R
- Status
T
Timothysis
Guest
The problem is that some do not understand that “lying” as a means of subverting Truth and/or Justice is a sin, not simply stating something that is false. There are times and occasions when certain people do not have a right to know certain truths; hence, the understanding that there are times when a person has to withhold information from those with no right to it, termed “mental reservation.”
It is beyond me that some cannot comprehend the issue.
P
phoage
Guest
Seriously, this is one of the questions I asked earlier in this thread. The commandment say, “Thou shalt not bear false witness.” I have always believed that this is meant as Timothysis answered. Some on this forum interpret it as all lying; your bluff in poker and my telling my wife “no the new dress does not make you look fat.”
All attempts to lead people away from the truth are lies. I personally believe that not all lies are sins. As stated, in some cases, people do not have a right to the truth.
Patrick
P
pnewton
Guest
I think there are some people a little too particular about what sin is. First, disobeying an unjust law is not a sin. Second, stating something that is not true is not always a lie. If an actor states his name in a play, the audience knows that in the context of the play that the name may or may not be his real name. When Jesus told a parable, the disciples knew that the story may are may not be factually true. In the context of a game, the players know that what is said may or may not be true. Yes, Christians can play Balderdash.
Traffic laws are not considered criminal acts, by the way, at least in Texas. That is why they are considered class-C misdemeanors and punished with fines. The “law of the land” is that if one speeds, then one is subject to a fine. It is not an arrestable offense.
Traffic laws are not considered criminal acts, by the way, at least in Texas. That is why they are considered class-C misdemeanors and punished with fines. The “law of the land” is that if one speeds, then one is subject to a fine. It is not an arrestable offense.
P
pnewton
Guest
In the case of an unjust law, like a totalitarian state requiring registration and papers on a class of people it is trying to exterminate, there is no moral obligation to obey such a law. In fact, there is a moral imperative to circumvent it to the extent possible. Many Catholic religious at that time became masters of deception without having to actual lie.
I
ignatius777
Guest
The problem is who decides when its approrpaite to engage in an “evil”. Abortion is a perfect example. Whats a good rationale for removing an entirely healthy fetus from the womb. Whether something is justified or not doesnt change whether the action is good or not.
P
PLeeD
Guest
***‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart… Love your neighbor as yourself. All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.”
If the nazi’s knock on your door, and you truthfully hand your Jewish neighbors over to them, are you fulfilling the spirit of the two greatest commandments? I think not.
If you successfully hand the nazi’s some BS, and they buy it, thereby saving your neighbors from the concentration camp, have you fulfilled those commandments? I think so.
Are you going to follow Jesus in love, or follow the Pharisees in the law?
If the nazi’s knock on your door, and you truthfully hand your Jewish neighbors over to them, are you fulfilling the spirit of the two greatest commandments? I think not.
If you successfully hand the nazi’s some BS, and they buy it, thereby saving your neighbors from the concentration camp, have you fulfilled those commandments? I think so.
Are you going to follow Jesus in love, or follow the Pharisees in the law?
I
ignatius777
Guest
BTW It would help if you used the “quote” function so people know what you are responding to. I am responding because I can only guess you are respondiing to me.
First of all part of the 10 commandments tells us not to lie so to suggest that following the commandments somehow goes against God then I’d suggest you go back to first grade religion class. Having said that to “justify” something means to find a valid reason for doing something. In the case of lying to nazis who want to kill jews is justified but doesnt change the fact that a lie is a lie. Do you undestand? To lie to save a life is justified which is not the same as saying the act is good. You can find a good reason to do a bad thing. This is how abortion has become so prevelant. I am not saying its improper to do a bad thing for a good reason what I am cautioning is it can become very easy to justify bad behavior. How and when to behave badly is not always so well thought out is it?
R
Reservoir_Dog
Guest
Of course handing the nazis BS is the right, sinless and moral choice. The nazis aren’t entitled to the truth so you can’t lie to them (a lie being an affront to the truth), and you’d be preventing those particular nazis from further staining their souls with another mortal sin, the murder of the Jews you’re hiding.
Unless someone is taking the position that God considers telling the truth to the nazis an obligation or He’d prefer that you sinned and lied to them, neither of which makes the least sense.
I
ignatius777
Guest
gGod makes nothing an OBLIGATION for us. Everything we do is a choice. Lying to the nazis is “justified” as this post mentions which is not the same as it being “ok” as stated on another post.
Something being “OK” suggest it has approval while something can be “justifiable” which is not the same thing.
R
Reservoir_Dog
Guest
You are justifying sin?
I
ignatius777
Guest
We all are if we agree we would sin to save a life. In this circumstance its a sin I am less worried about then the many others I undoubtedly engage in but miss throughout the rest of my daily routine.
P
Paul_ONeill
Guest
The church has a long history of playing semantic games and trying to explain away things such as the fact that there are obviously exceptions to the statement that “the ends do not justify the means”. Participating in a just war is just one glaring example since combatants in a just war must be willing to kill their opponents.
V
vera_dicere
Guest
Before Hitler became, well, a maniac, he was a budding artist. What if instead of killing Hitler you went back and said to the art teacher he had to encourage young Adolf, perhaps then instead of being known for ordering the murder of millions he was simply known as a sub-standard, but of some local fame, artist, Hitler. Modest family man and member of the community, not responsible for anything nasty at all. Why does there always have to be blood shed? Can’t we solve problems without it?
Or if you’re that bent on killing, why not kill the art teacher who didn’t like Hitler and told him his work was trash? Is he just as culpibile as the barbers who didn’t slit the throats of guards?
Or perhaps go back in time and convince Hitler to convert to Judiasm?
Or break his legs to prevent him entering the army, getting injured, and then blaming it all on the Jews.
There are too many variables. What happened has happened, killing Hitler may have saved those six million Jews, but who’s to say someone wouldn’t show up who went on to kill 10 million Catholics, or 20 million Protestants? The social climate in Europe at that time was ripe for a “Hitler”, if he hadn’t of, perhaps Himmler, humble Chicken farmer would have become a worse blot on history.
And what of abortion? If killing Hitler because 6 odd million Jews were killed because of his order, why not go back in time and kill the judges who ruled on Roe? Their actions have resorted in the deaths of over 50 million children, and quite a number of women.
There is a genocide of sorts happenign right now with abortion, if people would go back and kill Hitler if they had the chance, why are they dealing in hypothethicals instead of shooting up abortionists?
Its very easy to judge history and state what you’d do in hypothetical situations that are just never going to happen. There’s stuff happening in the here and now that are of the same vein of moral thought and those same wannabe time travelling Hitler assassins are sitting on their backsides ranting on the internet.
F
fix
Guest
What you wrote is no exception to the moral truth that the ends never justify the means.
One may never do evil. Killing in a just war is not murder so no violation or contradiction.
C
Contarini
Guest
If “lawfully” is understood in terms of *natural *law. This is the mistake that people make when they say “abortion isn’t murder because it isn’t illegal.”
Yes, I question whether driving irresponsibly was a good example.
Obviously there’s a sense in which nearly any action involves circumstances and intention. The “principle of double effect” shows this. The point is that, for instance, there’s no circumstance in which deliberately killing an innocent person is OK, and no intention which makes it OK.
Driving recklessly isn’t a good example, I think, because there are circumstances under which it would be right to drive so as to endanger an innocent civilian. There might even be circumstances under which it would be right to drive in a manner that you could be reasonably sure would kill an innocent civilian.
So, for instance, imagine that you have a car that has a bomb in it which will go off in seconds, surrounded by a large crowd of people. The only way to prevent it from killing a lot of people is to drive straight through the crowd, off a pier, and into the sea. You will most likely kill a number of innocent people, including yourself, but if you don’t do it the bomb will blow up and even more innocent people will be killed. Your intention is not to kill anyone, but simply to get the bomb as far away from people as possible. You toot your horn and hope that people will manage to jump out of the way, but reasonably you’re pretty sure that some won’t make it. Similarly, you have every intention of leaving the car and swimming away from the bomb, even though realistically you probably won’t make it. So you aren’t committing either murder or suicide.
That’s not intrinsically evil, as I understand it.
The case beloved of nasty-minded philosophers, in which you have to choose to flip a switch and kill one person or let a train go on its track and kill a bunch of people, is a much harder one, I think. Generally “double effect” is fairly easy to ascertain if it’s the same people who would be killed in both cases (as in my example, in which the people likely to be killed by the car would be far more likely to be killed if you let the bomb go off). The “flip a switch” case seems more like deliberately choosing to kill one person to save a bunch of others. And that’s the key–if you are deliberately willing the death of the person, even for a good end, it’s intrinsically evil. (My own judgment would be that I wouldn’t flip the switch unless the one person was less likely to be killed than the five people–but the nasty philosophers will then change up the scenario, putting more and more people on the track the train is already on, and including people I care deeply about.)
These are certainly difficult issues. But the principle remains that deliberately willing the death of an innocent person is wrong.
Where it becomes much clearer is when people persuade themselves that the death of an innocent person is necessary in order to accomplish some good that’s only speculatively related to the innocent person’s death, even if they think they have pretty good reasons. So, for instance, there was an appalling article in First Things a year or two ago arguing that the use of nuclear weapons was OK–even if you knew they would kill some civilians–because in a just war the principle of double effect would apply. I don’t think so. Winning a war, even against a horribly evil enemy, cannot possibly justify doing things that you know will kill civilians. Or, in the fantasy novel Game of Thrones, the character Varys connives at the murder of innocent people because if they aren’t killed there will be a devastating civil war and more people will be killed. Again, the connection there is so indirect and the choice to kill is so direct that this is clearly an example of the “ends justifying the means.”
And this is what is boils down to, and why intentions and circumstances (while important) have to be distinguished from the act itself.
Driving a car with a bomb to a place where it will kill fewer people is an intrinsically good act. The fact that there are people all around the car and you have no time to get them clear is a circumstance.
Removing a cancerous womb is a good and healing act. The fact that a child (who would die anyway) is in the womb is a circumstance.
But killing an innocent person because the death itself will in your judgment have good results–that’s an evil act that can never be justified.
Edwin
C
chosen_people
Guest
In answer to your question, this is the position of us “Pharisees”:
In a case where lying is necessary for the protection of a life, not only is it permissible to lie but the sin and the immoral act would be in not lying. Sanctity of life overrides any and all other considerations (except in the case of where the alternative is to commit murder, idolatry or incest). Torah teaches the worth of each and every individual and our mutual responsibility toward one another. Everyone has a purpose in the scheme of life and therefore a person saving even a single soul is as if they have saved an entire world.
The Pagan Hellenistic principal of maximizing personal benefit without regard to others (such as the concept that the person must worry only for their soul and it is not their fault if the Nazi murders the people whose hiding places the “truthful” person revealed) is clearly rejected in Torah. As God commands in Leviticus 19 “you shall not stand aside while your fellows blood is shed” and “you shall love your fellow as yourself”.
C
chosen_people
Guest
The ninth commandment “You shall not bear false witness against your fellow” or
לא תענה ברעך עד שקר
refers to giving false testimony in court and the Jewish sages have also seen this as prohibiting gossip and slander. It does not refer to lying in the simple sense of telling an untruth to another.
L
LilyM
Guest
God said ‘Thou shalt not murder’. He didn’t say ‘thou shalt not murder except when by doing do you numerically save more lives than you take’. It’s not that kind of simplistic equation. Yes, there are moral rules allowing us to kill in self-defence or defence of country. That requires an imminent threat - ie something real, actual and likely to occur very soon. Thus Judith and Jael slew foreigners who were attacking Israel. And Gideon and others. But they did so when the attacks became reality. They didn’t mosey on over to those foreign lands years before the event and kill the aggressor in anticipation of an event that was years away.Do you think that your eternal destination would be in jeopardy if you DIDN’T murder someone?!?!?
I mean where does it stop? Would it have been just as right to kill Hitler’s mother and father, who after all gave birth to and reared a monster, and thus were at least partly implicit in his guilt and crimes, as to kill himself?
How about extinguishing pretty much the entire German race en masse, after all most of them willingly ceded him the power and authority without which he could not have put his schemes into fruition?
Or round up those six million Jews and do them to death ourselves - hey, they still die but we can do it very humanely and spare them the agonies of the concentration camps, so it prevents a greater evil right?
- Status