Lying to save lives

  • Thread starter Thread starter camerong
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
tjm190 said:
But see, physically restraining him would be a sin if there were no extenuating circumstances. In general, he has the right to leave and drive off if he wishes. The entire point is that, in some circumstances, denying someone a certain right (to information or to movement) may be necessary to keep them or others safe. Surely it’s wrong to lock somebody up for years at a time, and freeing such people is a good thing- but if a jailer were to free a prisoner, he would be sinning by turning that prisoner loose, would he not?

The jailer has a moral duty to continue keeping the prisoner locked up, as the bar patrons have a moral duty to keep the drunk man from driving, as the priests have a moral duty to keep the Nazis from killing the Jews.
Click to expand...
But to achieve that moral duty, those folks have to do something that is objectively sinful. So it sounds like you’re saying that some objectively sinful things might not always be objectively sinful. This creates a problem of logic – contradictory definitions.
 
camerong said:
Unfortunately, I don’t think so. The definition of the sin of lying, either from the Bible or from our common understanding of it, seems to be only “knowingly misrepresenting the truth.” It does not mean “knowingly misrepresenting the truth to someone who is entitled to hear it.” And I doubt that we can interpret sacred scripture and tradition to give us that more nuanced definition of lying, as it would have made all of the discussion about mental reservation moot.
Click to expand...
The definition of killing is the taking of a human life, yet the Church claims we may kill in self defense or defense of the innocent despite 'Though shall not kill."

If innocent lives, our own included, enable us to morally act against an aggressor’s right to life, shouldn’t we able to act against an aggressor’s right to truth?
 
surritter said:
Where is this quote from? And doesn’t it conflict with posts #34-35?
Click to expand...
vatican.va/archive/catechism/p3s2c2a8.htm

In the CCC, section 4 (Respect for the Truth), end of 2489.

I suppose the best way to think about it is that we have weigh toe rights of an aggressor against that of an innocent.

If one person seeks to take the life another, we may harm the first person for the sake of a second, even if that means killing him/her. This is not a sin- we did not seek to violate his right to life, but rather to defend the right of another. His/her death was a product of that defense.

As such, surely it acceptable to violate that same aggressors right to truth for the sake of a potential victim.
 
tjm190 said:
The definition of killing is the taking of a human life, yet the Church claims we may kill in self defense or defense of the innocent despite 'Though shall not kill."

If innocent lives, our own included, enable us to morally act against an aggressor’s right to life, shouldn’t we able to act against an aggressor’s right to truth?
Click to expand...
I don’t think the original languages of the OT had the Fifth Commandment as “thou shall not kill.” Anybody know something about this?
 
tjm190 said:
vatican.va/archive/catechism/p3s2c2a8.htm

In the CCC, section 4 (Respect for the Truth), end of 2489.

I suppose the best way to think about it is that we have weigh toe rights of an aggressor against that of an innocent.

If one person seeks to take the life another, we may harm the first person for the sake of a second, even if that means killing him/her. This is not a sin- we did not seek to violate his right to life, but rather to defend the right of another. His/her death was a product of that defense.

As such, surely it acceptable to violate that same aggressors right to truth for the sake of a potential victim.
Click to expand...
Your example of self-defense invokes what we call “double effect.” I don’t think lying would get that same coverage, however, since the lie is a direct action (despite the good effects that would result).
 
surritter said:
Thanks. This paragraph is not a permission to lie, however. It says that we may be silent or give a discreet answer. So it wouldn’t help the poor nuns in the OP.
Click to expand...
In any event- people have rights, yes?

Among them, property, life, freedom, and truth.

Generally speaking, theft, murder, kidnapping, and lying deny people those rights- this is why they are sinful.

However-

Nobody would deny that I could wrestle a weapon away from an intruder, violating his right to his property. Nobody would deny that, were it necessary, I could kill him, violating his right to life. Nobody would deny that I could restrain him until the police arrived, violating his right to freedom.

It should follow, then, that these rights are not absolute- when someone uses their rights to infringe upon that of another, it seems that we are allowed to deny them those rights. Is there any reason we can not violate another’s right to truth as we may violate their right’s to property, life, and freedom?
 
surritter said:
Your example of self-defense invokes what we call “double effect.” I don’t think lying would get that same coverage, however, since the lie is a direct action (despite the good effects that would result).
Click to expand...
Semantics- guy charges at me, I pull the trigger. The pulling of the trigger is a direct action, but good results.

Lying could be seen as such as well- Nazis ask where the Jews are, I lie. Double effect- the preservation of innocent lives, the misrepresenting of reality to the Nazis.
 
tjm190 said:
Semantics- guy charges at me, I pull the trigger. The pulling of the trigger is a direct action, but good results.

Lying could be seen as such as well- Nazis ask where the Jews are, I lie. Double effect- the preservation of innocent lives, the misrepresenting of reality to the Nazis.
Click to expand...
Let’s examine the Church’s teaching about double effect some more, and then see if the bit about lying to the Nazis is really the same.

Basic teaching about “double effect”: Something that results in an unintended side effect can be morally justified if that side effect is the result of a morally justified direct action.

Thus, when you pull the trigger on a mugger, your intentions are not to harm him, and the direct action of pulling a trigger is not intrinsically evil. Your intentions are to stop the mugging. If he is hurt or killed, that harm is an unintended, indirect result of your direct action of stopping the mugging. Now plug in the appropriate terms for lying, and ask these questions:
  1. If I lie to the Nazis, is that a direct or indirect action? I would say that it is a direct action. And that action is intrinsically evil, regardless of the desired result.
  2. Are the results of that lie desired or not desired? The results are desired. Ergo, I have done a direct immoral action to bring about a desired moral result. That’s not kosher according to Catholic teaching.
So I’m thinking that the analogy doesn’t fly… But are there any heavyweight moral theologians out there that can make me feel better about the argument I’m making? 🤷
 
surritter said:
Let’s examine the Church’s teaching about double effect some more, and then see if the bit about lying to the Nazis is really the same.

Basic teaching about “double effect”: Something that results in an unintended side effect can be morally justified if that side effect is the result of a morally justified direct action.

Thus, when you pull the trigger on a mugger, your intentions are not to harm him, and the direct action of pulling a trigger is not intrinsically evil. Your intentions are to stop the mugging. If he is hurt or killed, that harm is an unintended, indirect result of your direct action of stopping the mugging. Now plug in the appropriate terms for lying, and ask these questions:
  1. If I lie to the Nazis, is that a direct or indirect action? I would say that it is a direct action. And that action is intrinsically evil, regardless of the desired result.
  2. Are the results of that lie desired or not desired? The results are desired. Ergo, I have done a direct immoral action to bring about a desired moral result. That’s not kosher according to Catholic teaching.
So I’m thinking that the analogy doesn’t fly… But are there any heavyweight moral theologians out there that can make me feel better about the argument I’m making? 🤷
Click to expand...
When I pull the trigger, do I not intend to cause a combustion reaction that results in a small piece of metal passing through or being lodged in some of his vital organs/one of his limbs? Bringing harm to another human being IS the direct result of my action. I do intend to harm the mugger. I want the assailant rendered unable to continue his assault, so that the assault may not continue.

Stopping the mugging is not and can not be a direct action- you must affect one of the parties involved, be it the mugger by wounding him or the ‘muggie’ by running.

Moreover, double effect does not apply to taking the keys of a would-be drunk driver. Surely the keys are his, and taking them constitutes theft. But he would use his property to do harm, so I should not give it to him.

Nor does it apply to wrestling a knife from a home invader, who surely owns the knife he would stab you with, and it certainly your intent to remove the knife from his possession.

If someone would use something, be it their life, their freedom, their property, or their knowledge to do evil, then you are not obligated to respect the right they have to those things.
 
I’d say it depends, I mean, when you lie, what are the reasons you have for lying? Are you lying for your own benefit? Are you well aware of the negative implications of such a lie? Or is your lie to save people? I’m sure there were many Catholics who told the Gestapo there were no Jews in their basement when there was. Technically a lie, but the reasons behind the lie were righteous, and in their case, if the truth was discovered they would be slaughtered alongside the Jews they hid. So, by lying, they not only saved the lives of the Jews, but also themselves, which, we are instructed by the Church to protect our lives and the lives of others.

In regards to the nuns - and I actually heard the same story only reversed, that it was the Muslims who told the truth and got those in hiding killed, but regardless, the nuns, if they had lied, would they have all been killed if the hiders were discovered? There are stories of nuns and priests who have betrayed their congregations in such situations.

Me? Well, I’ve lied a few times to people to protect the lives of others. In fact, its part of my professional obligation sometimes. I’ve had people contact my work and asked if an individual was there, and while there was no legal requirements to inform the caller that the individual wasn’t there, the individual had asked me not to tell the caller she was there if he rang, because he was a violent thug who put her there in the first place.

Quite frankly, I think a lie that saves a life is no sin. As saving a life is waaaaaaaaaaay more important then telling the truth. And I think God might see it in the same light.
 
vera_dicere said:
I’d say it depends, I mean, when you lie, what are the reasons you have for lying? Are you lying for your own benefit? Are you well aware of the negative implications of such a lie? Or is your lie to save people? I’m sure there were many Catholics who told the Gestapo there were no Jews in their basement when there was. Technically a lie, but the reasons behind the lie were righteous, and in their case, if the truth was discovered they would be slaughtered alongside the Jews they hid. So, by lying, they not only saved the lives of the Jews, but also themselves, which, we are instructed by the Church to protect our lives and the lives of others.

In regards to the nuns - and I actually heard the same story only reversed, that it was the Muslims who told the truth and got those in hiding killed, but regardless, the nuns, if they had lied, would they have all been killed if the hiders were discovered? There are stories of nuns and priests who have betrayed their congregations in such situations.

Me? Well, I’ve lied a few times to people to protect the lives of others. In fact, its part of my professional obligation sometimes. I’ve had people contact my work and asked if an individual was there, and while there was no legal requirements to inform the caller that the individual wasn’t there, the individual had asked me not to tell the caller she was there if he rang, because he was a violent thug who put her there in the first place.

Quite frankly, I think a lie that saves a life is no sin. As saving a life is waaaaaaaaaaay more important then telling the truth. And I think God might see it in the same light.
Click to expand...
While the sentiments are certainly understandable, everything you’ve said flies in the face of the Church’s teaching that “the ends do not justify the means.”

You’re right that God would understand, and we would not be saddled with mortal sin, but I guess I’m talking about the objective nature of the sin, in terms of moral theology.

Would you kill one innocent child if it would save 20,000 other innocents from death? I think many of us would say yes, due to the simple arithmetic of the situation. However, I think the saints of the Church would say no.
 
surritter said:
While the sentiments are certainly understandable, everything you’ve said flies in the face of the Church’s teaching that “the ends do not justify the means.”

You’re right that God would understand, and we would not be saddled with mortal sin, but I guess I’m talking about the objective nature of the sin, in terms of moral theology.

Would you kill one innocent child if it would save 20,000 other innocents from death? I think many of us would say yes, due to the simple arithmetic of the situation. However, I think the saints of the Church would say no.
Click to expand...
You may well be correct in your assessment BUT - - we must also consider the “well formed conscience” aspect of Church teaching.

From the Catachism:
1778 Conscience is a judgment of reason whereby the human person recognizes the moral quality of a concrete act that he is going to perform, is in the process of performing, or has already completed. In all he says and does, **man is obliged to follow faithfully what he knows to be just and right. It is by the judgment of his conscience that man perceives and recognizes the prescriptions of the divine law: **

1782 **Man has the right to act in conscience and in freedom so as personally to make moral decisions. **“He must not be forced to act contrary to his conscience. Nor must he be prevented from acting according to his conscience, especially in religious matters.”

1783 Conscience must be informed and moral judgment enlightened. A well-formed conscience is upright and truthful. It formulates its judgments according to reason, in conformity with the true good willed by the wisdom of the Creator. The education of conscience is indispensable for human beings who are subjected to negative influences and tempted by sin to prefer their own judgment and to reject authoritative teachings.

Now - While the Church requires that we act from a position of a “Well Formed Conscience”, which means being thoroughly in tune with Church teaching, it is not intended to hold us to “The Letter of the Law” like the Pharisees of the OT wished to do. Look at the times that Jesus violated "the law’ - healing on the sabbath - where violation of “the law” served a greater good (healing)

It is reasonable to assume that the nuns in question would have sufficiently “well formed” consciences to make a valid judgement as to what was, “in conformity with the true good willed by the wisdom of the Creator” (CCC 1783), in this case.

Peace
James
 
Conscience has nothing to do with the objective nature of a sin. It has plenty to do with the moral culpability of an individual, and I have been careful to state that none of this stuff would be mortal sin.

But again, Conscience has nothing to do with the objective nature of a sin, which is the primary thrust of this discussion.
 
What I keep thinking is this: can we imagine a lie being the will of God? Can we imagine an inspired lie? Does not all lies come form the devil - is he not the origin of lies? Could God ever want us to use one of the devil’s tricks?
Even though I imagine I would resort to lying if I found myself in the nun’s situation, I believe there is at least one more option. You can keep quiet. You can say something else. You can fight.

A friend of mine had a bad hair cut. She was very happy about it and asked me what I thought. Most people agree the right thing to do is lie and say “you look great”. Perhaps some people would say the right thing to do is to say “It does not flatter you”. I managed to find a third option in a split second (thank god!) and said “oh, you know how much I liked your long hair”. She did not take offense - in fact i think she rather liked what I had said.

I do not believe God wants us to lie. I believe he wants us to protect those in need of protection. I believe he always gives us a third option. And the consequences belong to God, not to us.

This was my very first reply on these forums. How did I do? Don’t lie! 😉
 
DomusAurea said:
What I keep thinking is this: can we imagine a lie being the will of God? Can we imagine an inspired lie? Does not all lies come form the devil - is he not the origin of lies? Could God ever want us to use one of the devil’s tricks?
Even though I imagine I would resort to lying if I found myself in the nun’s situation, I believe there is at least one more option. You can keep quiet. You can say something else. You can fight.

A friend of mine had a bad hair cut. She was very happy about it and asked me what I thought. Most people agree the right thing to do is lie and say “you look great”. Perhaps some people would say the right thing to do is to say “It does not flatter you”. I managed to find a third option in a split second (thank god!) and said “oh, you know how much I liked your long hair”. She did not take offense - in fact i think she rather liked what I had said.

I do not believe God wants us to lie. I believe he wants us to protect those in need of protection. I believe he always gives us a third option. And the consequences belong to God, not to us.

This was my very first reply on these forums. How did I do? Don’t lie! 😉
Click to expand...
And an excellent reply it was! :clapping:

What you have stated is exactly what the Catechism has in paragraph 2489. We may be silent, but the Catechism doesn’t say we can lie. Of course, the discussion gets interesting when people say, “well what if there ISN’T a third option?” I don’t know if it’s true that there is always a third option, but I know that if we obey God’s laws, he can work out the rest. He would NEVER require us to violate his immutable laws even if it were to save the world.
 
surritter said:
And an excellent reply it was! :clapping:

What you have stated is exactly what the Catechism has in paragraph 2489. We may be silent, but the Catechism doesn’t say we can lie. Of course, the discussion gets interesting when people say, “well what if there ISN’T a third option?” I don’t know if it’s true that there is always a third option, but I know that if we obey God’s laws, he can work out the rest. He would NEVER require us to violate his immutable laws even if it were to save the world.
Click to expand...
Thanks! 🙂
You might be right - perhaps there are situations without the third option. But would God ever give us the choice of two evils? If we have to choose between two - and only two - actions, doesn’t one of those action have to be according to the will of God and therefor good and absolutely good?
 
I understand that surriter is trying to differentiate regarding the objectivitiy of the sin and that is fine, but even the catechism is not strident on the matter, consider this:
2483 Lying is the most direct offense against the truth. **To lie is to speak or act against the truth in order to lead someone into error. **By injuring man’s relation to truth and to his neighbor, a lie offends against the fundamental relation of man and of his word to the Lord.

2484 The gravity of a lie is measured against the nature of the truth it deforms, the circumstances, the intentions of the one who lies, and the harm suffered by its victims. If a lie in itself only constitutes a venial sin, it becomes mortal when it does grave injury to the virtues of justice and charity.

So in the case of the nuns lying I would have to ask what truth is being disotrted that would lead the killers into error, and also who it harms and what harm is inflicted upon the “victims” (those who are lied to who wish to commit murder)

Peace
James
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top