Lying - Is it Ever Acceptable?

[mosher]

But the natural law still begs the question: Is there any situation whereby one may tell an untruth and it not be a sin, ergo, a lie? The purpose or nature of the natural law is that it serves the moral good and justice. How is cooperating with murderers who are about to murder our brothers in Christ serving the moral good and justice? Telling an untruth in this situation does not compromise good. It combats evil by an act of good (love).

Reading such long posts are getting very time consuming.

Sorry for the length of them. I think the reason why there is so many people who hold opposing positions to those of Aquinas and Augustine is that our educational system has failed to provide a sound classical education. So, I feel as if I have to recreate the wheel. Nobody understands the basic principles of reason anymore nor do they understand what a virtue is nor what a vice is with reference to their underlying ontological grounding. Anyway … I digress.

No, it doesn’t beg the question. As I said my above treatment was simplistic. Circumstance in the sense that you are using does not factor into determining the quality of an act. Voluntary actions are the human way of interacting in the world. It is our natural mode. When we act according to nature it is a good act and when we act contrary to nature it is a evil act. To lie, therefore, is always a choice for a lesser good, i.e., an imperfection or distortion of what is supposed to the the case. The circumstances are irrelevant to this part of determining the quality of the act - its objective quality. What the circumstances provides us, as a third party, is the information to judge the culpability the agent has for an act (the praise or blame assigned).

Perhaps one of Aquinas’ replies to an objection that is particularly relevant will help. This Article asks the question “Whether every lie is a sin?”:

First the Objection
St. Thomas Aquinas:

Further, no one is rewarded by God for sin. But the midwives of Egypt were rewarded by God for a lie, for it is stated that “God built them houses” (Exodus 1:21). Therefore a lie is not a sin.

The Body of the Article
St. Thomas Aquinas:

On the contrary, It is written (Sirach 7:14): “Be not willing to make any manner of lie.”

I answer that, An action that is naturally evil in respect of its genus can by no means be good and lawful, since in order for an action to be good it must be right in every respect: because good results from a complete cause, while evil results from any single defect, as Dionysius asserts (Div. Nom. iv). Now a lie is evil in respect of its genus, since it is an action bearing on undue matter. For as words are naturally signs of intellectual acts, it is unnatural and undue for anyone to signify by words something that is not in his mind. Hence the Philosopher says (Ethic. iv, 7) that “lying is in itself evil and to be shunned, while truthfulness is good and worthy of praise.” Therefore every lie is a sin, as also Augustine declares (Contra Mend. i).

The response to the specific objection.
St. Thomas Aquinas:

The midwives were rewarded, not for their lie, but for their fear of God, and for their good-will, which latter led them to tell a lie. Hence it is expressly stated (Exodus 2:21): “And because the midwives feared God, He built them houses.” But the subsequent lie was not meritorious.

 

[mosher]

But you are presuming that lying is an evil. We all know it is by definition. But your presumption that it qualifies as a sinful lie is the question at hand. No one is presuming that an act of evil is allowable in certain circumstances. Sin is sin. What I for one am asserting is that telling an untruth in the Nazi example does not fit the definition of a lie (sinful) and therefore is not a lie, but a telling of an untruth that is not sinful. If you are using the term lie to mean sinful then telling an untruth in the Nazi example does not meet the requirements.

Read my response to your initial objection.

 

[dskysmine]

You have missed the point. It is not an evil ‘to anybody’. The reference to a subject is not what determines the status of an act as being good or evil. It is evil because of its reference to the virtue of truth.

It is basic Moral Theology that if any evil adheres to a Human Act then the whole act is itself evil. This is, third grade catechesis level stuff.

That would result in any human act being evil…
… nice… :x

 

[AlanFromWichita]

You have missed the point. It is not an evil ‘to anybody’. The reference to a subject is not what determines the status of an act as being good or evil. It is evil because of its reference to the virtue of truth.

It is basic Moral Theology that if any evil adheres to a Human Act then the whole act is itself evil. This is, third grade catechesis level stuff.

So something that is evil does not necessarily do anything harmful?

Is that like a victim-less crime?

If it’s true that just because it’s evil doesn’t mean it hurts anybody, then what’s the point in calling it evil?

Alan

 

[AlanFromWichita]

The response to the specific objection.

Originally Posted by St. Thomas Aquinas, ST II-II 110 q. 3 a. 2 ad.
The midwives were rewarded, not for their lie, but for their fear of God, and for their good-will, which latter led them to tell a lie. Hence it is expressly stated (Exodus 2:21): “And because the midwives feared God, He built them houses.” But the subsequent lie was not meritorious.

OK, the lie was not “meritorious” due to the circumstances, but they had goodwill, so they did “what they had to” because of a greater good.

But, does “not meritorious” mean it is a lie and therefore is sinful – therefore the midwives had sinned against God and/or the Truth – if God and Truth aren’t the same thing, that is.

Or does “not meritorious” imply that the lie is itself not the virtue, but it is the tool that good people use to do good for the Lord? If it is, why do we call it sinful?

Some people use the Internet as a tool for doing satan’s work, or otherwise selfish work. Does that mean the Internet is evil? Others use Internet to do God’s work. So the Internet is a communications medium, that can be used to do good or bad work; it isn’t intrinsically good or evil in itself.

Similarly, a lie is one method of communication that can result in good or harm, depending on the circumstance, and the disposition of those telling the lie.

Alan

 

[Robertanthony]

What if what looks good on paper doesn’t reflect God’s Heart, what if we arrive at a conclusion that follows perfectly from logic, but God might very well not be bound by human logic. What if qualifying lying as intrinsically evil (ergo not “redeemable” by the spirit of charity and selflessness in which a lie is told) is flawed from the start. Or could extreme situations (ex. Nazi at the door, or killer at the door looking for your kid) exempt someone from being bound by that moral law? Charity is the golden rule, we’re not talking murder here or denying Jesus, we’re talking potentially saving lives by misleading people who were equivalents of incarnate demons?

 

[AlanFromWichita]

What if what looks good on paper doesn’t reflect God’s Heart, what if we arrive at a conclusion that follows perfectly from logic, but God might very well not be bound by human logic. What if qualifying lying as intrinsically evil (ergo not “redeemable” by the spirit of charity and selflessness in which a lie is told) is flawed from the start. Or could extreme situations (ex. Nazi at the door, or killer at the door looking for your kid) exempt someone from being bound by that moral law? Charity is the golden rule, we’re not talking murder here or denying Jesus, we’re talking potentially saving lives by misleading people who were equivalents of incarnate demons?

Those are excellent questions.

IMO, any principle or law that is confined to communication by human words is subject to misinterpretation. It isn’t that God can’t speak properly, it’s that there is absolutely no combination of words available that would appeal to all the diverse minds God needs to communicate with.

That’s why I say the “heart” of the Gospel is in the deeper senses, and not in the literal. The literal gives us a starting point, but doesn’t answer all the question, nor was it intended to. It was intended, IMO, to be a spiritual training manual, not a cookbook. God’s recipes depend on too many things; the price of eggs, some of those dining are allergic to this ingredient and others to that ingredient, for example. Not every single possibility that may arise can be documented, so it is OK to say, “this law is absolute” if it is from God, but if we claim to have an absolute understand of that law, we have no foundation to rightly make that claim.

Alan

 

[LilyM]

So something that is evil does not necessarily do anything harmful?

Is that like a victim-less crime?

If it’s true that just because it’s evil doesn’t mean it hurts anybody, then what’s the point in calling it evil?

Alan

Well, surely something that offends God is by that very fact evil - and that must, surely, be so regardless of whether it harms others, or at least whether the harm it does is perceptible to us.

You ever met someone who was stoned or drunk who insists that they have suffered absolutely no ill effects from their consumption of drugs or alcohol, and all the while the ill effects are blindingly obvious to yourself and everyone else looking on? Is it not possible that the ill effects are there, but simply not apparent to the liar? Or indeed to other humans?

 

[LilyM]

Those are excellent questions.

IMO, any principle or law that is confined to communication by human words is subject to misinterpretation. It isn’t that God can’t speak properly, it’s that there is absolutely no combination of words available that would appeal to all the diverse minds God needs to communicate with.

That’s why I say the “heart” of the Gospel is in the deeper senses, and not in the literal. The literal gives us a starting point, but doesn’t answer all the question, nor was it intended to. It was intended, IMO, to be a spiritual training manual, not a cookbook. God’s recipes depend on too many things; the price of eggs, some of those dining are allergic to this ingredient and others to that ingredient, for example. Not every single possibility that may arise can be documented, so it is OK to say, “this law is absolute” if it is from God, but if we claim to have an absolute understand of that law, we have no foundation to rightly make that claim.

Alan

You think God is incapable of communicating clearly with us? Of setting laws which are more than precise enough to guide us properly in any situation in which detailed guidance is necessary, assuming we genuinely want and are prepared to accept that guidance?

Surely that reflects very poorly on His powers, does it not?

 

[Pitcharan]

…Recently, I was speaking with someone who says they would not lie under any circumstance. I can honestly see some good reasons to lie and I personally would lie if given most of the above scenarios. At the very least, I feel the saving of a life is a worth a lie.

You would seriously lie to a dying friend? Would you lie to a suicidal man to save his life? What if the suicidal man finds out that you were lying, would that not even make him want to take his life more, because of your deception? If you lied to save a relationship of someone you love, then you actually don’t love the person you are in the relationship with.

Lies are done to only decive people, what good could actually come out of a lie?

I feel that if a lie is for the greater good then its ok. most of the examples you gave are not just reasons. although, in the extreme case a good person would lie to nazis about the location of Jews

No, because when i become catholic i swore that even if it would require my life, i would speak the truth.

…Similarly, a lie is one method of communication that can result in good or harm, depending on the circumstance, and the disposition of those telling the lie.

Alan

YES Lynx and Alan; I fully agree with you. A lie said out of goodwill is certainly a good work and a truth spoken with malicious intent is certainly a sin.

I can even cite one example each from the Bible:

GOOD LIE: Angel Raphael lying about his identity to Tobias and his father

EVIL TRUTH: The paralytic for 38 years in John’s gospel, who was healed at the pool by Jesus, was so ungrateful that he did not even care to know who healed him. But later when he learnt that it was Jesus (after being told by Jesus “Sin no more, lest greater evil befall you”), he went and betrayed his healer Jesus to the Jews who were seeking to persecute Jesus for healing on the Sabbath. He spoke the truth about Jesus for evil reasons just like Judas Iscariot

 

[AlanFromWichita]

You think God is incapable of communicating clearly with us? Of setting laws which are more than precise enough to guide us properly in any situation in which detailed guidance is necessary, assuming we genuinely want and are prepared to accept that guidance?

Surely that reflects very poorly on His powers, does it not?

I like the way you word your questions. It helps me realize how I’ve come across and where we maybe should go next. You are not chasing me around in circles, like some do, and I appreciate that and enjoy that!

I think we are mixing up those parts of communication for which I believe God takes responsibility and control, and those parts for which our understanding is limited by the degree we can cooperate with that communication, coupled with the state of our mind and heart at the time of the communication.

Is God omnipotent? Yes. I will hold that as an absolute statement. I allege (hee hee – lawyer talk, right?) that our inability to hear and completely absorb all the senses of God’s word – communicated through human language – is because we are imperfect listeners, not that God has limited communication skills

I think God is capable of communicating with us in ways that we can receive as much knowledge and wisdom as He wills, without regard to my own efforts to seek or study or to understand or even to resist such knowledge. Given that, how do I claim we cannot presume to understand Him?

Maybe it will help to confess that I’m coming through this from a perspective my electrical engineering background has enabled me to take. Some of the coursework I took to get my master’s degree, and some of my experience working in the Bell Labs division of Lucent Technology, has been in communication engineering.

A communication system is a means to convey a message from a sender to a receiver, through some media carried by some channel. The message may or may not be received correctly due to imperfections in the entire system. How is the receiver to know it got the correct message, and if it didn’t, how does the receiver go about requesting the sender to repeat, clarify, or do whatever else it takes to ensure the message received is, in fact, the same as the message sent with a specified degree of certainty. For example, I hae no way of directly observing whether you meant “well” instead of “poorly” in your question, except that it is consistent with the rest of your question and in general I believe you to be careful enough with your words that it is highly unlikely. Not only that, but even if you typed the word “poorly” maybe you slipped and accidentally touched the mouse pad and it deleted “well” and entered the contents of the Windows buffer, which just happened to be “poorly.” That is unlikely enough I reject is as a reasonable hypothesis, but it is not absolutely impossible, so I can’t honestly say that you didn’t actually type “well” and it came through as “poorly,” but I’d bet a paycheck on it. Maybe you typed and sent “well” and through some random act of forum software or Internet glitch, part of another poster’s message got mixed up with yours and the word “well” got replaced with the word “poorly.” But that is so unlikely that I’d bet a year of my life that it didn’t happen, and that the words you personally chose to convey the message you were trying to convey, was exactly, “Surely that reflects very poorly on His powers, does it not?”

I believe those were the exact words you intended for me to see on my screen. I can’t prove it absolutely, but I have a high enough degree of confidence that I can reasonably neglect the chance that the message was corrupted. I might not know what you meant, exactly, but I’m quite sure those words were typed by you or by someone using your login. Enough so that I can accept it as “true enough” that for all my purposes I can accept it as absolute fact. It in not absolute fact, but it is close enough I’m willing to treat it as absolute for all intents and purposes we have for this conversation. I’m not willing to CALL it absolute, though, because I am not willing to make the following claim based on reading your last post:

“I know for an absolute fact that LilyM typed the words she intended to send to me as exactly as ‘Surely that reflects very poorly on His powers, does it not?’ and there is no chance that I am wrong about that. I am so confident that I am willing to be struck dead and be sent to hell if it isn’t true that she typed those words for me to hear.”

As an engineer, I would never make such a claim because it is my opinion but I cannot prove it. One part of engineering I’m pretty good at, if I say so myself, is knowing what I don’t know, and having some idea how likely it is there is such a thing that materially affects my system performance.

Keep in mind that only a few years ago, it was very common when transferring a file that part of it got corrupted along the way. Now it is very rare. The difference is quantitative, not qualitative. We didn’t eliminate the chance for undetected errors, but we’ve made them so slim that most of the time we can just pretend we always receive the file correctly, or Windows would warn us somehow that it didn’t receive the file.

(continued)

 

[AlanFromWichita]

(continued)

So what can cause errors and where do they creep into the message? In a physical system, there are generally several places where errors could be introduced. One, by noise or distortion in the sending equipment or encoding process (converting your words into binary bits, for example), second, by noise and distortion in the channel, and by noise and distortion in the receiver, and maybe a lack of perfect synchronization between sender and receiver over the channel, unless of course the encoding of the message is self-synchronizing in which case most sync errors can be detected, and imperfect decoding of the message (from bits back to words) at the receiving end. Once I see your words, and believe them to be the words you intended me to see, I might read them wrong or derive a point from your statement you didn’t intend to make.

For the God model, we can agree that at the sending end, the encoding is perfect, and there is ABSOLUTELY zero distortion or noise in the message when it is introduced into the channel. Please allow me to take a little liberty and interchange “medium” and “channel.” They’re not exactly the same thing, but for this discussion it’s not important – I can only be so anal-retentive about this or I’ll never get to my point at all. So, that channel/medium could be the printed Word as displayed on my screen or printed in a paper book, it could be words spoken through you, it could be an experience I had, it could be a voice from the clouds, it could be something I might have learned while studying a rock sitting still next to a river, or it could be a message infallibly declared by the Pope.

Each of these media have inherent limitations on bandwidth, which is basically “how much information can you get through any given channel in one second?” Maybe a picture is worth 1000 words, but if it takes the same bandwidth as 70,000 words to convey, then you have wasted bandwidth. Now, if a picture is worth 100,000 words, then sending the picture is more efficient, in terms of time used by a channel that is expensive to operate.

Whether pictures or words, neither of them is the message in the exact form God wishes for us to possess. He wishes it to be carved into our minds and hearts, for example. The words and symbols mean nothing to me unless I have previous knowledge of those words and they trigger memories that reconstruct the ideas, more or less accurately, that were intended to be conveyed in the first place. If He has chosen Japanese characters, that would not be processed at all to derive meaning by my conscious mind. If He has chosen common words in the vernacular, much more complex messages can be conveyed, with higher degree of certainty.

This is taking too long. When I’m on the topic of “absolute” statements, I must be very careful about how I say things or I’m unwilling to sign off on it, as being absolutely true.

I’m taking a break. Hopefully this groundwork is enough I can get fairly quickly to my point, in another post.

Short summary of what’s next: what media and channels do God use to communicate with us, and why doesn’t he convey his messages perfectly to me in the way I should know them? Does He speak to us in ways that proper reception requires our consent and/or a certain degree of competency with the language? In my model, and as expressed by several Catholic sources I’ve heard, the native language of God is silence. When He speaks to us using words we can understand pretty well, or appears to us in a form we can physically see, or whatever, He is not speaking in His native language, which is pure empathy in my model, but is speaking though imperfect, worldly channels to an imperfect language processing system (or image recognition system) in the receiver.

Break time!

Alan

 

[wild_thing]

I just want to break into this VERY scholarly discussion to say…where is Lynx, the OP who opened this can of worms, so to speak? I know that on Lynx’s posting it stated he was an atheist. What does he (or she) think about the arguments that have been put forth?

 

[FNDRB58]

Well, surely something that offends God is by that very fact evil - and that must, surely, be so regardless of whether it harms others, or at least whether the harm it does is perceptible to us.

You ever met someone who was stoned or drunk who insists that they have suffered absolutely no ill effects from their consumption of drugs or alcohol, and all the while the ill effects are blindingly obvious to yourself and everyone else looking on? Is it not possible that the ill effects are there, but simply not apparent to the liar? Or indeed to other humans?

And how this would apply to the Nazi example? Where are the obvious ill effects?

 

[LilyM]

And how this would apply to the Nazi example? Where are the obvious ill effects?

They may be ill-effects that are obvious only to God, who is far more perceptive about such things than any human could be - HE is the ultimate ‘bystander’ if you will.

 

[FNDRB58]

They may be ill-effects that are obvious only to God, who is far more perceptive about such things than any human could be - HE is the ultimate ‘bystander’ if you will.

Ok. So just to confirm. You agree that to us there are no obvious ill effects of lying to Nazis who want to kill Jews, correct?

And…if the ill effects are only known to God in a particular case then why does the Church give us guidelines in the Catechism of what constitutes a lie which is sinful?

My point being that we have to know what is acceptable and what is not. God does not leave us guessing what is good and what is evil. To tell an untruth in the Nazi example must be deemed either sinful or nonsinful. And I maintain that if we base its status on the Catechism, it is not explicitly stated either way but seems to speak to those who have a right to know and it speaks to the natural law where lying in this context destroys the moral order and justice to which the Nazi example does not qualify.

 

[FNDRB58]

Sorry for the length of them. I think the reason why there is so many people who hold opposing positions to those of Aquinas and Augustine is that our educational system has failed to provide a sound classical education. So, I feel as if I have to recreate the wheel. Nobody understands the basic principles of reason anymore nor do they understand what a virtue is nor what a vice is with reference to their underlying ontological grounding. Anyway … I digress.

St. Raymond and other prominent Catholics also hold an opposing view and I am certain they fully understand the basic priciples of reason, virtue, and vice. Perhaps, their educational system failed them? You are presuming that what you have been taught is infallible teaching. To say that your school taught you this philisophical stance and therefore it is fact is not correct. Philosophy is not mathematics. It is like theory is it not? It is open for more than one interpretation which is why there have been philisophical debates over the centuries.

No, it doesn’t beg the question. As I said my above treatment was simplistic. Circumstance in the sense that you are using does not factor into determining the quality of an act. Voluntary actions are the human way of interacting in the world. It is our natural mode. When we act according to nature it is a good act and when we act contrary to nature it is a evil act. To lie, therefore, is always a choice for a lesser good, i.e., an imperfection or distortion of what is supposed to the the case. The circumstances are irrelevant to this part of determining the quality of the act - its objective quality. What the circumstances provides us, as a third party, is the information to judge the culpability the agent has for an act (the praise or blame assigned).

Well, that is certainly your opinion. I don’t believe it is evil to tell an untruth if it is done as a true act of love. One should be absolutist only in the context that one’s “lie” indeed has evil intent, that is, there is selfish gain, or it hurts your brethren, or is contrary to truth to someone who has the right to know, or destroys the moral order or justice. The Nazi example does not offend any of these.

 

[AlanFromWichita]

God doesn’t need us to tell the truth.

God doesn’t need us to lie for Him.

God doesn’t need anything we have to offer.

So why does He care what we do?

He cares what we do because what we do has impact on our thoughts, feelings, and spirit.

To me, when God says, “do not lie,” He is not saying, “if you lie I’m going to lose my peace” or “if you lie it will ruin my plans for salvation of the human race.”

To me, He is saying, “look, I know that you think lying is an easy way out, but if you have a lying heart, it can lead you to all kinds of problems you haven’t even thought of.”

Again, Paul conformed to the people he was around. That’s presenting oneself in a falsified way – that’s almost like saying, “if you’re a Jew, then I’m a Jew too.” Isn’t that a terrible sin, to deny or at least conceal the fact that you are a Christian?
1 Cor 9:19-22:

Although I am free in regard to all, I have made myself a slave to all so as to win over as many as possible. To the Jews I became like a Jew to win over Jews; to those under the law I became like one under the law–though I myself am not under the law–to win over those under the law. To those outside the law I became like one outside the law–though I am not outside God’s law but within the law of Christ–to win over those outside the law. To the weak I became weak, to win over the weak. I have become all things to all, to save at least some. All this I do for the sake of the gospel, so that I too may have a share in it.

Sounds to me he was quite the chameleon. He dressed up as whatever group he was around, so that he may enter their pasture through their gate, and minister to them where they were – rather than yell from the fence to come to you. I call this, “under the radar” or “like a thief in the night.”

Alan

 

[FNDRB58]

God also said do not kill and do not work on the Sabbath. Yet, there are circumstances that allow for each of these.

How is an act of love by lying to Nazi murderers to save your fellow bretheren, “Having a lying heart”? Isn’t the whole reason that lying is wrong is because it offends the moral order and justice? Please tell me how lying to a murderer offends these.

 

[Pitcharan]

God also said do not kill and do not work on the Sabbath. Yet, there are circumstances that allow for each of these.

How is an act of love by lying to Nazi murderers to save your fellow bretheren, “Having a lying heart”? Isn’t the whole reason that lying is wrong is because it offends the moral order and justice? Please tell me how lying to a murderer offends these.

Neither lying nor any other action can become right or wrong as such. Only, the intended purpose of the doer will come under judgment.

One may kill another accidently. A doctor may kill a patient while trying to save his life. A murder may take place in self defence. A murder may happen in order to save many other lives. A premeditated cold blooded murder may be comitted out of envy like Cain killing Abel. How can all these actions face a common judgment.