Lying Always a Sin? End Never Justifies the Means?

[bigfootbob]

Is lying always sinful? A while back I read an article in This Rock about it, but at the end it didn’t really say whether it was always a sin or not. It mentioned people hiding Jews during WWII and lying about it to the Nazis. I just do not understand this whole “Ends never justify the means” thing.

Anyone have any thoughts/opinions?

I just realized this might not be in the right forum… please move if it is.

 

[Sword_Brethren]

lying is always a sin

 

[StillWondering]

This is my opinion =).

I did not read the article and just want to talk about the phrase the “ends never justify the means”.

I also heard that you can permit a lesser evil if there is no other choice to prevent a greater evil. Such as in self defense, you are not supposed to hurt another person still. You want to try to leave the fight with no one injured. But if need be you can incapacitate the attacker if he will not decease from attacking.

An extreme example of this is in a third world country where a criminal overlord is captured. However, he cannot be honestly contained. As long as he is held captive, his standing command to his lieutenants are to attack the government for his freedom and commit atrocities of terrorism to demand his freedom. Now, to protect the innocent lives of the populist, I would consider it justified to execute the overlord if we are certain it is him who has instructed these death calls. This is situation of preventing a far evil by commit a physical evil but may not be moral evil act.

At the same time, it is not morally permissible to commit an evil to bring about a moral good. Such as killing a person who is a carrier of a deadly virus to save others who he may interact with when he is in no way the cause of the virus. Instead it is morally permissible to quarantine the victim to prevent more victims.

From what I understand, the second situation (commit an evil act to bring about a greater good) is a situation where the end does not justify the means. Thus it is not permissible to do such. In the first situation (to prevent a greater evil force upon us we can commit a lesser evil is there is no other choice), it may seem to be the same, but it is not. We are preventing a evil result based on the force offense of another, not ourselves forcing the evil into the world.

An example of a situation where it is wrong is when a torturer decides it’s better for the victim to have one leg then none and choices to burn only one of the legs of the victim. Well, he is bringing evil into the world himself and so he is not “preventing” evil that he has not control over. Thus this is not morally permissible.

One last example that may add depth to this but could also be difficult to understand is when a mother is pregnant with a baby that *may *kill her. Since the baby is not by his own will forcing any evil upon the mother, it is never permissible to abort the baby for the sake of the mother. (Occurs about less than 2% of all pregnancies.) Instead in a situation of great danger such as this, we can only pray and trust the souls of both the mother and the child to God.

 

[Leela]

Is lying always sinful? A while back I read an article in This Rock about it, but at the end it didn’t really say whether it was always a sin or not. It mentioned people hiding Jews during WWII and lying about it to the Nazis. I just do not understand this whole “Ends never justify the means” thing.

Anyone have any thoughts/opinions?

I just realized this might not be in the right forum… please move if it is.

Hi Bob,

This is the right forum all right. (This or moral theology depending on whether you are looking for a discussion of various ethical theories including the Catholic view or if you are only interested in the Catholic view so you can blindly obey.)

“The ends never justify the means” never really resonated with me as a slogan for thinking about morality eiuther. Aren’t all means also ends in some sense? In fact, once you start thinking in terns of ends and means in a moral considerations you probably aleady made a misstep.

Best,
Leela

 

[kimmielittle]

only interested in the Catholic view so you can ** blindly obey **

emphasis mine

Hiyas

Was that just poisoned or baited?
IMHO It wasn’t needed to to present your message.

As always, Just my thoughts

 

[Ron_Conte]

Saint Catherine of Siena: “The light of discretion (which proceeds from love, as I have told thee) gives to the neighbor a conditioned love, one that, being ordered aright, does not cause the injury of sin to self in order to be useful to others, for, if one single sin were committed to save the whole world from Hell, or to obtain one great virtue, the motive would not be a rightly ordered or discreet love, but rather indiscreet, for it is not lawful to perform even one act of great virtue and profit to others, by means of the guilt of sin.”

Sin is by definition immoral. The intention to avoid committing a greater sin does not justify the commission of a lesser sin. Sin is moral evil, and all moral evil is contrary to the very Nature of God who is Justice and Goodness itself. Sin is never justified.

Also, it is never the case that sin is unavoidable. Sin is the knowing choice of an immoral act, and there is nothing that can compel free will to choose sin.

 

[tjm190]

Lying is ‘always’ a sin like murder is ‘always’ a sin. If someone is not entitled to the truth on the matter in question, withholding it isn’t wrong.

 

[tonyrey]

(This or moral theology depending on whether you are looking for a discussion of various ethical theories including the Catholic view or if you are only interested in the Catholic view so you can blindly obey.)

The Church teaches that our ultimate authority is our conscience. It does not regard blind obedience as a virtue but as an abdication of our responsibility to use our power of reason.

 

[buffalo]

III. OFFENSES AGAINST TRUTH
2475 Christ’s disciples have "put on the new man, created after the likeness of God in true righteousness and holiness."274 By “putting away falsehood,” they are to "put away all malice and all guile and insincerity and envy and all slander."275
[2476](javascriptpenWindow(‘cr/2476.htm’) False witness and perjury. When it is made publicly, a statement contrary to the truth takes on a particular gravity. In court it becomes false witness.276 When it is under oath, it is perjury. Acts such as these contribute to condemnation of the innocent, exoneration of the guilty, or the increased punishment of the accused.277 They gravely compromise the exercise of justice and the fairness of judicial decisions.
2477 Respect for the reputation of persons forbids every attitude and word likely to cause them unjust injury.278 He becomes guilty:

• of rash judgment who, even tacitly, assumes as true, without sufficient foundation, the moral fault of a neighbor;
• of *detraction *who, without objectively valid reason, discloses another’s faults and failings to persons who did not know them;279
• of *calumny *who, by remarks contrary to the truth, harms the reputation of others and gives occasion for false judgments concerning them.
  2478 To avoid rash judgment, everyone should be careful to interpret insofar as possible his neighbor’s thoughts, words, and deeds in a favorable way:

Every good Christian ought to be more ready to give a favorable interpretation to another’s statement than to condemn it. But if he cannot do so, let him ask how the other understands it. And if the latter understands it badly, let the former correct him with love. If that does not suffice, let the Christian try all suitable ways to bring the other to a correct interpretation so that he may be saved.280 [2479](javascriptpenWindow(‘cr/2479.htm’) Detraction and calumny destroy the reputation and honor of one’s neighbor. Honor is the social witness given to human dignity, and everyone enjoys a natural right to the honor of his name and reputation and to respect. Thus, detraction and calumny offend against the virtues of justice and charity.
2480 Every word or attitude is forbidden which by flattery, adulation, or complaisance encourages and confirms another in malicious acts and perverse conduct. Adulation is a grave fault if it makes one an accomplice in another’s vices or grave sins. Neither the desire to be of service nor friendship justifies duplicitous speech. Adulation is a venial sin when it only seeks to be agreeable, to avoid evil, to meet a need, or to obtain legitimate advantages.
2481 *Boasting *or bragging is an offense against truth. So is *irony *aimed at disparaging someone by maliciously caricaturing some aspect of his behavior.
[2482](javascriptpenWindow(‘cr/2482.htm’) "A *lie *consists in speaking a falsehood with the intention of deceiving."281 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."282
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](javascriptpenWindow(‘cr/2484.htm’) 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](javascriptpenWindow(‘cr/2485.htm’) 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](javascriptpenWindow(‘cr/2486.htm’) 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.
[2487](javascriptpenWindow(‘cr/2487.htm’) Every offense committed against justice and truth entails the duty of reparation, even if its author has been forgiven. When it is impossible publicly to make reparation for a wrong, it must be made secretly. If someone who has suffered harm cannot be directly compensated, he must be given moral satisfaction in the name of charity. This duty of reparation also concerns offenses against another’s reputation. This reparation, moral and sometimes material, must be evaluated in terms of the extent of the damage inflicted. It obliges in conscience.

 

[buffalo]

IV. RESPECT FOR THE TRUTH
[2488](javascriptpenWindow(‘cr/2488.htm’) 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](javascriptpenWindow(‘cr/2489.htm’) 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.283
[2490](javascriptpenWindow(‘cr/2490.htm’) The secret of the sacrament of reconciliation is sacred, and cannot be violated under any pretext. "The sacramental seal is inviolable; therefore, it is a crime for a confessor in any way to betray a penitent by word or in any other manner or for any reason."284
2491 Professional secrets - for example, those of political office holders, soldiers, physicians, and lawyers - or confidential information given under the seal of secrecy must be kept, save in exceptional cases where keeping the secret is bound to cause very grave harm to the one who confided it, to the one who received it or to a third party, and where the very grave harm can be avoided only by divulging the truth. Even if not confided under the seal of secrecy, private information prejudicial to another is not to be divulged without a grave and proportionate reason.
[2492](javascriptpenWindow(‘cr/2492.htm’) Everyone should observe an appropriate reserve concerning persons’ private lives. Those in charge of communications should maintain a fair balance between the requirements of the common good and respect for individual rights. Interference by the media in the private lives of persons engaged in political or public activity is to be condemned to the extent that it infringes upon their privacy and freedom.

 

[Ismael]

Is lying always sinful? A while back I read an article in This Rock about it, but at the end it didn’t really say whether it was always a sin or not. It mentioned people hiding Jews during WWII and lying about it to the Nazis. I just do not understand this whole “Ends never justify the means” thing.

Anyone have any thoughts/opinions?

It depends on the TYPE of lie.

If you feel a little down and someone asks you ‘how are you’ and you say ‘I am fine’, it’s not a sin, it’s a trivial lie.
The same when you lie to spare someone’s feelings (eg tell your mom you like the gift she gave you while you do not).

---

If you lie to save someone’s life, like a Jew in WWII, you are definitvely NOT committing a sin.
Saving a person’s life takes in this case the priority, ethically speaking.

Also in the case of hiding Jews in WWII you put your life at risk for them, and that is also what Jesus tells us when he says that “Greater love has no one than this, that he lay down his life for his friends.” (John 15:13)

The V commandment says “You shall not murder.”. By NOT saving a persons life when you have the ability to do so you are are also partly responsbile of their murder. So if one wants to follow the comandsments truly he will lie to save an innocent life.

The V comandment “You shall not murder.” take precedence on the VIII comandment (“You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor”).

---

Also the VIII comandment refers most obviously to the sin of giving false statement against someone.

The VIII comandment tells us thus not to harm the life or reputation of someone by bearing false withness.

 

[tonyrey]

Deception is always evil because it defeats the primary purpose of language - which is to communicate and discover the truth. We are justified in deceiving or misleading some one if it is the lesser of two evils, e.g. if it saves a person from being killed.

 

[Leela]

It depends on the TYPE of lie.

If you feel a little down and someone asks you ‘how are you’ and you say ‘I am fine’, it’s not a sin, it’s a trivial lie.
The same when you lie to spare someone’s feelings (eg tell your mom you like the gift she gave you while you do not).

---

If you lie to save someone’s life, like a Jew in WWII, you are definitvely NOT committing a sin.
Saving a person’s life takes in this case the priority, ethically speaking.

Also in the case of hiding Jews in WWII you put your life at risk for them, and that is also what Jesus tells us when he says that “Greater love has no one than this, that he lay down his life for his friends.” (John 15:13)

The V commandment says “You shall not murder.”. By NOT saving a persons life when you have the ability to do so you are are also partly responsbile of their murder. So if one wants to follow the comandsments truly he will lie to save an innocent life.

The V comandment “You shall not murder.” take precedence on the VIII comandment (“You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor”).

---

Also the VIII comandment refers most obviously to the sin of giving false statement against someone.

The VIII comandment tells us thus not to harm the life or reputation of someone by bearing false withness.

The above all makes sense to me, but then most people around here would say that it counts against your argument.

We seem to agree that broad principles are useful, but moral discernment needs to take into account the specifics of a given situation. It might be nice if we could simply follow a set of rules and always hit the mark, but any set of rules is unlikely to get us there since life always seems to have more possibilities than we imagine when we try to enumerate rules.

Best,
Leela

 

[bigfootbob]

Deception is always evil because it defeats the primary purpose of language - which is to communicate and discover the truth. We are justified in deceiving or misleading some one if it is the lesser of two evils, e.g. if it saves a person from being killed.

That’s what I was thinking.

 

[StillWondering]

It depends on the TYPE of lie.

If you feel a little down and someone asks you ‘how are you’ and you say ‘I am fine’, it’s not a sin, it’s a trivial lie.
The same when you lie to spare someone’s feelings (eg tell your mom you like the gift she gave you while you do not).

I just wanted to mention that the second situation where you lie to save a friend or family their feelings still seems to be a sin to me. i went to confession telling a priest that I did such a thing. He told me that this is not a mortal sin and so if I do this, I do not have to fuss about when I can come back to confession. The impression I got from him, is that it is a sin, but not a mortal sin where I would have to refrain from communion. So I understood this as a venial sin.

 

[PaulinePresbytr]

Evil is evil no matter what, even if the outcome ends up being good. If we do not uphold truth and justice when achieving our goals, even if the goals are noble, how will we ever uphold them when our faith is attacked.

 

[mytruepower2]

Is lying always sinful? A while back I read an article in This Rock about it, but at the end it didn’t really say whether it was always a sin or not. It mentioned people hiding Jews during WWII and lying about it to the Nazis. I just do not understand this whole “Ends never justify the means” thing.

Anyone have any thoughts/opinions?

I just realized this might not be in the right forum… please move if it is.

The modern concept of “lying” is not, as such, necessarily sinful.
What -is- inherently sinful is “bearing false witness against your neighbor.” In other words, in order for it to be necessarily-sinful, two criteria must be met.

1. The statement must be false.
2. The statement must be “against your neighbor.”

“Against your neighbor” means that the statement is injurious to some person/person’s property/rights/reputation, other than yourself.

On to the issue of the ends -never- justifying the means. Saint Paul says that one must -never- do evil so that good might come of it. If you do an evil action, it doesn’t matter what good might come of it. It’s still an evil action.

This issue is further exacerbated by the fact that, as mere mortals, we can have absolutely no certainty whatsoever that our evil actions -will- produce good results. This is why consequentialism is almost never accepted by modern philosophers. No one can -really- know the full consequences of their actions.

 

[Dan_Grelinger]

The modern concept of “lying” is not, as such, necessarily sinful.
What -is- inherently sinful is “bearing false witness against your neighbor.” In other words, in order for it to be necessarily-sinful, two criteria must be met.

1. The statement must be false.
2. The statement must be “against your neighbor.”

This is not Catholic moral teaching.

So, if you lie against God, it is not necessarily sinful?

Lying is always a denial of what is true (condition number 1). God is the source of all that is true. God never lies. Jesus never lied. We are never to lie. That which is not true is not from God, and not worthy of Him.

Your qualifier 2 is a result, not an act. Results do not define sinfulness in the moral realm. In the legal realm they are of consequence, but that is of man, not of God.

Using your logic, if I TRY to injure my neighbor with a lie, but I fail, then no sin took place, as the statement turned out to NOT be injurious to my neighbor.

Again, the result of the action does not determine it’s sinfulness. The act alone may be sinful, and bad intentions can make all acts immoral. But bad results can even come from non-sinful actions. As in the case of double effect.

 

[mytruepower2]

This is not Catholic moral teaching.

So, if you lie against God, it is not necessarily sinful?

Lying is always a denial of what is true (condition number 1). God is the source of all that is true. God never lies. Jesus never lied. We are never to lie. That which is not true is not from God, and not worthy of Him.

Your qualifier 2 is a result, not an act. Results do not define sinfulness in the moral realm. In the legal realm they are of consequence, but that is of man, not of God.

Using your logic, if I TRY to injure my neighbor with a lie, but I fail, then no sin took place, as the statement turned out to NOT be injurious to my neighbor.

Again, the result of the action does not determine it’s sinfulness. The act alone may be sinful, and bad intentions can make all acts immoral. But bad results can even come from non-sinful actions. As in the case of double effect.

I think you’ve misinterpreted qualifier number 2, but I should have been more clear about it.

Being against one’s neighbor is -not- a result, (I -did- dismiss consequentialism,) but is an intention. Catholic moral teaching teaches that there are several ways for an action to be evil; the act itself being evil, the intention of the act being evil, the circumstances of the act being evil and so forth. The modern understanding of “lying” is merely speaking a falsehood with the intent to mislead someone, and this, as was pointed out, is not inherently evil. After all, the Pope hid many Jews from the Nazis in the Vatican during WWII, and that wasn’t a sin. I’m sure there was some misleading involved in that.

Yes; a sin committed against God is even worse than one committed against one’s neighbor. We saw this in Acts 5. However, to speak an untruth for the purpose of doing right is not a lie to God, since the intent is not to deceive God. Neither is it injurious to the Nazi, since it prevents him from murdering/kidnapping someone.

It’s also important to remember that in all matters of mortal ethics, a person’s God-given rights are to be considered/protected. It is of this that our moral obligation to others primarily consists. These rights are such things as life, bodily integrity, teaching of children, etc… (read Pacem in Terris for a full list.) Therefore, if you must turn someone over to Nazis in order to avoid lying, you have committed the terrible evil of violating their right to life. By contrast, if you lie to protect them, you have given someone false information to protect another person’s right to live. But the right to truthful information is not as high a right as the right to live. You are therefore justified in lying, when the alternative is sufficiently-grave.

 

[Dan_Grelinger]

I think you’ve misinterpreted qualifier number 2, but I should have been more clear about it.

You’ve summarized Catholic moral teaching well. Your error is dismissing deceit as amoral, being made immoral only by mal-intent. As I mentioned before, God is truth, and that which is not true, for any reason, is not of God. The evil one is the father of all lies, no matter for what purpose they were created.

You also seem to present the false choice fallacy. To hide the truth is not inherently lying and is not inherently evil. If it is a sin (due to intent), it is one of omission, because there is no act involved, you only fail to act (tell the truth), when telling the truth is required to be good. To hide the truth that you are sheltering Jews is not lying. It is simply not speaking. We are certainly not bound to state everything that we know is true to everyone who asks. For example, the number of times I had sex with my wife in the last month is something I can hide (keep from others) without committing a sin. If I say “100 times”, then I lie, and that is sin. If I stay silent, or even say “That’s none of your business”, then I don’t lie, and I commit no sin.

To lie is to commit an action (generally by speaking) that igives testament to what is false, that is, not consistent with the truth. That is always sinful.