Is it ever OK to lie?

[Doc_Keele]

That’s a circular argument Ron.

 

[distracted]

No, that is not correct. Lying is intrinsically evil, as the CCC teaches, and so it is always immoral regardless of the circumstances (e.g. that the person has no right to the information) and regardless of the intention (e.g. the intention to defend yourself or others).

The situation and the harm done is part of the circumstances of an act. But some acts are immoral by their very nature, such as lying, theft, murder, etc.

oh please…

i guess if the Nazis came & asked, “Are there Jews here?” you have said “Yes”…

 

[Cristiano]

oh please…

i guess if the Nazis came & asked, “Are there Jews here?” you have said “Yes”…

To tell a lie is intrinsically evil. I would encourage you to read this post where it shows that the CCC was changed:

First edition:
2483 … 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. …
Second edition:
2483 … To lie is to speak or act against the truth in order to lead someone into error. …

First edition:
2508 Lying consists in saying what is false with the intention of deceiving the neighbor who has the right to the truth.
Second edition:
2508 Lying consists in saying what is false with the intention of deceiving one’s neighbor.

That it makes it clear that you cannot lie. That it way the reference to someone right to the truth was crossed out. The clause of mental reservation has never being a teaching of the Church. However, the teaching that you cannot do evil to justify some good still applies.

People do not have an obligation to answer questions!

 

[Bookcat]

The Catechism does say still:

IV. RESPECT FOR THE TRUTH

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.282

 

[chosen_people]

To tell a lie is intrinsically evil. I would encourage you to read this post where it shows that the CCC was changed:

First edition:
2483 … 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. …
Second edition:
2483 … To lie is to speak or act against the truth in order to lead someone into error. …

First edition:
2508 Lying consists in saying what is false with the intention of deceiving the neighbor who has the right to the truth.
Second edition:
2508 Lying consists in saying what is false with the intention of deceiving one’s neighbor.

That it makes it clear that you cannot lie. That it way the reference to someone right to the truth was crossed out. The clause of mental reservation has never being a teaching of the Church. However, the teaching that you cannot do evil to justify some good still applies.

People do not have an obligation to answer questions!

Even putting aside the examples in the Tanach that run counter to this view, I would posit that the true evil would be to sacrifice the lives of innocent people rather than to lie to evil people who have come to harm them. Certainly your views cannot accurately reflect Catholic Church teaching in the Nazi’s coming to find the Jews example.

 

[JimG]

So questions like, “Does this outfit make my butt look big?” and “You really think I’m a total nerd, don’t you?” should always be answered with total honesty?

 

[Bookcat]

So questions like, “Does this outfit make my butt look big?” and “You really think I’m a total nerd, don’t you?” should always be answered with total honesty?

sometimes…

sometimes one needs to choose their words well…or sidestep

 

[JimG]

sometimes…

sometimes one needs to choose their words well…or sidestep

And choosing one’s words well might be considered diplomacy, or simple courtesy, or a kindness. But a too literal definition of lying might impede all of these.

 

[Bookcat]

And choosing one’s words well might be considered diplomacy, or simple courtesy, or a kindness. But a too literal definition of lying might impede all of these.

From the Catechism…

2482 “A lie consists in speaking a falsehood with the intention of deceiving.”

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…

 

[JimG]

Reminds me of a movie I recently watched. In one scene a mother and her 10 yr old daughter were going backstage after a dreadfully acted Broadway play to greet a friend who was one of the actors. “Be tactful,” the mother warned the daughter. Daughter: “What does tactful mean?” “Lie,” the mom replied.

I know an effervescent person who answers “Fine!” every time someone asks, “how are you?”
Mostly, that’s true. Sometimes it isn’t. If she’s had a terrible day or had a depressing interview, she can be down. But she never answers “terrible.” It’s always, “just fine!” And after saying that, she begins to feel better, because feelings follow thoughts expressed by words. So does she lie? Is willed optimism a moral fault?

I know another person who always recites her woes truthfully upon being asked how she is. In stating them, she feels worse, not better. Yet she speaks the truth about her feelings. Which is not necessarily a good thing, since it just makes her feel worse.

 

[Cristiano]

Even putting aside the examples in the Tanach that run counter to this view, I would posit that the true evil would be to sacrifice the lives of innocent people rather than to lie to evil people who have come to harm them. …

First, the Tanach is not automatically binding for the Catholic Church. second, you can have more than one true evil at the time. It would be quite ingenuous to state otherwise.

…Certainly your views cannot accurately reflect Catholic Church teaching in the Nazi’s coming to find the Jews example.

What are you talking about?

I quoted a teaching from the Catechism of the Catholic Church. That it is my view because it makes sense and it is in agreement with the Church. If you disagree with me you have to prove to me that the Church has a teaching about moral reservation. Are you saying that it is fine to commit evil to prevent a different kind of evil? The Church teaches that we cannot assist people in doing evil, but at the same time we are not allowed to do evil ourselves.

 

[denwiles]

In certain situations yes, But to decieve someone into thinking the Lie is the truth for personal justification is wrong. Jesus is the Truth and the real deal a lie is false and fake. Example the antichrist. He will come and decieve many people into thinking he is Jesus. To make people think a lie is the truth about us is wrong. Example I make 100,000 a year to impress people when I really only make 40,000. Or to say you didn’t do somthing and let others take the blame. Wow a strong verse in Revelation says all liars will have their part in the lake of fire. Wow and I think I need to repent on some lies I told.

 

[denwiles]

So questions like, “Does this outfit make my butt look big?” and “You really think I’m a total nerd, don’t you?” should always be answered with total honesty?

If you want to get slapped lol

 

[chosen_people]

First, the Tanach is not automatically binding for the Catholic Church. second, you can have more than one true evil at the time. It would be quite ingenuous to state otherwise.

What are you talking about?

I quoted a teaching from the Catechism of the Catholic Church. That it is my view because it makes sense and it is in agreement with the Church. If you disagree with me you have to prove to me that the Church has a teaching about moral reservation. Are you saying that it is fine to commit evil to prevent a different kind of evil? The Church teaches that we cannot assist people in doing evil, but at the same time we are not allowed to do evil ourselves.

A person who puts the sanctity of life on the same moral plain as telling a lie, who would facilitate the death of another rather then say an untruth to a murderer in order to protect the victim, is presenting an argument that is morally and ethically incomprehensible to any person of the Jewish faith.This is perhaps the difference between an intellectual religion like Judaism that could develop Torah based on the understanding of the nuances of varying circumstances as opposed to a strict dogmatic religion like Catholicism.

 

[Doc_Keele]

It’s incomprehensible to me too

 

[Cristiano]

A person who puts the sanctity of life on the same moral plain as telling a lie, who would facilitate the death of another rather then say an untruth to a murderer in order to protect the victim, is presenting an argument that is morally and ethically incomprehensible to any person of the Jewish faith.This is perhaps the difference between an intellectual religion like Judaism that could develop Torah based on the understanding of the nuances of varying circumstances as opposed to a strict dogmatic religion like Catholicism.

You are right sometime it is easier to lie that trying to figure out what is the right thing to do. I guess that the Jews see only two alternatives to lie or to let someone die.

Do you believe that is fine to break the law and destroy property to save innocent lives? Are respect for property and moral law at the same moral level of God’s law?

 

[Cristiano]

You are right sometime it is easier to lie that trying to figure out what is the right thing to do. I guess that the Jews see only two alternatives to lie or to let someone die.

Do you believe that is fine to break the law and destroy property to save innocent lives? Are respect for property and moral law at the same moral level of God’s law?

That is a typo, I meant to say civil and not moral.

 

[chosen_people]

You are right sometime it is easier to lie that trying to figure out what is the right thing to do. I guess that the Jews see only two alternatives to lie or to let someone die.

Do you believe that is fine to break the law and destroy property to save innocent lives? Are respect for property and moral law at the same moral level of God’s law?

First of all, in the case of the Jews hiding and the Nazi’s, to lie is the correct moral alternative. Indirectly confirming that Jews are hiding in the area by stating something like “I can’t tell you where the Jews are hiding” is immoral.

Secondly, as per your example, indeed it is against the law to trespass or to break and enter or cause damage to property. However, if a person was to do so for the purpose of rendering emergency medical assistance, there would be justification to break and enter and to trespass and cause property damage for that purpose. The concept of necessity is well known and understood both as a moral and as a legal concept.

 

[Cristiano]

First of all, in the case of the Jews hiding and the Nazi’s, to lie is the correct moral alternative. Indirectly confirming that Jews are hiding in the area by stating something like “I can’t tell you where the Jews are hiding” is immoral…

So you are justifying immoral behaviors by saying that there are only two options. That is quite of a week straw man to me.

…Secondly, as per your example, indeed it is against the law to trespass or to break and enter or cause damage to property. However, if a person was to do so for the purpose of rendering emergency medical assistance, there would be justification to break and enter and to trespass and cause property damage for that purpose. The concept of necessity is well known and understood both as a moral and as a legal concept.

What about if it is about something beyond medical assistance. What about because someone is trying to stop the slaughter of innocent children and elderly? So you are saying that it is moral for me break the civil law and damage property to destroy the source of death of innocent people?

 

[chosen_people]

So you are justifying immoral behaviors by saying that there are only two options. That is quite of a week straw man to me.

What about if it is about something beyond medical assistance. What about because someone is trying to stop the slaughter of innocent children and elderly? So you are saying that it is moral for me break the civil law and damage property to destroy the source of death of innocent people?

No legal or ethical system makes your presumption that all values of our equal worth, that all acts have equal benefits or damage. We don’t apply the same severity of punishment to theft as we do to murder, and we don’t apply the same punishment for theft among different thieves if for instance the motivation behind the theft was starvation and the object of the theft was food.