G
Greg_McPherran
Guest
I don’t see that the bad effect in that case is any less intentional than the bad effect of deceiving someone. Are not both done for the same reason and are not both intended?
- Status
M
Madia
Guest
As for the original post this might link might help:
newadvent.org/cathen/09469a.htm
I don’t see that the bad effect in that case is any less intentional than the bad effect of deceiving someone. Are not both done for the same reason and are not both intended?
You may want to check the Catechism under legitimate defense:
scborromeo.org/ccc/p3s2c2a5.htm
Also:
catholic.net/rcc/Periodicals/Dossier/9-10-98/article4.html
If I stopped someone from attacking an innocent I would intend to stop the aggressor, I would not intend his death. If I lied to someone to protect another I cannot say that I didn’t intend to deceive him since that is what the lie itself did.
Are you saying that because a person did something that had a double effect he intended both the good and bad because they knew it would happen? For example, if a pilot bombed a military target that he knew had both soldiers and innocents there are you saying that by doing the act he intended to kill the innocents along with the soldiers?
newadvent.org/cathen/09469a.htm
I don’t see that the bad effect in that case is any less intentional than the bad effect of deceiving someone. Are not both done for the same reason and are not both intended?
You may want to check the Catechism under legitimate defense:
scborromeo.org/ccc/p3s2c2a5.htm
Also:
catholic.net/rcc/Periodicals/Dossier/9-10-98/article4.html
If I stopped someone from attacking an innocent I would intend to stop the aggressor, I would not intend his death. If I lied to someone to protect another I cannot say that I didn’t intend to deceive him since that is what the lie itself did.
Are you saying that because a person did something that had a double effect he intended both the good and bad because they knew it would happen? For example, if a pilot bombed a military target that he knew had both soldiers and innocents there are you saying that by doing the act he intended to kill the innocents along with the soldiers?
G
Greg_McPherran
Guest
Yes but you would intend to accept the risk that by stopping him you may seriously harm or kill him.
To accept such a risk of harming or killing someone is evil unless there is a good reason just as lying is evil unless there is a good reason. There was an intention to take an action that could result in harming or killing the aggressor, therefore there is still an intention involved that would otherwise be evil unless done for a just cause.
Whether it be deceiving or acting in a way to risk physical harm to an aggressor, both are intended as actions in response to the situation, but neither are intended as a desirable option. The two are no different.
G
Greg_McPherran
Guest
It depends what you mean by “intend”. Taking the action that would be evil unless for just cause is intended.
However the actions are not “intended” in the sense that they are “desired”, rather they are accepted. In this context, the person who deceives does not intend/desire to deceive anymore than a person who stops an agressor intends/desires to risk physical harm. But both actions are taken out of necessity.
The heart of the matter is the same. In both cases, the action is evil unless there is just cause.
So if by intend you mean decide, then yes the bomber intends to kill the innocents because he intends the action that will cause it.
If by intend you mean *desire, *then no, the bomber does not desire to kill innocents, but the deceiver does not *desire *to deceive either.
G
Greg_McPherran
Guest
Hi,
I do see your distinction of side effect vs. means.
Another point. The analogy of the bombing is not a direct analogy to lying to protect. The lying is the means to the end whereas in the bombing case, the bad effect is a side effect but not a means (as you know). Although, since the bad effect is still necessary, I don’t see the difference in the moral reasoning than if it were the means. I.e. if an action is not acceptable as a means, then it seems no less acceptable as a side effect in reasoning.
A better analogy to lying to defend would be a scenario whereby the only means of defense is to cause harm to the agressor. That analogy makes it more clear that lying is no different in terms of moral reasoning.
I do see your distinction of side effect vs. means.
Another point. The analogy of the bombing is not a direct analogy to lying to protect. The lying is the means to the end whereas in the bombing case, the bad effect is a side effect but not a means (as you know). Although, since the bad effect is still necessary, I don’t see the difference in the moral reasoning than if it were the means. I.e. if an action is not acceptable as a means, then it seems no less acceptable as a side effect in reasoning.
A better analogy to lying to defend would be a scenario whereby the only means of defense is to cause harm to the agressor. That analogy makes it more clear that lying is no different in terms of moral reasoning.
M
Madia
Guest
This section of the Catechism (particuraly item 1753 and 1754) might help:
scborromeo.org/ccc/p3s1c1a4.htm
scborromeo.org/ccc/p3s1c1a4.htm
R
RB2
Guest
I think the official answer is that you cant lie to them, but as a foreign national you can pull out a gun and shoot them dead as an act of war.
Where am I going wrong.
R
Ron_Conte
Guest
Several posters above are teaching false doctrine.
The teaching of the Church is that lying is intrinsically evil and always immoral.
CCC 1753 A good intention (for example, that of helping one’s neighbor) does not make behavior that is intrinsically disordered, such as **lying **and calumny, good or just.
Intrinsically evil acts are always immoral, regarldess of intention or circumstances.
Consequently, 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.
Pope John Paul II, Veritatis Splendor, n. 81.
The teaching of the Church is that lying is intrinsically evil and always immoral.
CCC 1753 A good intention (for example, that of helping one’s neighbor) does not make behavior that is intrinsically disordered, such as **lying **and calumny, good or just.
Intrinsically evil acts are always immoral, regarldess of intention or circumstances.
- In teaching the existence of intrinsically evil acts, the Church accepts the teaching of Sacred Scripture. The Apostle Paul emphatically states: “Do not be deceived: neither the immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor sexual perverts, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor robbers will inherit the Kingdom of God” (1 Cor 6:9-10).
Consequently, 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.
Pope John Paul II, Veritatis Splendor, n. 81.
R
Ron_Conte
Guest
Your opinion is contrary to the definitive teaching of the Catholic Faith, and is a serious doctrinal error. Certain kinds of acts are always immoral, even with good intention, even in dire circumstances. This doctrine is taught definitively in Veritatis Splendor.
R
Ron_Conte
Guest
An act is intrinsically evil when the act is inherently directed at an evil moral object.
Intrinsically evil acts are always intentionally chosen, but otherwise the intention has no effect on the object, nor on the nature of the act.
Example: A physician intends to relieve the suffering of his patient, by means of euthanasia. He insists that he does not intend the death of the patient, he only intends the good of relieving suffering. But the act remains intrinsically evil, regardless of his intention.
R
Ron_Conte
Guest
Murder is the direct and voluntary killing of an innocent person.
Not all killing is murder.
When you are attacked with deadly force, you may kill in self-defense.
This is not an exception permitted an intrinsically evil act; it is not intrinsically evil because it is not murder.
The intention to protect your family does not justify an intrinsically evil act of lying, or of the murder of an innocent person. The intended end never justifies an intrinsically evil means.
B
Bookcat
Guest
It is VERY IMPORTANT to understand that a circumstance or good intention --can NOT make an intrinsically evil act into a good act. NEVER.
what then if one kills someone who is trying to kill you or your family?
it is simply NOT MURDER …the object of this is very different.
It is necessary self defense.
the object is different …when it is necessary to take someones life like this it is called self defense (or defense of ones family).
the Church is very clear about this.
From the Catechism:
1753 A good intention (for example, that of helping one’s neighbor) does not make behavior that is intrinsically disordered, such as lying and calumny, good or just. The end does not justify the means. Thus the condemnation of an innocent person cannot be justified as a legitimate means of saving the nation. On the other hand, an added bad intention (such as vainglory) makes an act evil that, in and of itself, can be good (such as almsgiving).39
1754 The circumstances, including the consequences, are secondary elements of a moral act. They contribute to increasing or diminishing the moral goodness or evil of human acts (for example, the amount of a theft). They can also diminish or increase the agent’s responsibility (such as acting out of a fear of death). Circumstances of themselves cannot change the moral quality of acts themselves; they can make neither good nor right an action that is in itself evil.
now as to the lying…
if it is a lie… then yes it is a sin. for it is a sin to lie.
of course one can use discrete language…but this may not be possible…
but in truth … God knows what we were faced with when the nazi’s came to the door…in such a horrible decision and know of what stuff we are made of (after the fall) …and this little sin (for the circumstance can lessen the evil) …while a sin it seems (if it is a lie) … will vanish in his love in a moment…
often due to our fallen nature…while trying to live one virtue …another suffers…
not that is good to lie…or that the end ‘justifies’ the means here…it does not…for one still would sin a bit…but rather the mercy of God overwhelm us…
of course like i said …it may be the case that we are not dealing with lying here…
B
Bookcat
Guest
Again i am not saying …go ahead and sin…or that it is ok to lie when confronted by the nazi’ at ones door looking for the family of Jews you have hid in your attic…
only that if one was confronted with this…the circumstance could lessen the guilt til it is very very slight…(it would be venial to begin with…we are not talking about murdering someone here) and that God in his mercy will take everything into consideration…
For circumstance can lessen the guilt…though it cannot make an intrinsically evil into a good…
(and of course do not form this intention now…but rather intend to seek always to avoid sin…even the slightest)
of course descreet language may be a real possibility…a mental reservation…
and in fact…it may be the case that the moral object would not be lying. As some may argue…The Church would have to determine this.
only that if one was confronted with this…the circumstance could lessen the guilt til it is very very slight…(it would be venial to begin with…we are not talking about murdering someone here) and that God in his mercy will take everything into consideration…
For circumstance can lessen the guilt…though it cannot make an intrinsically evil into a good…
(and of course do not form this intention now…but rather intend to seek always to avoid sin…even the slightest)
of course descreet language may be a real possibility…a mental reservation…
and in fact…it may be the case that the moral object would not be lying. As some may argue…The Church would have to determine this.
C
Cristiano
Guest
A good article about lying and mental reservation.
richardsipe.com/Doyle/Doyle-Mental_reservation.pdf
richardsipe.com/Doyle/Doyle-Mental_reservation.pdf
B
Bookcat
Guest
From the Catechism…read all…
2482 "A lie consists in speaking a falsehood with the intention of deceiving."280 The Lord denounces lying as the work of the devil: "You are of your father the devil, . . . there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks according to his own nature, for he is a liar and the father of lies."281
2483 Lying is the most direct offense against the truth. To lie is to speak or act against the truth in order to lead someone into error. By injuring man’s relation to truth and to his neighbor, a lie offends against the fundamental relation of man and of his word to the Lord.
2484 The gravity of a lie is measured against the nature of the truth it deforms, the circumstances, the intentions of the one who lies, and the harm suffered by its victims. If a lie in itself only constitutes a venial sin, it becomes mortal when it does grave injury to the virtues of justice and charity.
2485 By its very nature, lying is to be condemned. It is a profanation of speech, whereas the purpose of speech is to communicate known truth to others. The deliberate intention of leading a neighbor into error by saying things contrary to the truth constitutes a failure in justice and charity. The culpability is greater when the intention of deceiving entails the risk of deadly consequences for those who are led astray.
2486 Since it violates the virtue of truthfulness, a lie does real violence to another. It affects his ability to know, which is a condition of every judgment and decision. It contains the seed of discord and all consequent evils. Lying is destructive of society; it undermines trust among men and tears apart the fabric of social relationships.
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
2482 "A lie consists in speaking a falsehood with the intention of deceiving."280 The Lord denounces lying as the work of the devil: "You are of your father the devil, . . . there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks according to his own nature, for he is a liar and the father of lies."281
2483 Lying is the most direct offense against the truth. To lie is to speak or act against the truth in order to lead someone into error. By injuring man’s relation to truth and to his neighbor, a lie offends against the fundamental relation of man and of his word to the Lord.
2484 The gravity of a lie is measured against the nature of the truth it deforms, the circumstances, the intentions of the one who lies, and the harm suffered by its victims. If a lie in itself only constitutes a venial sin, it becomes mortal when it does grave injury to the virtues of justice and charity.
2485 By its very nature, lying is to be condemned. It is a profanation of speech, whereas the purpose of speech is to communicate known truth to others. The deliberate intention of leading a neighbor into error by saying things contrary to the truth constitutes a failure in justice and charity. The culpability is greater when the intention of deceiving entails the risk of deadly consequences for those who are led astray.
2486 Since it violates the virtue of truthfulness, a lie does real violence to another. It affects his ability to know, which is a condition of every judgment and decision. It contains the seed of discord and all consequent evils. Lying is destructive of society; it undermines trust among men and tears apart the fabric of social relationships.
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
D
distracted
Guest
i heard a preist say that if someone asks you something that is none of his business, you have a right to “lie” (distort truth?)… i hate telling ppele to mind their own business, but maybe that is preferable to lying?? i don’t know… i think it is very rude, even though they should be minding their own bus… i feel that lying may be preferable to being hateful-sounding…
sometimes more evil is done by telling the truth than by telling a lie… so i guess u just can’t say…
of course omitting the truth is better than lying… but whatever…
it kinda depends on the situation…
C
chosen_people
Guest
In Judaism human life is so highly valued that it is permitted to act against Torah (except for committing idolatry, incest or murder) in order to save another life. This is found in the moral value concept of “pikuach nefesh”. For the Jew there is no moral dilemma if he/she should lie to save another life; the value of saving a life, takes precedence over the value of not telling a lie.
Here are some discussions from the Jewish perspective:
chizukshaya.com/2009/11/is-it-ever-okay-to-lie-how-the-torah-harmonizes-competing-values.html
yna.edu/torah/wx-display.php?id=RVKRUWIG&fn=p_ne62tldt.html
jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Judaism/pikuach_nefesh.html
on1foot.org/sourcesheet/pikuach-nefesh-saving-life-discussion-questions
Here are some discussions from the Jewish perspective:
chizukshaya.com/2009/11/is-it-ever-okay-to-lie-how-the-torah-harmonizes-competing-values.html
yna.edu/torah/wx-display.php?id=RVKRUWIG&fn=p_ne62tldt.html
jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Judaism/pikuach_nefesh.html
on1foot.org/sourcesheet/pikuach-nefesh-saving-life-discussion-questions
D
Doc_Keele
Guest
Basically this illustrates the problems with the particular type of deontological approach the Church uses for me.
D
Doc_Keele
Guest
What definition of innocent are you using here? Is a child who is below the age of reason eg doli incapax innocent?
R
Ron_Conte
Guest
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.
- Status