a false analogy anyway because cheating/lying may be a built in component to the game (like BS) and addressed in the rules, so a lie in some of them would be the equivalent of a “Not guilty” plea in court. Saying you are playing three five-cards when you are really playing a two and a five takes on a special meaning in the context of the game (like a “Not guilty” plea in a court of law).

I’ll say anything that might help when I’m betting. Poker provides precise examples, if someone bets and asks you if you can beat a high pair and you say sure and raise with nothing. that’s a lie, according to a overly strict interpretation of “lying” that asserts that everyone is entitled to the full truth, all the time.

To the matter at hand: again, there is a difference between not saying anything or using ambiguous phrasing to someone who has no right to know the truth (morally permissible), and lying to them and telling them something blatantly false. In the cancer analogy I used earlier, this would be the difference between “Your father is in perfect health” and “I’m sorry, I cannot disclose that information to you without his consent.” The former is a lie, the latter is recognizing that the person has no right to know the truth.

trivial, not even an issue.

In the example of the Nazi and the Jews, since the justification for lying is almost always based upon a consequentialist mentality (better to lie to the Nazi than to tell the truth and have him kill the Jews) the very easy counterargument is that you are not God, and thus you don’t know what effects your lie will have. It is quite possible that your lie of “No” will cause him to go to another house where there are more Jews and find them, ending more lives, or even worse, to call your bluff, and search the house harder than he would have before, making him find the Jews that he wouldn’t have found if you had invited him to search on your own. The point here is: since we never know the outcome of a lie, good consequences cannot be used to justify it. I do not think that you should show the Nazi where the Jews are hidden, but I do not think you have the right to lie. Silence or ambiguous answers are the morally acceptable option in this case.

I see a lot of this hand wave argument all the time. the Jew hunting nazi in my hypothetical is well versed in how Christians respond who are hiding Jews but will never “lie”. anything less than a straight denial or playing word games (of which he knows all of them) will result in the immediate execution of the nearest person, then he’ll tear the house apart and shoot the hiding Jews.

now, I don’t mind if someone is so scrupulous that he’d give up Jews to torture and murder, rather than mislead the nazi, but, as a common courtesy, that person should at least inform the Jews he’s sheltering that he won’t “lie” for them. if he’s going to give up Jews ,he should inform his neighbors he’ll hand over the Jews they’re hiding as well. or just don’t hide Jews.

or, the better solution is to think the apparent moral contradiction through before the Jews or nazis show up, and decide how to do the obvious moral act and protect the innocent while not at the same time damning your soul. and do this in a real way, that doesn’t involve outsmarting cartoon nazis.

Again, read Augustine and Aquinas. Bl. John Paul II also has some interesting things to say about how circumstances are unable to turn intrinsic evils into subjective goods in “Veritatis Splendor”. The Catechism, when read in the context of itself, the ordinary Magisterium, and the Catholic moral tradition is clearly not giving an excuse to lie.

this is a no-brainer. I’d never lie to someone who is entitled to the truth. misleading the nazi I don’t regard as a lie, which, moreover, not only saves lives, but prevents the nazi from committing another mortal sin.

but your mileage may vary. if I were being hunted by killers, I know not to seek shelter from you.

 

[StJudeprayforme]

disregard 27.
trivial, not even an issue.

Actually, it is very much an issue because this is the type of situation the Catechism most likely envisioned. Things such as professional privilege. Again, there is a huge difference between “I cannot tell you” and “Your father is healthy.”

I see a lot of this hand wave argument all the time. the Jew hunting nazi in my hypothetical is well versed in how Christians respond who are hiding Jews but will never “lie”. anything less than a straight denial or playing word games (of which he knows all of them) will result in the immediate execution of the nearest person, then he’ll tear the house apart and shoot the hiding Jews.

now, I don’t mind if someone is so scrupulous that he’d give up Jews to torture and murder, rather than mislead the nazi, but, as a common courtesy, that person should at least inform the Jews he’s sheltering that he won’t “lie” for them. if he’s going to give up Jews ,he should inform his neighbors he’ll hand over the Jews they’re hiding as well. or just don’t hide Jews.

Following the moral tradition of the Church since at least Augustine isn’t scrupulosity or even rigorism. Here is a quote from Innocent III:

“Holy Scripture forbids us to lie even to save a man’s life. If, then, we allow the lie of necessity, there seems to be no reason from the theological point of view for not allowing occasional murder and fornication when these crimes would procure great temporal advantage; the absolute character of the moral law will be undermined, it will be reduced to a matter of mere expediency.”

As I keep mentioning, Aquinas also shared the view, and then there is the decree from Innocent XI condemning the errors of laxism. This is not scrupulosity it the least bit.

or, the better solution is to think the apparent moral contradiction through before the Jews or nazis show up, and decide how to do the obvious moral act and protect the innocent while not at the same time damning your soul. and do this in a real way, that doesn’t involve outsmarting cartoon nazis.

this is a no-brainer. I’d never lie to someone who is entitled to the truth. misleading the nazi I don’t regard as a lie, which, moreover, not only saves lives, but prevents the nazi from committing another mortal sin.

but your mileage may vary. if I were being hunted by killers, I know not to seek shelter from you.

What you are advocating is consequentialism. It is better to die and not commit even a venial sin than to lie and save multiple lives. The Catechism needs to be read in the context of the moral tradition of the Church. When this is done there is no contradiction and no tension within itself, unlike the reading you are advocating.

 

[Fairwinds]

Actually, it [release of medical information] is very much an issue because this is the type of situation the Catechism most likely envisioned. Things such as professional privilege. Again, there is a huge difference between “I cannot tell you” and “Your father is healthy.”

its a trivial issue because its not a hard or even disputed question.

Following the moral tradition of the Church since at least Augustine isn’t scrupulosity or even rigorism. Here is a quote from Innocent III:

“Holy Scripture forbids us to lie even to save a man’s life. If, then, we allow the lie of necessity, there seems to be no reason from the theological point of view for not allowing occasional murder and fornication when these crimes would procure great temporal advantage; the absolute character of the moral law will be undermined, it will be reduced to a matter of mere expediency.”

As I keep mentioning, Aquinas also shared the view, and then there is the decree from Innocent XI condemning the errors of laxism. This is not scrupulosity it the least bit.

What you are advocating is consequentialism. It is better to die and not commit even a venial sin than to lie and save multiple lives. The Catechism needs to be read in the context of the moral tradition of the Church. When this is done there is no contradiction and no tension within itself, unlike the reading you are advocating.

you assume the nazis have a right to the truth, the CCC says that some are not entitled to the truth, this has already been pointed out to you.

if you try to martyr yourself by saying nothing or making lame misdirection, my smart Jew hunting nazi knows that satisfying your scruples means that you’re hiding Jews – call it a tell, since you play poker. the smart nazi would leave you alive – informers are valuable, and you’ll give up Jews your neighbors are hiding when asked. He’d shoot your neighbors daughter, pour encourager les autres. but no martyrdom for you, only the satisfaction that you didn’t tell a lie.

I don’t have any moral qualms if you have that stance and the Jews you’re hiding and your neighbors are hiding have been told and everyone goes along with it. you would tell them, right? I’d have problems with your moral position if you offered them sanctuary or were aware of others in hiding elsewhere and then betrayed them all without first telling them your protection is worthless.

I’m pretty sure, without having to read church fathers or papal directives, that the moral tradition of the Church was to save Jews from nazi hunters by hiding them and telling the nazis that they were nowhere around, and that sometimes it didn’t work and true martyrs were made. I’m also sure that the typical Catholic faced with this problem was able to do just that with a clean conscience, and, moreover, Catholics who adopted your solution were few and far between.

 

[StJudeprayforme]

its a trivial issue because its not a hard or even disputed question.

you assume the nazis have a right to the truth, the CCC says that some are not entitled to the truth, this has already been pointed out to you.

You ignore the CCC’s definition of lying. It does not even include the concept of “right to the truth.” It says instead “To lie is to speak or act against the truth in order to lead someone into error.” (CCC 2482)

The “trivial issue” is an example of what the CCC had in mind when it says that not everyone has a right to the truth.

Here are the sections of the CCC that you have in mind
Catechism of the Catholic Church:

2489 Charity and respect for the truth should dictate the response to every request for information or communication. The good and safety of others, respect for privacy, and the common good are sufficient reasons for being silent about what ought not be known or for making use of a discreet language. The duty to avoid scandal often commands strict discretion. No one is bound to reveal the truth to someone who does not have the right to know it

You will notice it includes right before your justification for lying, the correct course of action. “Being silent” or “making use of discreet language”. I don’t see “lying” or “saying things which the Magisterium has defined to be lies in all circumstances other than these.” “Veritatis Splendor” makes it clear that circumstances cannot change the nature of an intrinsically evil action (CCC 2485 says this about lying) , which is why you don’t see either of those listed here. (VS 81).

Yes, not everyone has a right to the truth. No, this does not give you a right to lie. This gives you a right to remain silent or a right to use ambiguous language-- like has always been taught by the Church.

**I’m pretty sure, without having to read church fathers or papal directives, **that the moral tradition of the Church was to save Jews from nazi hunters by hiding them and telling the nazis that they were nowhere around, and that sometimes it didn’t work and true martyrs were made. I’m also sure that the typical Catholic faced with this problem was able to do just that with a clean conscience, and, moreover, Catholics who adopted your solution were few and far between.

So, what you are advocating is ignoring the Magisterium and the common teaching of Catholic theologians dating back to St. Augustine, including Doctors of the Church? Okay.

 

[Fairwinds]

You ignore the CCC’s definition of lying. It does not even include the concept of “right to the truth.” It says instead “To lie is to speak or act against the truth in order to lead someone into error.” (CCC 2482)

The “trivial issue” is an example of what the CCC had in mind when it says that not everyone has a right to the truth.

Here are the sections of the CCC that you have in mind

You will notice it includes right before your justification for lying, the correct course of action. “being silent” or “making use of discreet language”. Yes, not everyone has a right to the truth. No, this does not give you a right to lie. This gives you a right to remain silent or a right to use ambiguous language-- like has always been taught by the Church.

So, what you are advocating is ignoring the Magisterium and the common teaching of Catholic theologians dating back to St. Augustine, including Doctors of the Church? Okay.

cherry picking examples that aren’t difficult questions is of such marginal use that I dismiss them out of hand as relevant to this problem.

ultimately, we have to disagree then. you have your definition of lying, I have mine: “discrete language” in the instance of the nazi/Jew issue means convincingly misleading them away. you, perhaps with some regret, yet believing you’re Right, would give up Jews you’ve offered sanctuary to, along with the other Jews your neighbors are actually trying to hide by either telling them outright or using “discrete language” that fools no one. you have a nonexistent grasp of why deception in poker games aren’t lies, I submit that on a more important issue, your catechesis on how and why Jews (or their equivalent) must be protected and how they can be protected is also inadequately formed.

I believe the moral authority of the Church absolutely, flat out and unequivocally condemns an interpretation of Christian ethics that results in more murders and more of the sin of murder as scrupulous, narrow minded and evil.

 

[StJudeprayforme]

I believe the moral authority of the Church absolutely, flat out and unequivocally condemns an interpretation of Christian ethics that results in more murders and more of the sin of murder as scrupulous, narrow minded and evil.

Then you support consequentialism, and have no conception of the the longstanding tradition on lying, which as I have pointed out before, includes quotes that directly address this issue saying “Holy Scripture forbids us to lie even to save a man’s life”

I would urge you to read St. Augustine’s Contra Mendacio where he condemns the idea that lying is acceptable to save a life is ever acceptable multiple times (you can find it here): newadvent.org/fathers/1313.htm

I doubt we will ever agree on this, but I assue you that my position is supported by the long Christian moral tradition.

 

[Fairwinds]

Then you support consequentialism, and have no conception of the the longstanding tradition on lying, which as I have pointed out before, includes quotes that directly address this issue saying “Holy Scripture forbids us to lie even to save a man’s life”

I would urge you to read St. Augustine’s Contra Mendacio where he condemns the idea that lying is acceptable to save a life is ever acceptable multiple times (you can find it here): newadvent.org/fathers/1313.htm

I doubt we will ever agree on this, but I assue you that my position is supported by the long Christian moral tradition.

ipse dixit, you say.

your refusal to address this specific factual scenario is telling. it tells me you don’t have any answer other than to salve your conscience at the cost of others’ lives, and tell me that’s what the Church demands. it tells me you’re not thinking.

would you tell the Jews you were hiding that you won’t “lie” for them? would you tell your neighbors that you’ll turn in the Jews they’re hiding if asked? are those even important questions in your moral universe?

long Christian moral tradition has been to save the hunted not play word games with the nazis.

 

[nodito]

Fairwinds, out of curiousity, what do you make of Augustine’s To Consentius, Against Lying?

 

[StJudeprayforme]

Fairwinds, I would either equivocate or remain silent, but I would not lie. In doing this, I would be following the long teaching of the Church dating to Augustine and confirmed by the Magisterium up until this day. I would do this, because as John Paul II says “…circumstances or intentions can never transform an act intrinsically evil by virtue of its object into an act “subjectively” good or defensible as a choice”

The Catechism has a very clear definition of lying that mentions nothing about a “right to the truth”. The Catechism defines lying as an intrinsic evil. John Paul II taught that circumstances cannot make an intrinsic evil good. Innocent III and Innocent XI taught that it is unacceptable to lie to save a life or protect the body. When read in the context of all this, it becomes clear as to what is required morally. Do I think the culpability would be extremely low, yes, of course, intent and the pressure that an individual would be under in such a circumstance would be huge mitigating factors. That does not, however, change the objective morality of the action.

 

[Fairwinds]

Fairwinds, out of curiousity, what do you make of Augustine’s To Consentius, Against Lying?

I think they don’t apply to how the CCC is interpreted in this fact pattern. if you honestly can’t rectify doing the obviously right thing with what your interpretation of the CCC, you need to rethink all of this.

forget Augustine for a second, think for yourself. you have to account to God for your moral actions. do you honestly think He is going to tell you, “well done, my son, you didn’t lie” after you gave up to the nazis the Jewish family who came to you for sanctuary and who you took in? (you didn’t get to be a martyr, either, because informers are good as gold)

 

[Fairwinds]

Fairwinds, I would either equivocate or remain silent,…

and the nazis know that any Catholic who equivocates or remains silent is either hiding Jews or knows they are hiding in the neighborhood because they’re not stupid and don’t fall for jedi mind tricks. so they tear apart the neighbor’s house where they were hiding, and they all are shot, as well as the neighbor, who was a good Lutheran who doesn’t read Augustine. congrats, the hypothetical informer saved his soul.

did he tell the Jews or his neighbor he wouldn’t lie for them? does this even make a difference?

 

[StJudeprayforme]

I think they don’t apply to how the CCC is interpreted in this fact pattern. if you honestly can’t rectify doing the obviously right thing with what your interpretation of the CCC, you need to rethink all of this.

forget Augustine for a second, think for yourself. you have to account to God for your moral actions. do you honestly think He is going to tell you, “well done, my son, you didn’t lie” after you gave up to the nazis the Jewish family who came to you for sanctuary and who you took in? (you didn’t get to be a martyr, either, because informers are good as gold)

First, you have yet to explain how your logic isn’t consequentialist, which is the only way I can see it being the “obviously right thing”. If it isn’t a consequentialist argument, I am happy to be corrected.

Next, one of Augustine’s other works on lying supplies the answer to your objection:
De mendacio:

The love of our neighbor has its bounds in each man’s love of himself. You shall love, says He, your neighbor as yourself. How can a man be said to love as himself that man, for whom that he may secure a temporal life, himself loses life eternal? Since if for his temporal life he lose but his own temporal life, that is not to love as himself, but more than himself: which exceeds the rule of sound doctrine. Much less then is he by telling a lie to lose his own eternal for another’s temporal life. His own temporal life, of course, for his neighbor’s eternal life a Christian man will not hesitate to lose: for this example has gone before, that the Lord died for us. To this point He also says, This is my commandment, that you love one another as I have loved you. Greater love has no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends. For none is so foolish as to say that the Lord did other than consult for the eternal salvation of men, whether in doing what He has charged us to do, or in charging us to do what Himself has done. Since then by lying eternal life is lost, never for any man’s temporal life must a lie be told.

So yes, if we believe Augustine on this matter, God would say “Good job, you didn’t lie.”

Here is the link to De mendacio if you are interested (different than the one above): newadvent.org/fathers/1312.htm