Lying - Is it Ever Acceptable?

[GEddie]

This topic is being discussed over at InsideCatholic. John Zmirak wrote about it last week and again this week and has a link to a fairly lengthy article by Janet Smith with a very in depth analysis of Aquinas’ position on the subject.

insidecatholic.com/feature/up-from-literalism.html

The short answer is this: Aquinas asks and answers the question of the “Nazi at the door” and says that lying is a sin even in this case:

Therefore it is not lawful to tell a lie in order to deliver another from any danger whatever. Nevertheless it is lawful to hide the truth prudently, by keeping it back, as Augustine says (Summa Theologica II/II 110, 3 ad 4)

The Church appears not to have fully resolved the question, as Zmirak points out:

… the editors of the new Catholic Catechism, … published a draft that included a development of this teaching. It redefined “lying” as telling untruths to someone “with a right to the truth.” The revised edition removed that exception without condemning it …

Aquinas condemned every distortion of the literal truth for whatever reason, which would include teaching children about Santa Claus and telling your wife “No, hun, that dress doesn’t make you look fat” even though it contains more material than the mainsail of the USS Constitution. Professor Smith’s article makes a good case that Church teaching on this subject may still be in development.

Ender

Since Aquinas was never pope, why exactly should we take his writings as infallible?

That’s the problem with philosophers: thay generate centuries’ worth of amusing mental puzzles, but don’t necessarily help with living human life.

That is why I am a nonphilosopher and proud of it

ICXC NIKA

 

[Ender]

Since Aquinas was never pope, why exactly should we take his writings as infallible?

No one takes the writings of Aquinas to be infallible. On the other hand, no one should take the writings of popes to be infallible either. Since, however, popes take the writings of Aquinas with the utmost seriousness it is reasonable that we should accord them the same respect.

Ender

 

[I_R]

Really? I would imagine if i’m going to hell, at least someone cared about me enough to make some of my good moments peaceful.

right, because one moment of “feel good” emptiness is worth the large amount confusion that comes later. In no way will this ever be a good thing

Good guess. The scenario I was thinking about would be someone jumping from a building or something, but I guess over the phone is the same thing. I’m not sure which approach would work best actually…

leave it to the professionals

I might if she asked me if she was fat. Or, maybe i’d give a generic thoughtless response to whether or not a pair of shoes is cute.

so those petty unnecessary lies keep your relationship afloat?

 

[GEddie]

It seems that the example involving a relationship is the one that everybody gets hung up on.

I’d still say that if a relationship is so precarious that you feel lies are needed to keep it going, it’s time to “let go and let God.” Allow HIS will to be done in regard to the relationship. Otherwise, all will be lost when the lies come to light.

The other issues involving death are so extreme that we may never see them. But interpersonal conflict is something normal, and should not be numbed by lies.

ICXC NIKA.

 

[momor]

Is there anyone on this thread who says they NEVER lie who hasn’t replied to a casual “How are you?” By saying “I’m fine, thanks” when they weren’t?
Have you ever answered the phone or had a co-worker enter your office and when they say,“I hope I’m not bothering you.” you reply “Not at all” when in fact they are?
Well if you have you lied and you just lied again when you said you never lie!

I think politeness demands that we lie quite a lot rather than always speak the truth. And I agree with the view that we don’t necessarily need to be truthful with people who don’t have a need to know. Remaining silent or telling them it’s not their business may create far more of a problem than a simple “white” lie. I think that morally we can exercise some judgment and discretion.

 

[Ender]

Is there anyone on this thread who says they NEVER lie who hasn’t replied to a casual “How are you?” By saying “I’m fine, thanks” when they weren’t?

This is a rather significant question. In fact, Aquinas took the position that these were lies (although the sin was venial, not mortal); he truly had a zero tolerance position on lies. Which makes it confusing for me that he could at the same time accept deceitful statements that were factually true but caused the person to believe something that was false. As I said earlier, I think this is an area where Church doctrine needs some more development. There are simply too many situations where “lying” is acceptable for it to be considered immoral in all instances. (Did you hear the joke about the frog who goes into a bar and orders a martini? Do you really believe that Dante took a tour of hell? …)

Ender

 

[Robertanthony]

In the examples given by momor, those are small lies that are told I believe as part of social conventions, which says nothing about their morality. But if we dig deeper, why would someone say they’re fine when they’re not, that a co-worker is not bothering them when really he/she is : convenience. You might not want to see the person look upset and have to justify yourself when you say “yes”, when his/her question was probably just a polite way of interrupting you. Another example would be: “Honey, do you think I look slimmer in that dress?” We often lie to spare other people’s feelings. There’s probably a continuum of gravity AFA lying is concerned: at one end lying maliciously, at the other end of the spectrum, lying to a Nazi officer about the presence of Jewish people in your home. I don’t think saying “no” (a blatant lie) as opposed to “why would I do that knowing all I could risk”, or bursting out laughing (as if to say, “You’re out of your mind for simply thinking that”) is any different, morally speaking, as in both cases you’re willfully deceiving the other person. Same intention, different means to that end. In the second case that’d be called “mental reservation”, IMHO an apt way of taking something that is sinful in differing degrees (lying), twisting it a little bit, giving it a new look, a new name, and concluding it can no longer be properly called lying and a sin.

 

[mosher]

GEddie:

I think you might not understand the role of infallibility in the Church. Please remember that it is a very specific charism. This charism is not necessary for the discussion of lying. There are many things that we must assent to that are not infallibly defined, like: 1+1=2, or the principle of non-contradiction. Aquinas’ treatment of lying as always evil no matter what is analogous. His reasoning, similar to the above items, is not dependent on revelation. Rather, it is founded upon the nature of the virtue of truth. Lying is an objective evil because of its relation to truth. As a result no circumstance can make it good only less bad. We can go through the whole treatment if it is necessary or everyone can just take the time to read Aquinas on this issue.

 

[Robertanthony]

Can I ask a hypothetical question? If a man back in the early 1940’s came back from confession (so no sin of his whole life remains unabsolved) one day, and was asked the question by the Nazi officer, and he lies. Nazi searches the house, finds Jewish people, kills the man in retaliation. Is the lie a stain on his soul, something that God wished he hadn’t done? I understand his salvation is not at stake as in this instance it’s but a venial sin done for selfless reasons.

 

[VonDerTann]

RobertAnthony:

In answer to your hypothetical, I’d say this:

1. Do I think God wishes he’d not lied? IMHO, No. Greater love hath no man than he who lays down his life for a friend. Our hypothetical liar really did lay down his life for another, and he paid the ultimate penalty trying (unsuccessfully) to save another life.
2. You say, “as in this instance it’s but a venial sin done for selfless reasons.”

–I don’t think its a sin at all, venial or otherwise.

In the past on this board, it appeared to me that you could break down posters in a “nazis at the door” scenario into 2 groups:

a. Those who said lying in that scenario was not a sin; and
b Those who said it was a sin but a minor one.

I’m a member of group “a.” I believe that just because we are asked for information – by nazis, or robbers asking where our money is, or by nosy neighbors – does not mean we must supply it. As I said, morality is complex, and this is one instance where IMHO saying “no Jews are in the basement” is not a sin.

 

[Robertanthony]

Thanks for your (name removed by moderator)ut VonDerTann. Personally, regarding this, I hope the lie would not be counted as sin, and that the great charity shown in this hypothetical scenario would nullify the sin altogether.

 

[momor]

I could be wrong but when I stand before Jesus at my judgment I don’t think any lies I said because I was trying to be polite or kind or avoid a fight are going to be brought up.

 

[cristyd]

If lying to a killer would save your own life would you do it?

It depends this can’t be amswered in general, it depends on the situation. If i would have to lie about my religion or my beliefs or to betray somebody then no i would prefer to die

If (let’s use my imagination) i am attacked by a mad man dressed in a pink tutu who points the gun at me and asks me if he looks pretty then i gues i would lie to him and say yes to save my life and because i would understand he is sick.

If lying would give comfort to a dying friend would you give it?

That depends also. If he asks me if he is going to die then i will not lie to him. I did not lie to my friend when she asked me and i was 15 years old. She asked me “Will it be over soon?” and I said “yes”. She understood and she said thank you.

If a sick somebody sicks asks you "Do i look that bad? you will never say yes. You will most probalby tell him “Oh, come on, not that bad.” Or something similar.

If lying would convince a suicidal man to live one more day would you tell it?

If i know he has mentally problems that could be treated yes i would lie. For example a woman suffering from post natal depression. Would you lie to her to save her life?

If lying would save a relationship with the person you loved would you lie to their face?
No, i told everything about me and my past to my husband and he did also. Lying to the person you love is not acceptable and it is selfish. No matter what you do or happens you must tell the truth to the person you love and hope for forgivness.

When, if ever, would you lie, and where do you draw the line?

That depends on the situation. I would like to believe that i will not lie unlless in very critical situations. But then it is very easy to say “I will never lie”. You never know until you are face to face with the situation. I believe you should never say “I will never lie” because this could turn into a lie later on in your life also. It’s like saying “I will never sin.”
You must say “I will try my best not to lie and always tell the truth.”

 

[FNDRB58]

If you are a member of a German family hiding Jews in your basement and the Gestapo comes to your door with guns pointed at you “asking you” if there are any Jews here, it would not be a sin to lie to them in order to save the lives of the innocent…Let’s also consider the stressful situation which would certainly eliminate any culpability even if “all lying is sinful.”

As has been said, murderers do not have the right to know where their next victims are therefore one is not under moral obligation to provide this information.

Didn’t Pope Pius (?) hide Jews? Would he have done so with the resolve that he would give them up if Nazis stormed the Vatican and demanded where they were?

IMO, all telling of the untruth is a lie but not all lies are sinful.

The Ten Commandments says thou shalt not kill but indeed we do so in just wars and captial punishment.

 

[mosher]

All the thought experiments are interesting but they miss the point. The hidden assumption that is being made in all of them is that the the agent in question is confronted with a situation where he can either lie and save lives or tell the truth and people die. But, human life is not binary like this. This is why it is essential to look at the principles and then apply them to the situation.

So, the way that we ought to look at the situation is thus:

Principle 1: A lie is an intrinsic evil.
Principle 2: One cannot bring about good ends through evil means.
Principle 3: One cannot directly will an evil act.
Principle 4: One must always intend the good.

Situation: As given.

Given the above principles and the given situation one must conclude that the person confronted with such a hypothetical situation should not lie. However, he may withhold information that he believes will cause harm to himself, his family, and those under his care. In this way he does not act contrary to the virtue of truth.

 

[otjm]

The end never justifies the means. In other words you may not do an evil to achieve a good.

That, however, presumes that that a lie is evil.

Theologians are divided on the matter. An interesting article in in this week’s Sunday Visitor, and it is specifically directed at the undercover investigation by one of the pro-life groups run on Planned Parenthood.

 

[FNDRB58]

All the thought experiments are interesting but they miss the point. The hidden assumption that is being made in all of them is that the the agent in question is confronted with a situation where he can either lie and save lives or tell the truth and people die. But, human life is not binary like this. This is why it is essential to look at the principles and then apply them to the situation.

So, the way that we ought to look at the situation is thus:

Principle 1: A lie is an intrinsic evil.
Principle 2: One cannot bring about good ends through evil means.
Principle 3: One cannot directly will an evil act.
Principle 4: One must always intend the good.

Situation: As given.

Given the above principles and the given situation one must conclude that the person confronted with such a hypothetical situation should not lie. However, he may withhold information that he believes will cause harm to himself, his family, and those under his care. In this way he does not act contrary to the virtue of truth.

So are you saying that it would have been sinful if Pope Pius lied to the Gestapo when asked if there are Jews hiding in the Vatican when in fact there were?

Truly, why would any Jew accept the help of a Pope if they know that the Pope can’t lie to save their lives. Surely, they put their lives in his hands with the expectation that he would lie if presented with the opportunity.

Killing too is an intrinsic evil and the Natural Law prohibits this action. There are exceptions to the no killing commandment such as killing in just wars and capital punishment. Why is there no exception to lying given extraordinary circumstances? Why is no lying more iron clad than no killing?

Another scenario - undercover police officers. Are they sinning when they “lie” to drug manufacturers and dealers? If man with a cleaver is chasing your daughter, she runs in the house. He pounds on the door and asked where she is. Are you seriously just going to “withhold information” or are you going to say anything to get him to leave?

I think common sense must be employed when speaking about what is and is not a sinful lie.

 

[FNDRB58]

All the thought experiments are interesting but they miss the point. The hidden assumption that is being made in all of them is that the the agent in question is confronted with a situation where he can either lie and save lives or tell the truth and people die. But, human life is not binary like this. This is why it is essential to look at the principles and then apply them to the situation.

So, the way that we ought to look at the situation is thus:

Principle 1: A lie is an intrinsic evil.
Principle 2: One cannot bring about good ends through evil means.
Principle 3: One cannot directly will an evil act.
Principle 4: One must always intend the good.

Situation: As given.

Given the above principles and the given situation one must conclude that the person confronted with such a hypothetical situation should not lie. However, he may withhold information that he believes will cause harm to himself, his family, and those under his care. In this way he does not act contrary to the virtue of truth.

…continued…

Fallacious thinking in my opinion. Your four principles presume that the lie is already an evil.

Killing is not always evil. Lying is not always evil.

Lying on a job application is an attempt to deceive the employer who has a right to know the truth. Murderers do not have the right to know the truth when they are hunting down their victims, therefore, it is permissible to lie to them to avoid the heinous action they are about to commit.

 

[momor]

All the thought experiments are interesting but they miss the point. The hidden assumption that is being made in all of them is that the the agent in question is confronted with a situation where he can either lie and save lives or tell the truth and people die. But, human life is not binary like this. This is why it is essential to look at the principles and then apply them to the situation.

So, the way that we ought to look at the situation is thus:

Principle 1: A lie is an intrinsic evil.
Principle 2: One cannot bring about good ends through evil means.
Principle 3: One cannot directly will an evil act.
Principle 4: One must always intend the good.

Situation: As given.

Given the above principles and the given situation one must conclude that the person confronted with such a hypothetical situation should not lie. However, he may withhold information that he believes will cause harm to himself, his family, and those under his care. In this way he does not act contrary to the virtue of truth.

I think the principles outlined are truth but it would be too rigid to state that they must apply without exception in every situation. We can say it’s always wrong to procure or perform an abortion. We cannot say it’s always wrong to kill. The specifics of a circumstance have to be taken into account. If it were a choice between lying and saving a life or preventing a great harm I would lie and let Jesus weigh it in the balance.

 

[GEddie]

I think the principles outlined are truth but it would be too rigid to state that they must apply without exception in every situation. We can say it’s always wrong to procure or perform an abortion. We cannot say it’s always wrong to kill. The specifics of a circumstance have to be taken into account. If it were a choice between lying and saving a life or preventing a great harm I would lie and let Jesus weigh it in the balance.

I agree, but remember that our Holy Church is run by professional philosophers, who see human life in such rigid, abstract terms that IMNAAHO they can forget they are in fact human beings.

ICXC NIKA