Trolley problem and white lies

  • Thread starter Thread starter OrbisNonSufficit
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
O

OrbisNonSufficit

Guest
Hello. Today I was confronted with person claiming that “white lies” are actually okay and a way of showing love. For sake of argument, his scenario was that someone is on their deathbed and terrible news come, and person asks about them. I dug up Catechism teaching and it was quite easy to solve.

However, then we got confronted by trolley problem question. I googled around and found St. Thomas Aquinas double effect explanation. It was also quite clear.

Now however, I was asked “why does this thing of intention does not apply in telling white lies?”. I am honestly not sure how to answer other than “such is Church teaching”.
 
Because lying is not an “effect-based” sin - it is a “perverted-faculty” sin, like contraception.
 
OrbisNonSufficit said:
Hello. Today I was confronted with person claiming that “white lies” are actually okay and a way of showing love. For sake of argument, his scenario was that someone is on their deathbed and terrible news come, and person asks about them. I dug up Catechism teaching and it was quite easy to solve.

However, then we got confronted by trolley problem question. I googled around and found St. Thomas Aquinas double effect explanation. It was also quite clear.

Now however, I was asked “why does this thing of intention does not apply in telling white lies?”. I am honestly not sure how to answer other than “such is Church teaching”.
Click to expand...
Baltimore Catechism No. 3
Q. 1308. How can we know the degree of sinfulness in a lie?
A. We can know the degree of sinfulness in a lie by the amount of harm it does and from the intention we had in telling it.
Click to expand...
 
Vico said:
Q. 1308. How can we know the degree of sinfulness in a lie?
A. We can know the degree of sinfulness in a lie by the amount of harm it does and from the intention we had in telling it.
Click to expand...
So would telling a white lie to spare someone’s feelings be acceptable? Current Catechism teaches otherwise,

" A good intention (for example, that of helping one’s neighbor) does not make behavior that is intrinsically disordered, such as lying and calumny, good or just. The end does not justify the means. Thus the condemnation of an innocent person cannot be justified as a legitimate means of saving the nation. On the other hand, an added bad intention (such as vainglory) makes an act evil that, in and of itself, can be good (such as almsgiving).39"
kapp19 said:
Because lying is not an “effect-based” sin - it is a “perverted-faculty” sin, like contraception.
Click to expand...
Could you elaborate? This seems like what I am looking for but I do not understand quite yet.
 
Last edited:
pohandes said:
I think lie is lie. white kind is bad, other kinds are worse.
Click to expand...
Same… and that is also what Church teaches. My point is how does that relate to Trolley Problem and St. Thomas Aquinas explanation of double effect.
 
“Honey, does this dress make me look fat?” Bet Aquinas never faced that question.
 
OrbisNonSufficit said:
…
So would telling a white lie to spare someone’s feelings be acceptable? Current Catechism teaches otherwise, …
Click to expand...
Current Catechism:

Compendium of the Catechism of the Catholic Church (2005)
523. What is forbidden by the eighth commandment?
2475-2487
2507-2509
The eighth commandment forbids:
  • false witness , perjury , and lying , the gravity of which is measured by the truth it deforms, the circumstances, the intentions of the one who lies, and the harm suffered by its victims; …
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
The mind-body complex possesses the faculty of communication, used primarily in spoken and written language. It exists to indicate realities, or “tell truths,” so lying subverts its fundamental purpose. It is never justified. But there are distinctions to make, namely, broad mental reservations can be justified sometimes, or silence…

Dr. Feser has a great series of blog posts on lying, I recommend it highly.
 
Last edited:
Perhaps not. But Aquinas might offer a solution by saying something such as “I love you no matter what.”
 
kapp19 said:
[…] the faculty of communication […] exists to indicate realities, or “tell truths,”
Click to expand...
Says you. In many traditional and tribal cultures this is an entirely alien idea. In such cultures, the primary purpose of speech is to sway other creatures, human or animal or supernatural. Such swaying can take the form of a straightforward order, or of talk that influences the other’s mind by evoking certain feelings or a certain atmosphere, or of talk that supernaturally influences the other (a.k.a. charming), or of words that allow the speaker to alter experience (a.k.a. magic). These aren’t considered secondary uses of speech, but the primary ones. Even in the West the idea that speech does not necessarily serve to describe “reality” but may aim to create a certain atmosphere, still survives in the form of “small talk”, where the interlocutors are aware that the substance (and accuracy) of what is said is irrelevant, yet having the conversation does feel (and therefore is) important.
 
Last edited:
"Good morning, how are you?”
“Fine, thanks. Ready to start the day.”

So, what if I’m not fine? Maybe I’ve got a bad knee. Or an a sore back. Or some worries on my mind. How much detail do I need to go into in order to avoid the customary response to a customary greeting? Must I confess that I said I was fine when I really wasn’t? How picky and detailed do we want to make ordinary conversations? Must I subject everybody to a list of symptoms and worries in the name of being honest? Really?
 
Are you trying to “sway” me, or tell me the truth? Sorry… I will stick with the view I have very briefly explained above. It might be true that some people and peoples don’t treat it that way; okay, you still have to show why they are right to do so.
 
Last edited:
We may not do evil so that good may come of it.

Have you ever sat death watch at a bedside? Let’s say a dad is dying and keeps asking for his estranged son who has been clear he will not visit.

We don’t have to say “Johnny hates you and is not coming” or lie and say “Johnny is stuck in traffic”

Those there can simply say “dad, let’s pray for Johnny right now. As far as I know, Johnny is not traveling this way, but prayer is the best thing we can do”
 
Trollies had not been invented when St Thomas was alive. The Angelic Doctor never opined on the silly utilitarian trolly problem.

Also, St Thomas is not infallible in his teachings, so, we need to keep that in mind.
 
Yes… sort of… the “principle of double effect” is a crystallization of the post-Cajetanian strain of the commentary on Q 64 A 7… De Lugo is probably the summit. But it’s not really from Thomas, in the strict sense. Thomas is more hylomorphic - and more complex… but more helpful if one takes the time to get into his head. Though, there are some little gaps… which are relevant - and which the PDE tried to make up for but failed.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top