Lying Always a Sin? End Never Justifies the Means?

[Dan_Grelinger]

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.

Additionally, here is a reference from official Catholic teaching:

2464 The eighth commandment forbids misrepresenting the truth in our relations with others. This moral prescription flows from the vocation of the holy people to bear witness to their God who is the truth and wills the truth. Offenses against the truth express by word or deed a refusal to commit oneself to moral uprightness: they are fundamental infidelities to God and, in this sense, they undermine the foundations of the covenant.

In your examples, they very definitely are “misrepresenting the truth in our relations with others.” And therefore that is forbidden by the eighth commandment, no matter what your intentions are.

 

[mytruepower2]

You also seem to present the false choice fallacy.

Incorrect, sir. I’m speaking of instances where a Nazi actually asks you if you’re hiding jews, and forces you to respond. This is therefore a true moral choice, not a false one.

 

[mytruepower2]

Additionally, here is a reference from official Catholic teaching:

2464 The eighth commandment forbids misrepresenting the truth in our relations with others. This moral prescription flows from the vocation of the holy people to bear witness to their God who is the truth and wills the truth. Offenses against the truth express by word or deed a refusal to commit oneself to moral uprightness: they are fundamental infidelities to God and, in this sense, they undermine the foundations of the covenant.

In your examples, they very definitely are “misrepresenting the truth in our relations with others.” And therefore that is forbidden by the eighth commandment, no matter what your intentions are.

You’re not addressing the issue I brought forth; namely, sufficiently-grave reasons. Until you do so, this discussion cannot progress.

 

[Dan_Grelinger]

Incorrect, sir. I’m speaking of instances where a Nazi actually asks you if you’re hiding jews, and forces you to respond. This is therefore a true moral choice, not a false one.

If you suggest that there are only two choices in response to the question, tell the Nazi’s that you are hiding Jews or lie to them, then you are stuck in the false choice fallacy.

Given you believe that you are referencing a real situation… Exactly what was the question posed to the Pope, and what exactly was his response. In that way we may judge whether he lied or not. Otherwise it would be reasonable to assume that he responded in one of those million ways of not answering with a lie.

 

[Dan_Grelinger]

You’re not addressing the issue I brought forth; namely, sufficiently-grave reasons. Until you do so, this discussion cannot progress.

I am addressing it by suggesting that there is no such moral teaching of the Church. Is any sin justified by sufficiently grave reasons? That is not Church teaching. It may be your own, but not the Church’s.

I have referenced official Church teaching that says lying is wrong. You have disagreed, but have not provided any references to support your assertions, only your own beliefs, which I am pointing out are not in alignment with the moral teachings of the Church.

 

[Richard320]

I’m hope I don’t disturb the argument between these two people…

Tough question.

We tell children that Santa Claus brings presents. It’s a lie. Confessing that sin to a priest would likely get one thrown out of the confessional.

What about luring someone to a surprise party? How can that be sinful? The lie is essential to the surprise.

What if a friend cantors the Psalm at Mass, and is terrible. And then they ask, “How’d I do?” Absolute truthfulness would require “You choked.” Saying “It was great!” would certainly be a lie. The probable answer, “You did okay,” would be a lie, but a lot more honest than saying great, and more charitable than saying they were awful.

These are innocent lies. Since they’re not “serious matter” they’d be venial sins at best.

 

[Dan_Grelinger]

I work around the Santa Claus issue by never definitively saying what is not true.

“Would you like to write Santa Clause a letter and tell him what you want for Christmas?” Questions are not lies.

“Do you think Santa Claus will bring you gifts this year if you have not been a good girl?”
Again, not a lie.

On Christmas morning… “Did Santa Claus bring you these gifts? Wow, I guess you’ve been pretty good this year.” Again, not a lie.

“Do you want to write Santa Claus a thank you letter?” No lie there, either.

Your surprise party example indicates that you may feel it is a lie to avoid saying everything that is true. That is not so. If you avoid telling someone that you are taking them to a surprise birthday party, that is not lying. You can’t lie if you don’t say what is not true. You don’t lie if you stay silent on some facts. There is generally no requirement that you tell everyone everything.

“Why don’t we go to my place and pick up something to drink?” Not a lie, but certainly can be used to lure someone to a surprise. “Can you come over and look at my dishwasher? It may have a problem you can help me with.” That is not a lie, even if it is used to get someone out of their own house in order to prepare a surprise party.

And you last example? Just don’t lie. There is nothing that requires you tell them everything or anything factual. Being posed a question does not automatically require you to divulge the truth. You only have to be honest in what you do CHOOSE to share. By the way, ‘terrible’, ‘great’, ‘choked’ are all subjective terms that are opinions, not facts. And regardless, you are under no obligation to share them. You can choose what you share, as long as what you share is not a lie.

“It was obvious to me that you put all of your effort into your singing.”

“I thought that was very good for your first time.”

“Your projection was great, everyone in the Church could hear you very well.”

“I think you’re getting better each time you cantor.”

Or

“I am such an idiot when it comes to vocal performances, I appreciate just about any performance.”

None of these are lies.

There are a million ways to answer any question without lying. There is no excuse to lie.

 

[mytruepower2]

If you suggest that there are only two choices in response to the question, tell the Nazi’s that you are hiding Jews or lie to them, then you are stuck in the false choice fallacy.

Given you believe that you are referencing a real situation… Exactly what was the question posed to the Pope, and what exactly was his response. In that way we may judge whether he lied or not. Otherwise it would be reasonable to assume that he responded in one of those million ways of not answering with a lie.

1. This is just a thought experiment. I don’t need to cite an actual instance of this. All I need to do is to say that this kind of situation does exist. A person’s life hangs in the balance. The questioner tells you to answer with a yes or a no. No other answer will be accepted. Yes means a man’s life. No is a lie. Any other answer will result in you -and- the man being found and executed immediately. Now, what is the moral thing to do.
2. If you knew the methods and attitudes of the Nazi occupation, you would not propose trying to weasel out of answering their questions. If you did this, it meant, at best, further interrogation, at worst, death.
3. As I already said this is -not- a false choice, and diagrammed -why- it was not a false choice, if you want to press this point further, you need to explain -why- my reasoning is false and provide some comparable reasoning of your own. However, I just haven’t seen this on your end.
4. Lastly, I think you may misunderstand what the “false choice fallacy” is. It’s not a false choice fallacy when someone presents you with a fictitious thought experiment.

 

[mytruepower2]

I am addressing it by suggesting that there is no such moral teaching of the Church. Is any sin justified by sufficiently grave reasons? That is not Church teaching. It may be your own, but not the Church’s.

I have referenced official Church teaching that says lying is wrong. You have disagreed, but have not provided any references to support your assertions, only your own beliefs, which I am pointing out are not in alignment with the moral teachings of the Church.

With regard to the “this is/isn’t church teaching” issue, this is not sound reasoning, since no reasoning of any sort goes into a mere reiteration of dogmas, but even within those extremely limited boundaries, it is possible to make mistakes, and your mistake is in taking the catechism -absolutely literally.-

You see, the funny thing about 2464 of the catechism, and several other points in it, is that if taken to its literal extent, it leads to absurdities. For example, it says…

“The eighth commandment forbids misrepresenting the truth in our relations with others.”

Now, if you interpret “misrepresenting the truth” to mean “saying something false” (the literal interpretation,) then you may have committed a mortal sin tonight while reading your children a nursery rhyme.

For example, if I tell my son “Jack and Jill went up a hill to fetch a pail of water.” Well, wait a minute! If Jack and Jill -didn’t- go up a hill, or if one went up, but not the other, or if they went up the hill for some reason other than to fetch a pail of water, then that’s a falsehood! In fact, since the nursery rhyme is utter fiction, it’s almost -guaranteed- to be a falsehood.

Now, am I to affirm that telling nursery rhymes to my children is a mortal sin? Is that grave matter? Well, I think the answer is “obviously not.”

Now, why is this not grave matter? Simple. It’s because of your -intention.- Your intention is not for anyone to be hurt, slandered or led astray by the nursery rhyme. The same applies to other kinds of falsehoods.

A thorough study of the church’s teaching on the hierarchy of human rights clarifies this further, as I previously explained.

 

[Dan_Grelinger]

1. This is just a thought experiment. I don’t need to cite an actual instance of this.

Help!

I’m speaking of instances where a Nazi actually asks you if you’re hiding jews, and forces you to respond. This is therefore a true moral choice, not a false one.

These two statements are difficult to make sense of together. First you use ‘actually’ to describe your situation, and now you say it’s just a ‘thought experiment’.

Perhaps you use the term ‘actually’ figuratively, rather than literally?

You seem to wish to dismiss what you don’t understand by saying that it should not be taken literally. That is a very easy dismissal. Again, I will ask for references from authentic and authoritative Catholic teaching. You continue to present reasoning that appears to be flawed. If your reasoning is sound, you will find it backed up by the Church. I do not know where such teaching exists.

The catechism was written to be clear, not to be confusing. It clearly states what is wrong.

 

[DarkLight]

This is something I have been wondering about. I recall an incident from my own childhood. My mother had punished me for some misbehavior - I don’t recall, I think it was stealing and breaking an item. I’d been told to sit on a chair and that I wouldn’t be allowed to go to bed or eat dinner until I confessed and apologized. Trouble was, I genuinely hadn’t done anything. My mother had a very specific formula for apologies, so there was no way to still speak the truth that would be satisfactory. It was quite clear that I was not going to be allowed to interact with my family until I confessed.

What do you do then? I chose after a while to confess so I could be with my family, instead of having it be a constant fight.

 

[Dan_Grelinger]

This is something I have been wondering about. I recall an incident from my own childhood. My mother had punished me for some misbehavior - I don’t recall, I think it was stealing and breaking an item. I’d been told to sit on a chair and that I wouldn’t be allowed to go to bed or eat dinner until I confessed and apologized. Trouble was, I genuinely hadn’t done anything. My mother had a very specific formula for apologies, so there was no way to still speak the truth that would be satisfactory. It was quite clear that I was not going to be allowed to interact with my family until I confessed.

What do you do then? I chose after a while to confess so I could be with my family, instead of having it be a constant fight.

I has a similar thing happen, and of course, I remember it vividly to this day. I was ‘guilty’ of the action (leaving a chair in the bathroom), but not of the intent I was being accused of (attempting to get access to the key to the medicine cabinet). I used the chair to get something out of my closet, and in a fit of absent mindedness, put the chair in the bathroom instead of back in the dining room. I can understand why my mother did not believe me. Instead of confessing to an intent I was not guilty of, I responded by destroying a beloved possession in front of my mother in protest. She pretended not to care, but I think she realized that behavior was not normal for me, and she dropped her accusations.

‘Sins’ committed when being forced to do so are not sins. They do not involve free consent, especially when dealing with a legitimate authority. If you had not reached the age of reason, that would be another reason this would not be sin.

I think Jesus gave good example. On several occasions he chose to be silent instead of answering his accusers.

 

[DarkLight]

I has a similar thing happen, and of course, I remember it vividly to this day. I was ‘guilty’ of the action (leaving a chair in the bathroom), but not of the intent I was being accused of (attempting to get access to the key to the medicine cabinet). I used the chair to get something out of my closet, and in a fit of absent mindedness, put the chair in the bathroom instead of back in the dining room. I can understand why my mother did not believe me. Instead of confessing to an intent I was not guilty of, I responded by destroying a beloved possession in front of my mother in protest. She pretended not to care, but I think she realized that behavior was not normal for me, and she dropped her accusations.

‘Sins’ committed when being forced to do so are not sins. They do not involve free consent, especially when dealing with a legitimate authority. If you had not reached the age of reason, that would be another reason this would not be sin.

I think Jesus gave good example. On several occasions he chose to be silent instead of answering his accusers.

I was definitely past “age of reason” - this occurred mid teen years. Which makes it sort of odd in retrospect, since I was given to neither action. But such are the follies of parents!

 

[Dan_Grelinger]

With regard to the “this is/isn’t church teaching” issue, this is not sound reasoning, since no reasoning of any sort goes into a mere reiteration of dogmas, but even within those extremely limited boundaries, it is possible to make mistakes, and your mistake is in taking the catechism -absolutely literally.-

You see, the funny thing about 2464 of the catechism, and several other points in it, is that if taken to its literal extent, it leads to absurdities. For example, it says…

“The eighth commandment forbids misrepresenting the truth in our relations with others.”

Now, if you interpret “misrepresenting the truth” to mean “saying something false” (the literal interpretation,) then you may have committed a mortal sin tonight while reading your children a nursery rhyme.

For example, if I tell my son “Jack and Jill went up a hill to fetch a pail of water.” Well, wait a minute! If Jack and Jill -didn’t- go up a hill, or if one went up, but not the other, or if they went up the hill for some reason other than to fetch a pail of water, then that’s a falsehood! In fact, since the nursery rhyme is utter fiction, it’s almost -guaranteed- to be a falsehood.

Now, am I to affirm that telling nursery rhymes to my children is a mortal sin? Is that grave matter? Well, I think the answer is “obviously not.”

Now, why is this not grave matter? Simple. It’s because of your -intention.- Your intention is not for anyone to be hurt, slandered or led astray by the nursery rhyme. The same applies to other kinds of falsehoods.

A thorough study of the church’s teaching on the hierarchy of human rights clarifies this further, as I previously explained.

Your example is seriously outrageous.

If you present the nursery rhyme to your children as an actual true event, (Honest to God, Joey, there really was a Jack and Jill who fell down the hill, and Jack really did suffer a head injury, and Jill bounced down the hill after him. I know because I was there and I knew them, there last name was ‘Smith’," then you lie. If you present the story as a story, that is, as fiction, then you do not lie.

To affirm fiction as fiction is to tell the truth. To affirm fiction as truth is to lie. To affirm truth as fiction is also to lie. Fiction i not by it’s nature a lie. Presenting fiction as fact, is.

 

[mytruepower2]

Help!

These two statements are difficult to make sense of together. First you use ‘actually’ to describe your situation, and now you say it’s just a ‘thought experiment’.

Perhaps you use the term ‘actually’ figuratively, rather than literally?

You seem to wish to dismiss what you don’t understand by saying that it should not be taken literally. That is a very easy dismissal. Again, I will ask for references from authentic and authoritative Catholic teaching. You continue to present reasoning that appears to be flawed. If your reasoning is sound, you will find it backed up by the Church. I do not know where such teaching exists.

The catechism was written to be clear, not to be confusing. It clearly states what is wrong.

The word “actually” means, in this context, “something that happens within the context of our example.” I think I was pretty clear.

No text can be so clear that it does not require interpretation.

 

[mytruepower2]

Your example is seriously outrageous.

If you present the nursery rhyme to your children as an actual true event, (Honest to God, Joey, there really was a Jack and Jill who fell down the hill, and Jack really did suffer a head injury, and Jill bounced down the hill after him. I know because I was there and I knew them, there last name was ‘Smith’," then you lie. If you present the story as a story, that is, as fiction, then you do not lie.

To affirm fiction as fiction is to tell the truth. To affirm fiction as truth is to lie. To affirm truth as fiction is also to lie. Fiction i not by it’s nature a lie. Presenting fiction as fact, is.

I’m going to use your own logic to respond to this objection, by simply saying that none of that is explicit in the text of the catechism, section 2464.

I never said fiction was a lie. I said it wasn’t “truth.” It isn’t. Now, again, referring to 2464…

“The eighth commandment forbids misrepresenting the truth in our relations with others.”

It doesn’t say “the eighth commandment forbids lying.”

Now, in my example, I am not representing the truth with my words. I’m also doing it in a relationship with another human being. I insist that a literalist interpretation of the catechism will not work on this basis.

---

Another key thing to understand with regard to this issue is that the opposite of truth is not lies. The opposite of truth is falsehood. Therefore, I can speak a falsehood without it being a lie, but I can’t speak a falsehood without it loosely conforming to the phrase “misrepresenting the truth.”

A valid interpretation is needed in order to give proper guidance in such issues, and it is not so easy to acquire as reading a rule book. We need to stick close to the church; not develop our own interpretations of its texts. That way lies Protestantism.