Lying objectively evil?

[Blue_Horizon]

He is saying that he is the arbitrator of what is and isn’t magisterial teaching.

"…properly vetted by the appropriate offices…those offices always have competent holders?"

I wonder how we can trust anything coming from Rome without knowing who vetted the statement and whether or not they are competent?

Notice, too, how the whole subject of whether it is legitimate to speak a statement at variance with the mind went from men seeking to murder an innocent individual to being ridiculed for going to Mass. No one has ever died from being ridiculed by many have met their end through murder.

I am still waiting for an answer to my question: If we are not permitted to do evil so that good may come of it, are we then permitted to do good, knowing that evil will come of it?

Well thats whate the PODEffect is all about I would think.

 

[Cimachol]

I am still waiting for an answer to my question: If we are not permitted to do evil so that good may come of it, are we then permitted to do good, knowing that evil will come of it?

Yes, as mentioned above, I would think this is where the principle of double effect would come into play. I pay my taxes in order that society can function. Yet, I know some of that money will be used for things I know to be evil. I don’t will the evil, but it’s part of the reality.

 

[Tim_D]

Yes, as mentioned above, I would think this is where the principle of double effect would come into play. I pay my taxes in order that society can function. Yet, I know some of that money will be used for things I know to be evil. I don’t will the evil, but it’s part of the reality.

Actually, I am thinking on a more practical level. If a group of murderous men seeking the life of an innocent person that you have hidden in your house comes to your door inquiring about him, what must you say when they ask if you know his whereabouts?

Are you permitted to do evil - lie - so that good may come of it - the protection of innocent life?

Or must you do good - reveal the location of the innocent person - even though evil may come to him - murder?

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Actually, I am thinking on a more practical level. If a group of murderous men seeking the life of an innocent person that you have hidden in your house comes to your door inquiring about him, what must you say when they ask if you know his whereabouts?

Are you permitted to do evil - lie - so that good may come of it - the protection of innocent life?

Or must you do good - reveal the location of the innocent person - even though evil may come to him - murder?

I find it hard to understand that you could have been involved in this thread for so long without now having understood 1-2 possible answers to that question .

 

[Tim_D]

I find it hard to understand that you could have been involved in this thread for so long without now having understood 1-2 possible answers to that question .

No one will give a straight up answer. e_c said we are never to tell a lie but he will not address my point of if we must do good even though evil comes of it. This isn’t my idea; this was a discussion among theologians centuries ago and there was never one definitive answer. The problem here is, that no one wants to play the game and say either “yes” or “no.” Contrary to belief, the Church does not state absolutely that one must always and at all times speak truthfully regards of consequences.

 

[Cimachol]

Actually, I am thinking on a more practical level. If a group of murderous men seeking the life of an innocent person that you have hidden in your house comes to your door inquiring about him, what must you say when they ask if you know his whereabouts?

Are you permitted to do evil - lie - so that good may come of it - the protection of innocent life?

Or must you do good - reveal the location of the innocent person - even though evil may come to him - murder?

I am not among those who is convinced that every instance of deception is wrong, but to be fair to those who have argued that position, none of them has said that we are always obligated to provide information. In fact, I would assume one would be morally bound not to divulge information that one knows will primarily serve to help someone commit murder.

In the above scenario, you do have a couple of other options. You could avoid answering the door, knowing that murderous men are out there looking for the victim. They might assume you are not home, but you would not have lied to them. If equipped to do so, you could use force to stop the murderous thugs, but obviously that would be risky, and you may not be so equipped. Or, you could employ what is called mental reservation, where you make a true statement that avoids answering the question. I don’t know what you might say here – “I have seen the man, but I don’t know exactly where he went,” perhaps? Because you don’t know if he is in one corner of the room he’s hiding in or another? Or, “I imagine he’s a hundred miles away by now,” because you happen to be imagining him 100 miles away?

I would imagine mental reservation would often fail; for example, the thugs might ask follow-up questions like, “Well, did he ever come into this house? And did you ever see him leave?” Good luck coming up with a “mental reservation” response quickly enough to fool them again at that point. But the argument being made is that, even if there are no moral means to stop an aggressor, IF speaking untruths is always immoral, it doesn’t become moral because it’s the only way to accomplish your goal.

Again, I am not convinced that they are right, but I believe their position should be presented accurately.