C
Catherine20
Guest
Is it ever ok to lie? Does everyone have the right to truth? My friends think that some people do not (i.e. Nazi soldiers and abortion clinic workers). I was taught everyone has the right to truth.
- Status
O
OriginalJS
Guest
Yes, on many occasions it is perfectly acceptable to lie. In fact, for society to run smoothly, frequent lying is almost a necessity. How often have you heard someone say, “how nice to see you!” when you know that wasn’t their true feeling. Maybe you have done this yourself.
Other examples of acceptable lying:
Telling someone they look good when they don’t.
Telling someone something doesn’t matter to you when it very much does.
Protecting vulnerable people e.g. elderly parents, from bad economic news in your family. (A good friend and her husband recently told his parents they bought their house for about $250,000 when they really paid almost $100,000 more than that.)
Telling your child who didn’t do well at (you name it) but that he did just fine.
Telling your friend that he/she really doesn’t look fat and that he/she carries her weight well when this obviously isn’t strictly the truth.
This list is endless.
The encyclopedia Brittanica used to have an excellent article on lying.
What is not permissible is "bearing false witness.’ This is testifying falsely against a person. That is a far different thing from simple lying.
Other examples of acceptable lying:
Telling someone they look good when they don’t.
Telling someone something doesn’t matter to you when it very much does.
Protecting vulnerable people e.g. elderly parents, from bad economic news in your family. (A good friend and her husband recently told his parents they bought their house for about $250,000 when they really paid almost $100,000 more than that.)
Telling your child who didn’t do well at (you name it) but that he did just fine.
Telling your friend that he/she really doesn’t look fat and that he/she carries her weight well when this obviously isn’t strictly the truth.
This list is endless.
The encyclopedia Brittanica used to have an excellent article on lying.
What is not permissible is "bearing false witness.’ This is testifying falsely against a person. That is a far different thing from simple lying.
C
Catherine20
Guest
I guess I should have been a bit more specific. If you are hiding Jews in your house and Nazi soldiers come and ask if you are hiding Jews, can you outright lie to them and say no? Or would you have to remailn silent, deceive them?
Q
qmvsimp
Guest
The answer to your question is yes. There are some instances where it is OK to lie.
Generally, for a lie to be immoral, someone or something has to be harmed by the lie. “Harmed” does not have to be physical. It can be mental or financial or other things.
Generally, for a lie to be immoral, someone or something has to be harmed by the lie. “Harmed” does not have to be physical. It can be mental or financial or other things.
C
Catherine20
Guest
I have read the catechism, I get what you are saying. What I am trying to figure out is, who has the right to know the truth? Do people who are using truth to hurt others entitled to know the truth?
A
AnglicanRite
Guest
Wife: Does this dress make me look fat?
Husband: Uh --------------
That is all that needs to be said!
Husband: Uh --------------
That is all that needs to be said!
A
AlanFromWichita
Guest
What truth am I entitled to?
If I call and ask a child, “is your mother home,” I do not “deserve” to know that just because I asked. It’s none of my business. If the child says, “she’s not available, may I take a message,” that should be enough. I teach my children never to answer that specific question if they don’t know who is calling.
Nobody has a “right” to know anything from me, quite frankly. They can ask me things and I’ll say things and if I don’t want to let on then I won’t. If they are asking something for an obvious or supposedly obvious reason such as they want to talk to my mother, than “she is not available” is as close to the truth as I need to get to adequately handle the situation without being rude or misleading. If they are asking for information with which I think they intend to do evil, then I’ll lie right to their face and if that’s wrong, I’ll take my chances with Christ.
Most of the time you’d like to think that people will not lie, like giving you false directions to the restroom, anything a human being tells you is at best part of the truth.
That is, except in marriage. You have a promise then.
Also if you have a legal contract, then you may have civil obligation to hand over certain information, but I’ve actually accounted for that above by the reason I think they’re asking.
The most tear-jerking thing I’ve ever seen along these lines that I just thought of all of a sudden, is the M.A.S.H. episode where Hawkeye has nightmares about a woman who smothered her own infant child to save a whole busload of people, except the child that is. The child was hungry and could not stop crying when the enemy soldiers were near. It may sound like it doesn’t relate to the topic but for some reason it seems like it to me. Here a woman is committing an objective evil to prevent a greater evil. Of course, that’s M.A.S.H., not CCC.
Alan
O
OriginalJS
Guest
Wait, here is the perfect answer/lie:
Wife: Does this dress make me look fat?
Husband: I don’t think it does. But if you feel that it makes you look less attractive than you normally are, you shouldn’t wear it because you won’t be comfortable in it.
M
Madia
Guest
No, it is never ok to lie. You are allowed to use mental reservation . Read about it at:
newadvent.org/cathen/10195b.htm
newadvent.org/cathen/10195b.htm
D
deb1
Guest
I think that for the most part you should be very honest and try to live a life that is truthful, even going so far as to return extra change that the cashier accidentally gives you. Yet, there is at least on instance in the bible where God rewards liars. In Exodus 1: 15-21. The Hebrew midwives were asked by the Pharoh to kill the male babies. They did not stand up to Pharoh and say, “Give us death, we refuse to do this.” INstead, they lied to Pharaoh and informed him that the Hebrew women’s labors were to quick. The bible says that God dealt well with the midwives and built up families for them.
Is it ok to lie?..under normal circumstances no. Would it be all right to lie to protect other people’s or your own lives? I say yes.
Is it ok to lie?..under normal circumstances no. Would it be all right to lie to protect other people’s or your own lives? I say yes.
W
wcknight
Guest
Pope Pius XII ordered fate Baptismal certificates for thousands of Jew during WWII.
To help save a life, yes by all means lie. In such cases it would be wrong not to lie. For the convents, churches and monasteries than hid jews I suspect every time the Nazis came around to ask if there were any Jews there, they all lied and rightly so.
A tougher question would be, is it ever okay to kill. IF you had a chance to kill Hitler or Stalin to prevent thousands or millions of murders and tortures, would you or should you ???
To help save a life, yes by all means lie. In such cases it would be wrong not to lie. For the convents, churches and monasteries than hid jews I suspect every time the Nazis came around to ask if there were any Jews there, they all lied and rightly so.
A tougher question would be, is it ever okay to kill. IF you had a chance to kill Hitler or Stalin to prevent thousands or millions of murders and tortures, would you or should you ???
M
Madia
Guest
Lying is intrinsically evil which may never be justified by the good that comes out of it. You can read more at:
catholicexchange.com/vm/index.asp?vm_id=68&art_id=26918
Your passage in Exodus was actually addressed in the Summa (see objection 2):
newadvent.org/summa/311003.htm
You’re assuming that every Catholic who hid jews during WW2 lied which I don’t believe to be true. From what I remember hearing, many used (and were quite good at) mental reservations which can be morally justified in such instances.
As for killing hitler/stalin, you’re getting into an ethical debate but a good starting point would be the Summa:
newadvent.org/summa/306402.htm
newadvent.org/summa/306407.htm
Also the Catechism:
scborromeo.org/ccc/p3s2c2a5.htm
catholicexchange.com/vm/index.asp?vm_id=68&art_id=26918
Your passage in Exodus was actually addressed in the Summa (see objection 2):
newadvent.org/summa/311003.htm
You’re assuming that every Catholic who hid jews during WW2 lied which I don’t believe to be true. From what I remember hearing, many used (and were quite good at) mental reservations which can be morally justified in such instances.
As for killing hitler/stalin, you’re getting into an ethical debate but a good starting point would be the Summa:
newadvent.org/summa/306402.htm
newadvent.org/summa/306407.htm
Also the Catechism:
scborromeo.org/ccc/p3s2c2a5.htm
D
deb1
Guest
I read Summa object 2. It said that the midwives lied out of fear of the lord and that was why they were rewarded. If lying is always evil then what the midwives did was wrong regardless of their reasons. A lie is a lie.
I, personally, would lie without hesitation to save an innocent’s life. Let us all just be thankful that we don’t live in a country where we have to face such choices as the Germans during WW2 or the midwives in Egypt did.
Just curious Madia, if you lived in Germany during WW2 and were hiding Jews, how would you answer a German officers point blank question of, “Are you hiding Jews from us?”
M
Madia
Guest
The Summa states that "the midwives were rewarded, not for their lie, but for their fear of God, and their good-will. It also stated that “the subsequent lie was not meritorious.” It didn’t state that they were rewarded for lying out fear of the Lord.
I’m sorry if it’s hard to accept but the fact is you can’t do an intrinsically evil act and justify it by the good that comes out of it. What you’re talking about is proportionalism which is a heresy. It was explicitly condemned by Pope John Paul II in his encylical Veritatis Splendor:
newadvent.org/library/docs_jp02vs.htm
I don’t know for sure what I’d do in a hypothetical situation. I do know that lying (an intrinsic evil) to save an innocent’s life is wrong.
I’m sorry if it’s hard to accept but the fact is you can’t do an intrinsically evil act and justify it by the good that comes out of it. What you’re talking about is proportionalism which is a heresy. It was explicitly condemned by Pope John Paul II in his encylical Veritatis Splendor:
newadvent.org/library/docs_jp02vs.htm
I don’t know for sure what I’d do in a hypothetical situation. I do know that lying (an intrinsic evil) to save an innocent’s life is wrong.
D
deb1
Guest
I think that this is an issue where we would have to agree to disagree. I think not lying to save another’s life would be the intrinsically evil act but I do understand and respect your viewpoint.
M
Madia
Guest
I think the problem is you don’t believe that lying in itself is an intrinsically evil act. If you don’t believe that then please try to explain why it was wrong for Peter to his Lord three times. He was lying to save an inocent’s life (his own). By saying that it is intrinsically evil not to lie to save another’s life then you’re denouncing all the men who’s families were martyred because they refused to accept false gods. If the choice is saving your families lives by denouncing your faith or martrydom for your entire family, do you honestly believe that to not lie and chose martydom would be intrinsically evil?
While sometimes good must be done even if it brings about a great evil never can you do something intrinsically evil to prevent a greater evil. If someone said either kill two people or he’ll kill fifty, would you honestly kill two people to prevent the death of forty eight others?
While sometimes good must be done even if it brings about a great evil never can you do something intrinsically evil to prevent a greater evil. If someone said either kill two people or he’ll kill fifty, would you honestly kill two people to prevent the death of forty eight others?
G
Greg_McPherran
Guest
Denying one’s previously professed faith is not the same as lying to a criminal who comes to a home to do harm.
Denying Jesus and denying a criminal the truth are not the same. It depends on whether there is an obligation to tell the truth. Peter was obligated to Jesus (as we all are) especially since He professed that He would not deny Jesus. We have no obligation to a criminal.
To make a false statement is not evil in itself. If it were, then playing hide and seek and purposefully misleading someone as to someone else’s whereabouts in good fun would be a sin.
D
deb1
Guest
Let’s use this analogy. Suppose the BTK killer broke into my home and I, knowing who he was, shot him to protect my family. Murder is evil but did I commit an evil act? No, because I was trying to defend myself and my family.
The same is true with lying to protect an innocent person’s life. I would lie without any qualms or even doubts that I was right.(I am thinking of extreme situations here)
WOuld I deny Christ to protect myself or my family? I certainly pray that I have the moral strength and fortitude to die for my beliefs.
M
Madia
Guest
Denying one’s previously professed faith is not the same as lying to a criminal who comes to a home to do harm.
How can one lie without denying God who is truth?
“Denying Jesus and denying a criminal the truth are not the same. It depends on whether there is an obligation to tell the truth. Peter was obligated to Jesus (as we all are) especially since He professed that He would not deny Jesus. We have no obligation to a criminal.”
I am not saying we have an obligation to tell the truth to a criminal. No one is bound to tell the truth to a person who does not have the right to know it. However, one cannot delibirately lie to lead any person (even a criminal) into error.
“To make a false statement is not evil in itself.”
No but to make a false statement with the intention of deceiving is evil since that is what constitutes a lie.
“Let’s use this analogy. Suppose the BTK killer broke into my home and I, knowing who he was, shot him to protect my family. Murder is evil but did I commit an evil act? No, because I was trying to defend myself and my family.”
Your example goes into double effect:
cuf.org/faithfacts/details_view.asp?ffID=56
One of the criteria is that the good effect must not be brought about by using an intrinsically evil means. Direct and intentional killing is an intrinsic evil. Self defense isn’t an intrinsic evil and could be a grave responsibility. What I think you’re asking (a question I struggled with myself) is why can you kill to protect life but not lie.
Let’s discount for the moment that lying is an intrinsic evil and go ahead and apply double effect. Remember, the bad effect although forseen cannot be intended. Killing someone in self defense has a good effect and a bad effect. The good effect is the preservation of someone’s life, the bad effect is the death of a human being. The good effect is intended, the bad is not. Lying to someone to preserve someone’s life also has two effects. The good effect is also the preservation of someone’s family, the bad effect is intentionally deceiving someone. However, in this case both are intended since lying in itself is the act of speaking a falsehood with the intention of deceiving. You cannot say that you didn’t intend the bad effect because by lying you intended to deceive them. To try to justify the lie you’d have to use proportionalism which is a heresy.
How can one lie without denying God who is truth?
“Denying Jesus and denying a criminal the truth are not the same. It depends on whether there is an obligation to tell the truth. Peter was obligated to Jesus (as we all are) especially since He professed that He would not deny Jesus. We have no obligation to a criminal.”
I am not saying we have an obligation to tell the truth to a criminal. No one is bound to tell the truth to a person who does not have the right to know it. However, one cannot delibirately lie to lead any person (even a criminal) into error.
“To make a false statement is not evil in itself.”
No but to make a false statement with the intention of deceiving is evil since that is what constitutes a lie.
“Let’s use this analogy. Suppose the BTK killer broke into my home and I, knowing who he was, shot him to protect my family. Murder is evil but did I commit an evil act? No, because I was trying to defend myself and my family.”
Your example goes into double effect:
cuf.org/faithfacts/details_view.asp?ffID=56
One of the criteria is that the good effect must not be brought about by using an intrinsically evil means. Direct and intentional killing is an intrinsic evil. Self defense isn’t an intrinsic evil and could be a grave responsibility. What I think you’re asking (a question I struggled with myself) is why can you kill to protect life but not lie.
Let’s discount for the moment that lying is an intrinsic evil and go ahead and apply double effect. Remember, the bad effect although forseen cannot be intended. Killing someone in self defense has a good effect and a bad effect. The good effect is the preservation of someone’s life, the bad effect is the death of a human being. The good effect is intended, the bad is not. Lying to someone to preserve someone’s life also has two effects. The good effect is also the preservation of someone’s family, the bad effect is intentionally deceiving someone. However, in this case both are intended since lying in itself is the act of speaking a falsehood with the intention of deceiving. You cannot say that you didn’t intend the bad effect because by lying you intended to deceive them. To try to justify the lie you’d have to use proportionalism which is a heresy.
G
Greg_McPherran
Guest
In the context of the original post in this thread, the word “lie” is referring to making false statements in self defense.
You agree that those who seek to do harm have no right to the truth. The answer to the original question in this thread is that it is OK to make a false statement in some circumstances. That’s the key point. If you want to also point out that the word “lie” is being misused, that’s fine but the key is to answer the spirit of the original question.
Jesus referred to the spirit of the law vs. the letter of the law. In this thread, the spirit of the question is at hand.
For example, you could answer this thread as follows:
If by “lie” you mean “false statement”, then yes, it is OK to make a false statement in some circumstances. By the way, be aware that word “lie” in my usage includes an intention to deceive, so it is never OK to “lie”, but I see from the context of your question that you meant the word “lie” as “false statement”.
You agree that those who seek to do harm have no right to the truth. The answer to the original question in this thread is that it is OK to make a false statement in some circumstances. That’s the key point. If you want to also point out that the word “lie” is being misused, that’s fine but the key is to answer the spirit of the original question.
Jesus referred to the spirit of the law vs. the letter of the law. In this thread, the spirit of the question is at hand.
For example, you could answer this thread as follows:
If by “lie” you mean “false statement”, then yes, it is OK to make a false statement in some circumstances. By the way, be aware that word “lie” in my usage includes an intention to deceive, so it is never OK to “lie”, but I see from the context of your question that you meant the word “lie” as “false statement”.
- Status