Lying is OK sometimes...?

[ignatius777]

(emphasis added)

I don’t think even that kind of justification is necessary. Assume that Jew hunters also read the CCC and are adept at friendly interrogation and know what a negative pregnant denial is, and nothing short of deception ("they are not on this property and I have no idea where they are) will make them leave. If they’re not entitled to the truth, they can’t be lied to.

There are many more mundane examples of misrepresentations that aren’t a sin by any stretch of the imagination. Commercial negotiations where the buyer doesn’t disclose the highest price he’d pay when directly asked by the seller, games like poker where verbal misrepresentations are an art form …

Lets ask a different question just for kicks. Would it be a lie to tell a nazi hunter that a WWII gestapo agent who killed jews was not residing in the house when in fact they were?

 

[ignatius777]

I’m trying to pin down your thinking. In my example, you believe that someone who directed the nazis away from hidden Jews has separated himself from God?

You don’t believe the nazis are entitled to the truth, do you?

What I said was sin seperates us from God. The question is is lying in cetain circumstances a sin. I would have no problem directing nazis away from Jews but if I had to lie to do so I need to make myself right with God and through the gift of the sacrament of reconculiation in the catholic church I can do just that.

I believe we are all entitled to the truth that doesnt mean we will always get it ever.

 

[Reservoir_Dog]

Lets ask a different question just for kicks. Would it be a lie to tell a nazi hunter that a WWII gestapo agent who killed jews was not residing in the house when in fact they were?

First, let me state that its not my house that would ever shelter a Jew hunter.

If the nazi hunter’s intentions were to execute the nazi (I’m talking about an extrajudicial killing), then he’s not entitled to the truth and it would be a sin not to mislead him. Or I could just tell him to go away if I were someone whose conscience told him that bluffing in poker was a sin.

In fact, allowing the nazi hunter to seize and kill the nazi would make me an accomplice to his sin. So I’d be saving the both of us from a mortal sin. If the guy was just a bounty hunter, he’d be too late, see below.

This isn’t giving the nazi a pass. The next step would be to hold him at gunpoint until the civil authorities came and took him away for trial.

 

[Reservoir_Dog]

What I said was sin seperates us from God. The question is is lying in cetain circumstances a sin. I would have no problem directing nazis away from Jews but if I had to lie to do so I need to make myself right with God and through the gift of the sacrament of reconculiation in the catholic church I can do just that.

We’ll just disagree on whether misdirecting the nazis in this cause is a sin. I don’t believe it is.

I believe we are all entitled to the truth that doesnt mean we will always get it ever.

I disagree completely. You’re not **entitled **to know the highest price I’d pay for something in a commercial negotiation, so if I say $10,000 when I’d actually pay $20,000 I’m not lying and not sinning.

You’re not** entitled **to whether I’m holding Aces just because I said I do or just because you ask (unless you pay to see them).

 

[Cristiano]

… You’re not entitled to know the highest price I’d pay for something in a commercial negotiation, so if I say $10,000 when I’d actually pay $20,000 I’m not lying and not sinning.…

In this case you are lying and thus you are sinning.You make a clearly false statement. The person might not have a right to know the truth but you are not justified to tell a lie. Two wrongs do not make a right.

 

[ignatius777]

We’ll just disagree on whether misdirecting the nazis in this cause is a sin. I don’t believe it is.

I disagree completely. You’re not **entitled **to know the highest price I’d pay for something in a commercial negotiation, so if I say $10,000 when I’d actually pay $20,000 I’m not lying and not sinning.

You’re not** entitled **to whether I’m holding Aces just because I said I do or just because you ask (unless you pay to see them).

You are certainly free to disagree. A sin doesnt cease being a sin because we consider the action justified or decide to cal lit something else. As Abraham Lincoln is famous for asking…if we count the tail on a goat as a leg how many legs does the goat have? The answer is 4 because no matter what we call it a tail is not a leg.

AGAIN no disagreement since I admitted that while I may be entitled to the truth I am in no position to ever have it. These issues are seperate.

 

[ignatius777]

First, let me state that its not my house that would ever shelter a Jew hunter.

If the nazi hunter’s intentions were to execute the nazi (I’m talking about an extrajudicial killing), then he’s not entitled to the truth and it would be a sin not to mislead him. Or I could just tell him to go away if I were someone whose conscience told him that bluffing in poker was a sin.

In fact, allowing the nazi hunter to seize and kill the nazi would make me an accomplice to his sin. So I’d be saving the both of us from a mortal sin. If the guy was just a bounty hunter, he’d be too late, see below.

This isn’t giving the nazi a pass. The next step would be to hold him at gunpoint until the civil authorities came and took him away for trial.

You unnecessarily complicate the matter. No one is suggesting that if you have an ex nazi living in your house that you sympathize with their cause. Its just a simple opposing scenario. If a nazi hunter came to your house to remove the ex nazi and you could not determine their motivation would it be a sin to misdirect them? Simple yes or no.

 

[Reservoir_Dog]

You are certainly free to disagree. A sin doesnt cease being a sin because we consider the action justified or decide to cal lit something else. As Abraham Lincoln is famous for asking…if we count the tail on a goat as a leg how many legs does the goat have? The answer is 4 because no matter what we call it a tail is not a leg.

AGAIN no disagreement since I admitted that while I may be entitled to the truth I am in no position to ever have it. These issues are seperate.

Yes, I can accept your assertion as to what is or isn’t a sin as a well intentioned mistake. In any event, the Jews would be safe from their persecutors if they asked either of us.

 

[Reservoir_Dog]

You unnecessarily complicate the matter. No one is suggesting that if you have an ex nazi living in your house that you sympathize with their cause. Its just a simple opposing scenario.

That was an aside.

If a nazi hunter came to your house to remove the ex nazi and you could not determine their motivation would it be a sin to misdirect them? Simple yes or no.

But an important aside, since I can’t get myself into this hypothetical. And a “simple yes or no” is a debate tactic that we abandoned back in high school.

If a nazi hunter showed up and told me that a nazi was living under my roof, and this is the first I’d heard of it, and regardless of whether I could determine his intentions, I’d probably ask him to hang around while I informed the police, let him make his case to the authorities, and let them sort it out. I might send the nazi hunter away and claim the reward myself.

 

[Reservoir_Dog]

In this case [telling a seller I’d only pay $10k when I’d go as high as $10k] you are lying and thus you are sinning.You make a clearly false statement. The person might not have a right to know the truth but you are not justified to tell a lie. Two wrongs do not make a right.

What was the first wrong? How does this apply to the nazi hunter scenario? In that example, nazi hunting is clearly the “first wrong”, but where is the first wrong here?

Is this the actual Catholic position on commercial bargaining? Any apologists out there?

 

[ignatius777]

That was an aside.

But an important aside, since I can’t get myself into this hypothetical. And a “simple yes or no” is a debate tactic that we abandoned back in high school.

If a nazi hunter showed up and told me that a nazi was living under my roof, and this is the first I’d heard of it, and regardless of whether I could determine his intentions, I’d probably ask him to hang around while I informed the police, let him make his case to the authorities, and let them sort it out. I might send the nazi hunter away and claim the reward myself.

Whats interesting is you want to abandon a yes or no in this scenario but seem to have no trouble answering yes or no in the original scenario. The only difference between the 2 situations is the moral judgements you place on each party. In my belief system there is consistency because in either scenario to lie is a sin period.

 

[ignatius777]

Yes, I can accept your assertion as to what is or isn’t a sin as a well intentioned mistake. In any event, the Jews would be safe from their persecutors if they asked either of us.

Agreed

 

[Cristiano]

I think that the problem about truth lies with the definition of truth. I am sure that the Church focuses on the moral truth but I am not sure about the verbal truth (veritas locutionis). The discussion about moral truth and veracity at the end of this article from the Catholic Encyclopedia is quite illuminating.

It is always quite difficult to establish a complex logical truth.A reasonable demonstration of a truth might not be sufficient as a logical demonstration.

 

[ignatius777]

I think Cristiano’s point is awkwardly made but still on target. What a person may or may not be entitled to has no bearing on my choice about whether or not to tell the truth. I have still uttered a false statement if I am asked whats the maximum I’ll pay for something and dont tell the truth. Whether or not the other person is entitled to the truth it is seperate from my decision to tell an untruth. By telling someone you would pay “X” amount for something doesnt mean you agree to do so.You are not obligated to pay that amount.

 

[Reservoir_Dog]

Whats interesting is you want to abandon a yes or no in this scenario but seem to have no trouble answering yes or no in the original scenario. The only difference between the 2 situations is the moral judgements you place on each party. In my belief system there is consistency because in either scenario to lie is a sin period.

I decided to a give more nuanced answer.

Yes, this is a moral judgment. Whether, in good conscience, to mislead Jew hunting nazis asking about the whereabouts of potential murder victims is an easy decision for reasons that should be obvious. I don’t believe that misdirecting nazis separates me from God, but I’d love to hear a more precise analysis from any expert.

What to do about an private nazi hunter is a more interesting question. Even if he has the best intentions in the world – arresting the nazi for public trial – I don’t actually even have to mislead him at all. I could simply say, sure, he’s here. Now go away. This is how your hypothetical falls apart as an analogy for the Jew hunting gestapo.

 

[ignatius777]

I decided to a give more nuanced answer.

Yes, this is a moral judgment. Whether, in good conscience, to mislead Jew hunting nazis asking about the whereabouts of potential murder victims is an easy decision for reasons that should be obvious. I don’t believe that misdirecting nazis separates me from God, but I’d love to hear a more precise analysis from any expert.

What to do about an private nazi hunter is a more interesting question. Even if he has the best intentions in the world – arresting the nazi for public trial – I don’t actually even have to mislead him at all. I could simply say, sure, he’s here. Now go away. This is how your hypothetical falls apart as an analogy for the Jew hunting gestapo.

The same answer of “Yes the jew is here now go away” is just as easily applied to the scenario you presented and renders it dismantled as well.

 

[Reservoir_Dog]

I think Cristiano’s point is awkwardly made but still on target. What a person may or may not be entitled to has no bearing on my choice about whether or not to tell the truth. I have still uttered a false statement if I am asked whats the maximum I’ll pay for something and dont tell the truth. Whether or not the other person is entitled to the truth it is seperate from my decision to tell an untruth. By telling someone you would pay “X” amount for something doesnt mean you agree to do so.You are not obligated to pay that amount.

We’re arguing over the fundamental definition of a lie. For me, it depends on whether the recipient is entitled to the truth, for you it does not. Our positions are flying past each other.

What you are calling a sin takes place in sales negotiations and dispute resolutions over anything from lawnmowers to selling John Deere itself. If this is a sin, then Catholics really aren’t of this world. Maybe not even of this planet.

 

[ignatius777]

We’re arguing over the fundamental definition of a lie. For me, it depends on whether the recipient is entitled to the truth, for you it does not. Our positions are flying past each other.

What you are calling a sin takes place in sales negotiations and dispute resolutions over anything from lawnmowers to selling John Deere itself. If this is a sin, then Catholics really aren’t of this world. Maybe not even of this planet.

I understand your point entirely and you are correct in our positions relative to one another on the definition of a lie. Let me ask you this…is it possible to lie to someone whom you believe is not entitled to the truth?

Catholics and christians arent suppose to be of this world or this planet…thats exactly the goal. BTW wouldnt “…this world” and “… this planet” be the same thing?

 

[Reservoir_Dog]

I understand your point entirely and you are correct in our positions relative to one another on the definition of a lie. Let me ask you this…is it possible to lie to someone whom you believe is not entitled to the truth?

The simple answer is no it is not possible. But in the real world, you are in shoal waters if you adopt that as a blanket statement. If you want to buy my house and I have a legal obligation to disclose termite infestation, I have to do so, and to mislead is a fraud, a lie and a sin. But during negotiations, I don’t have to tell you the lowest price I’d accept, even if you asked me point blank. You know how the haggling game is played in the marketplace. Even a certain amount of exaggeration is expected – called “puffing” – and no one who sees a product offered as “the world’s best” really believes that.

Catholics and christians arent suppose to be of this world or this planet…thats exactly the goal. BTW wouldnt “…this world” and “… this planet” be the same thing?

Its just a figure of speech.

 

[Reservoir_Dog]

The same answer of “Yes the jew is here now go away” is just as easily applied to the scenario you presented and renders it dismantled as well.

You’re right. I don’t have to misrepresent anything to a private nazi hunter. But your analogy won’t work if I tell a nazi acting under authority of law, “the Jew is here, now go away”. We’ll all be shot.