Sinning to save someone's life

[capoly]

albertus_magnus:

How does it make any sense to only consider certain consequences of an action?

I did not say that at all. We need to consider all the known consequences of an action, but that is where we must stop. It is nonsensical to try to ponder unknown consequences. As I said before we all adhere to the duck principle. If something looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, walks like a duck and tastes like a duck, it is irrational to say that “maybe” we were unable to collect all the variables, and that “seemingly” duck-looking entity is actually a killer-whale in disguise.
St Francis:

I think that part of the problem may be that you are considering “hurt” only in a physical sense.

No, I look at all the facets of reality. There can be harm which is not physical, rather mental, but that usually dubious and subjective. For example to call someone “names” and generally be rude to them can have adverse effects on the person, especially if that person is still immature and prone to accept someone else’s opinion. And here you talk about a consequentialist ethical system - which is denied by the catholic church.
St Francis:

Because Catholics consider committing a sin to be harmful to the soul, we see that certain acts are harmful in and of themselves, even if they do not appear to have a negative material consequence.

Well, here is where we part. Since the concept of the “soul” is just another undefined assumption (without any justification), any argument based upon it is irrational and as such unacceptable. But I have to point out that here you talk again about a consequentialist system.
St Francis:

Moreover, an argument can be made even from a material point of view that such acts are harmful to the character of the person involved. Acts which we call sinful generally involves taking the easy way, and this is bad for character development. Many of these acts also lead to what are commonly called addictions, but which we call capital sins (greed, lust, etc.).

Yes, that could happen. But here you talk about a clearly discernible effect. And here it is the effect which makes the action improper - which means that again you talk about a consequentialist ethical system. Funny, how you cannot “get away” from the idea that actions cannot be separated from their consequences.

 

[Elizium23]

Do you have somewhere I could look that up?

scborromeo.org/ccc/p3s1c1a8.htm

 

[Moore11]

scborromeo.org/ccc/p3s1c1a8.htm

Thank you! I read the part about venial sin and it does indeed appear to include when you do not have full consent. I never knew that but it makes sense.
Thanks for the citation!

 

[jimmy]

This is the same question as the one concerning those who hide Jews from the Nazi’s. The official teaching is that the ends don’t justify the means. you can’t sin in order to bring about a good.

I have a problem with this because - in the case of hiding Jews from the Nazis atleast - you are placing more value on the truth of a statement than you are on the life of a person. If I don’t lie to the Nazis then the Jews I am hiding will be dead, and maybe me as well. But if I lie I am going to hell. It is moronic; it distorts the heirarchy of values.

Honesty and truth is something to be valued, but life takes precedent. If you value honesty or truth over life it becomes evil.

It is similar to pacifism taken to an extreme. Some pacifists will allow real evil to be done simply because they don’t want to use violence to prevent it. All war is automatically declared to be evil, even if it is in defense of your nation or to save other people. It doesn’t matter, it is violence. These people have neither the cajones nor the brains to seek out the middle ground between pacifism and being pugilistic(couldn’t think of a word for the other extreme).

 

[chosen_people]

This is the same question as the one concerning those who hide Jews from the Nazi’s. The official teaching is that the ends don’t justify the means. you can’t sin in order to bring about a good.

I have a problem with this because - in the case of hiding Jews from the Nazis atleast - you are placing more value on the truth of a statement than you are on the life of a person. If I don’t lie to the Nazis then the Jews I am hiding will be dead, and maybe me as well. But if I lie I am going to hell. It is moronic; it distorts the heirarchy of values.

Honesty and truth is something to be valued, but life takes precedent. If you value honesty or truth over life it becomes evil.

It is similar to pacifism taken to an extreme. Some pacifists will allow real evil to be done simply because they don’t want to use violence to prevent it. All war is automatically declared to be evil, even if it is in defense of your nation or to save other people. It doesn’t matter, it is violence. These people have neither the cajones nor the brains to seek out the middle ground between pacifism and being pugilistic(couldn’t think of a word for the other extreme).

In a case where lying is necessary for the protection of a life, not only is it permissible to lie but the sin and the immoral act would be in not lying. Sanctity of life overrides any and all other considerations (except in the case of where the alternative is to commit murder, idolatry or incest). Torah teaches the worth of each and every individual and our mutual responsibility toward one another. Everyone has a purpose in the scheme of life and therefore a person saving even a single soul is as if they have saved an entire world.

The Pagan Hellenistic principal of maximizing personal benefit without regard to others (such as the concept that the person must worry only for their soul and it is not their fault if the Nazi murders the people whose hiding places the “truthful” person revealed) is clearly rejected in Torah. As God commands in Leviticus 19 “you shall not stand aside while your fellows blood is shed” and “you shall love your fellow as yourself”.

 

[jimmy]

In a case where lying is necessary for the protection of a life, not only is it permissible to lie but the sin and the immoral act would be in not lying. Sanctity of life overrides any and all other considerations (except in the case of where the alternative is to commit murder, idolatry or incest). Torah teaches the worth of each and every individual and our mutual responsibility toward one another. Everyone has a purpose in the scheme of life and therefore a person saving even a single soul is as if they have saved an entire world.

The Pagan Hellenistic principal of maximizing personal benefit without regard to others (such as the concept that the person must worry only for their soul and it is not their fault if the Nazi murders the people whose hiding places the “truthful” person revealed) is clearly rejected in Torah. As God commands in Leviticus 19 “you shall not stand aside while your fellows blood is shed” and “you shall love your fellow as yourself”.

That makes sense; it recognizes the personal value of virtue. The purpose of virtue is to enable a man to get along with other people. It isn’t only about himself and how great he can be. Honesty is a virtue, but if it disregards the life of your neighbor it becomes a vice.

 

[St_Francis]

…No, I look at all the facets of reality. There can be harm which is not physical, rather mental, but that usually dubious and subjective. For example to call someone “names” and generally be rude to them can have adverse effects on the person, especially if that person is still immature and prone to accept someone else’s opinion. And here you talk about a consequentialist ethical system - which is denied by the catholic church.

Well, here is where we part. Since the concept of the “soul” is just another undefined assumption (without any justification), any argument based upon it is irrational and as such unacceptable. But I have to point out that here you talk again about a consequentialist system.

Yes, that could happen. But here you talk about a clearly discernible effect. And here it is the effect which makes the action improper - which means that again you talk about a consequentialist ethical system. Funny, how you cannot “get away” from the idea that actions cannot be separated from their consequences.

Well, I talked about the consequences because it seemed like consequences were what you judged acts by.

The morality of an act, however, is found within the act itself: the object, the intention, and the circumstances in which the act is accomplished.

The object is the goal *of the act itself. *So, if I give a homeless man a sandwich, the object of the act is to feed a poor person.

The intention is my personal reason for doing this. I may feed the poor because I love Christ and see Christ in the poor, or I may feed the poor because I want to impress someone.

The circumstances are those things which might change the morality of my act. If I give a sandwich with a tiny amount of peanut butter in it to a homeless person *who I know *is allergic to peanuts, that would be a much different act from simply giving a generic sandwich to a generic homeless person.

The consequences of an act are included in the circumstances. So, if I drive drunk, I will get a heavy penalty *because *a potential consequence of that act is so damaging, even tho in any particular instance of drunken driving, such a consequence doesn’t happen.

But consequences are not so important unless they affect the morality of an act. It is no sin to drive down the road and not stop (if there is no light or stop sign), but it would be a sin to do so if you saw someone in the road, right? So consequence *might *affect the morality of an act, but doesn’t always.

The *objectively *sinful act holds inside itself the sinfulness; if the parent commits a sin, like telling a lie, then *the parent has committed an evil act. *The fact that he did so to obtain a good consequence is insufficient to mitigate the internal sinfulness of the act itself.

Other aspects, such as defective intention or circumstances can *render *an otherwise non-sinful act sinful, but the goodness of those other aspects cannot mitigate the evil of an act which is inherently sinful.

 

[AB_Juney]

I don’t think any parent would care if it was a sin. I’d commit a veiniel sin to save my child, and I wouldn’t want to associate with any parent who WOULDN’T. Being so afraid of a trivial, venial sin that could be as trifling as stealing a stick of gum, and you wouldn’t do it to save a child? I somehow doubt God would punish you all that harshly!

 

[Nelka]

Heres a hypothetical situation…

lets say an armed criminal holds a gun to the head of a child and they hold the child’s parent captive…

the criminal gives the parent a choice…

all the parent has to do is commit any sin the parent wants…even a little one…and the child will be spared

…but if he refuses to sin…the child will be killed

the kid’s life is in the hands of the parent. he can either commit a venial sin or he will have to allow a mortal sin from happening

what should the parent do in this situation?

Could you trust a man with a gun not to kill your child anyway?

 

[capoly]

St Francis:

Well, I talked about the consequences because it seemed like consequences were what you judged acts by.

Looks like we have a problem of some miscommunication. I do not judge acts ONLY by their outcome, nor do I judge them ONLY by the intrinsic aspects of the action - I look at both sides, and evaluate the act by considering both factes of the action.
St Francis:

The morality of an act, however, is found within the act itself: the object, the intention, and the circumstances in which the act is accomplished.

The object is the goal of the act itself. So, if I give a homeless man a sandwich, the object of the act is to feed a poor person.

The intention is my personal reason for doing this. I may feed the poor because I love Christ and see Christ in the poor, or I may feed the poor because I want to impress someone.

The circumstances are those things which might change the morality of my act. If I give a sandwich with a tiny amount of peanut butter in it to a homeless person who I know is allergic to peanuts, that would be a much different act from simply giving a generic sandwich to a generic homeless person.

Here we go. So the intent of the action, and the circumstances of the action and the result of the action (giving a nutritious sandwich to the homeless person) are ALL equally important! But to call an act intrisically evil would separate the result and deem it irrelevant! And that is what I deny.
St Francis:

The objectively sinful act holds inside itself the sinfulness; if the parent commits a sin, like telling a lie, then the parent has committed an evil act. The fact that he did so to obtain a good consequence is insufficient to mitigate the internal sinfulness of the act itself.

And here we disagree. To tell a “lie” which is a statement of something “untrue” would be a proper act (acknowledged by your fellow believers) if one would save the lives of some Jews who are hunted down by the nazis. The point is that the “properness” of a lie cannot be separated by the intent and the outcome of the “lie”. To say that a “lie” is ALWAYS sinful is an untenable position. In other words the stance of the church that some acts are “inherently evil” (like telling a lie) is simply incorrect.

 

[St_Francis]

Looks like we have a problem of some miscommunication. I do not judge acts ONLY by their outcome, nor do I judge them ONLY by the intrinsic aspects of the action - I look at both sides, and evaluate the act by considering both factes of the action.

Here we go. So the intent of the action, and the circumstances of the action and the result of the action (giving a nutritious sandwich to the homeless person) are ALL equally important! But to call an act intrisically evil would separate the result and deem it irrelevant! And that is what I deny.

I am sorry, I was not clear. The circumstances, which *include *the consequences, are only important insofar as they affect the morality of the act; they are *not *equally important.

Thus, if I break a window in someone’s house, the sinfulness of that act would be eradicated by the fact that I am doing so to enter the burning house to rescue people in it.

And here we disagree. To tell a “lie” which is a statement of something “untrue” would be a proper act (acknowledged by your fellow believers) if one would save the lives of some Jews who are hunted down by the nazis. The point is that the “properness” of a lie cannot be separated by the intent and the outcome of the “lie”. To say that a “lie” is ALWAYS sinful is an untenable position. In other words the stance of the church that some acts are “inherently evil” (like telling a lie) is simply incorrect.

The issue of telling a lie under circumstances such as these is a subject of debate among moral theologians. The three main groups, afaik, are 1. those who believe you cannot tell an untruth, but you can say something with a double meaning, 2. those who believe that one can tell the truth with a mental reservation (that one can say, There are no Jews here, meaning in the foyer, when asked if one is harboring Jews); or 3. the idea that some people are asking for information to which they are not entitled and thus the statement contrary to truth is acceptable because they are not due the truth.

So, the issue of lying to the Nazis is still not considered a settled truth in the Church.

 

[Catholic80]

I order to sin, on must give consent to sin and has to be offensive to God.

St. Theresa of Avila was told by her spiritual director to make obscene gestures at Christ because he thought her visions might be demonic. Christ was all the more pleased with Theresa of Avila when she did this because she was being obedient to her spiritual director.

I’m not sure what grounds would constitute a sin or could the person simply pretend to be making the act of a sin. This is my guess. Only God and the person alone knows if one is sinning or not… Only God sees man’s heart. The father could easily pretend to do a “small sin” such as curse or steal a piece of gum, but God alone knows that the father is doing this out of love for his child. The man holding the child hostage would have no way of knowing if the sin was real or not.

 

[jimmy]

I am sorry, I was not clear. The circumstances, which *include *the consequences, are only important insofar as they affect the morality of the act; they are *not *equally important.

Thus, if I break a window in someone’s house, the sinfulness of that act would be eradicated by the fact that I am doing so to enter the burning house to rescue people in it.

Why would the sinfulness be eradicated in that situation but not in the situation of lying while hiding Jews from nazis?

 

[capoly]

St Francis:

I am sorry, I was not clear. The circumstances, which include the consequences, are only important insofar as they affect the morality of the act; they are not equally important.

Thus, if I break a window in someone’s house, the sinfulness of that act would be eradicated by the fact that I am doing so to enter the burning house to rescue people in it.

If we consider the consequences to be part of the circumstances, then our views are probably identical. I am not sure what you mean that they are not equally important in evaluating the morality of the act, since that us what we are talking about. Let me put it down into clear words: “there is no such thing as intrinsically good or evil act, where the word intrinsically means: separated from the circumstances”. After all, that is what “intrinsical” means: “in and by itself, separated from the circumstances”. This is properly expressed by your example: to do some material harm (breaking the window) is irrelevant compared to the rescuing of people trapped inside a burning house.

In other words: “the end alone never justifies the means”, but “certain ends achieved by certain means may form a justifyable action”, while others may not. Which is clearly a “moral relativism” and as such denied by the church. So, while I agree with you, your views are not supported by the church.
St Francis:

The issue of telling a lie under circumstances such as these is a subject of debate among moral theologians. The three main groups, afaik, are 1. those who believe you cannot tell an untruth, but you can say something with a double meaning, 2. those who believe that one can tell the truth with a mental reservation (that one can say, There are no Jews here, meaning in the foyer, when asked if one is harboring Jews); or 3. the idea that some people are asking for information to which they are not entitled and thus the statement contrary to truth is acceptable because they are not due the truth.

So, the issue of lying to the Nazis is still not considered a settled truth in the Church.

Sorry, that is all double-talk. There is no intrinsic problem with lying. The three ways above to avoid to tell the “all the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth” is simply lying, and the circumstances (to save those lives) make that lie the morally right thing to do. Considering a much less controversial issue: a doctor may lie to the patient if his lie is beneficial for the patient.

 

[Bill_Martin]

I’d save the child.

 

[St_Francis]

If we consider the consequences to be part of the circumstances, then our views are probably identical. I am not sure what you mean that they are not equally important in evaluating the morality of the act, since that us what we are talking about. Let me put it down into clear words: “there is no such thing as intrinsically good or evil act, where the word intrinsically means: separated from the circumstances”. After all, that is what “intrinsical” means: “in and by itself, separated from the circumstances”. This is properly expressed by your example: to do some material harm (breaking the window) is irrelevant compared to the rescuing of people trapped inside a burning house.

In other words: “the end alone never justifies the means”, but “certain ends achieved by certain means may form a justifyable action”, while others may not. Which is clearly a “moral relativism” and as such denied by the church. So, while I agree with you, your views are not supported by the church.

I disagree–the Church teaches that there are intrinsically evil acts; how could the Church *also *teach that the morality of *all *acts are mediated by their circumstances?

Thus the Church teaches that certain acts are intrinscally evil: abortion, euthanasia, etc. They are evil in and of themselves, without regard to the circumstances.

Sorry, that is all double-talk. There is no intrinsic problem with lying. The three ways above to avoid to tell the “all the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth” is simply lying, and the circumstances (to save those lives) make that lie the morally right thing to do. Considering a much less controversial issue: a doctor may lie to the patient if his lie is beneficial for the patient.

here’s the CCC’s take on lying: 2482 **“A lie consists in speaking a falsehood with the intention of deceiving.”**281 The Lord denounces lying as the work of the devil: "You are of your father the devil, . . . there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks according to his own nature, for he is a liar and the father of lies."282

…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.

2485 By its very nature, lying is to be condemned. It is a profanation of speech, whereas the purpose of speech is to communicate known truth to others. The deliberate intention of leading a neighbor into error by saying things contrary to the truth constitutes a failure in justice and charity. The culpability is greater when the intention of deceiving entails the risk of deadly consequences for those who are led astray.

…2488 **The right to the communication of the truth is not unconditional. **Everyone must conform his life to the Gospel precept of fraternal love. This requires us in concrete situations to judge whether or not it is appropriate to reveal the truth to someone who asks for it.

2489 Charity and respect for the truth should dictate the response to every request for information or communication. **The good and safety of others, respect for privacy, and the common good are sufficient reasons for being silent about what ought not be known or for making use of a discreet language. **The duty to avoid scandal often commands strict discretion. **No one is bound to reveal the truth to someone who does not have the right to know it.**283

 

[capoly]

St Francis:

I disagree–the Church teaches that there are intrinsically evil acts; how could the Church also teach that the morality of all acts are mediated by their circumstances?

I know that. Seems that I misunderstood you then, when you said that the circumstances all must be considered (including the intent, the method and the outcome) when making a judgment call about the morality of an action. Of course the church does not teach that. I just thought that you do not subscribe to that particular irrationality.
St Francis:

Thus the Church teaches that certain acts are intrinscally evil: abortion, euthanasia, etc. They are evil in and of themselves, without regard to the circumstances.

Yes, I know. Irrational. Don’t forget the really “evil” ones, like masturbation, or having sex without intent to procreate…
St Francis:

here’s the CCC’s take on lying: 2482 “A lie consists in speaking a falsehood with the intention of deceiving.”

Sure. And again the reason for the deception must be considered. Like in the case of protecting some people.
St Francis:

2485 By its very nature, lying is to be condemned.

…2488 The right to the communication of the truth is not unconditional. This requires us in concrete situations to judge whether or not it is appropriate to reveal the truth to someone who asks for it.

This is yet another contradiction. On one hand it says that “lying is to be condemned”, and then contradicts it by saying “…to judge whether or not it is appropriate to reveal the truth to someone who asks for it” which means that certain lies are “not to be condemned” and that the “right” to the communication of truth IS conditional. Such contradictions within on paragraph… and no one sees it?
St Francis:

No one is bound to reveal the truth to someone who does not have the right to know it.

That would be nice, if it were not so ridiculously vauge, to the point of lacking any meaning. Who has “the right” to the truth? A legally chosen body of a legally elected goverment? The nazis were legally elected, their death-squads were legally chosen to carry out their henious tasks. Did they have the “right” to demand the answer? They had the legal right, and according to the “render unto caesar…” would urge you to give them the whole truth. Yet, we all agree that the proper way is to “lie your face off”.

 

[St_Francis]

I know that. Seems that I misunderstood you then, when you said that the circumstances all must be considered (including the intent, the method and the outcome) when making a judgment call about the morality of an action. Of course the church does not teach that. I just thought that you do not subscribe to that particular irrationality.

Yes, I know. Irrational. Don’t forget the really “evil” ones, like masturbation, or having sex without intent to procreate…

You think this way because you do not understand the Catholic teaching on the sexual act.

Sure. And again the reason for the deception must be considered. Like in the case of protecting some people.

This is yet another contradiction. On one hand it says that “lying is to be condemned”, and then contradicts it by saying “…to judge whether or not it is appropriate to reveal the truth to someone who asks for it” which means that certain lies are “not to be condemned” and that the “right” to the communication of truth IS conditional. Such contradictions within on paragraph… and no one sees it?

That would be nice, if it were not so ridiculously vauge, to the point of lacking any meaning. Who has “the right” to the truth? A legally chosen body of a legally elected goverment? The nazis were legally elected, their death-squads were legally chosen to carry out their henious tasks. Did they have the “right” to demand the answer? They had the legal right, and according to the “render unto caesar…” would urge you to give them the whole truth. Yet, we all agree that the proper way is to “lie your face off”.

Lying is merely one form of deception.

 

[capoly]

St Francis:

You think this way because you do not understand the Catholic teaching on the sexual act.

Oh, I understand it just fine, but I reject it. Besides, the remark was tongue-in-cheek sarcasm, to point out the irrationality of the whole concept of “intrinsic evil” and some of its “manifestations”.
St Francis:

Lying is merely one form of deception.

Sure thing. So what? Anyhow, thanks for the conversation.

 

[jimmy]

You think this way because you do not understand the Catholic teaching on the sexual act.

Lying is merely one form of deception.

That’s great. You’re not allowed to lie but you can use every round about way tooward deception possible. You’re just like the aes sedai in the wheel of time stories. They are unable to lie, but you never know what they mean because they skate around the truth. In real life though, there are times when you need to openly lie and tell a falsehood. People see through those weak deceptions.