Lie To Save The Innocent?

[cathqat]

[quote name='Paddington' post='1458914' date='Feb 10 2008, 10:14 PM']I heard RC Sproul (Reformed theologian) say that honesty is giving info to people that should get the info. Now that line of thought can be abused, but hey.[/quote]
[quote name='Sacred Music Man' post='1459156' date='Feb 11 2008, 12:15 PM']This scenario is a trick. It's not lying when you say "no," but think "none that you should know about" because they have no right to the truth. It's not lying but reservation of mind.... they do not have the right to that truth.[/quote]
[url="http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/para/2489.htm"]Catechism of the Catholic Church #2489[/url]: "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."

[dairygirl4u2c]

so if htere's an exception for lying in the catechism. i guess you guys win that, only cause there's a defined exception from your source. just like you guys can kill to justify the end but you can't torture or many other things to justify the end.... only because tradition says it's an exception, as Al said "the blood in the river" exception or something like that.
it seems pretty much like rationalization to me.

so... there's the lying exception to the ends justifying the mean to save people's lives who are innocent... and i'd be willing to bet the "i'd steal food if i had to from the rich" exception if i pushed it...
exceptions from the sentiment i've been getting.

it sounds like ends only justifies the means when it works for your agenda, and they don't when it doesn't work for it...

[GuyWithAFoil]

Dairygirl, Read it again. The Catechism does not make an exception for lying. It says that "Charity and respect for the truth should dictate the response to every request for information or communication." That should be clear enough. There is to be no lying.

It goes on to say, "The good and safety of others, respect for privacy, and the common good are sufficient reasons [b]for being silent[/b] about what ought not be known or for making use of a discreet language." Still, no exception for lying. Withholding information is a different matter.

[dairygirl4u2c]

sorry i misread "there is not duty to reveal" as meaning you could lie. i misread it. my bad.

but, from the responses i'm getting, it sounds like my last post is pretty accurate, at least in terms of people's personal consistencies.

Edited February 17, 2008 by dairygirl4u2c

[dairygirl4u2c]

see this is always the interesting point of the thread.

no one will come and admit they are not being consistent when they are willing to lie, or steal when they are strapped.
they don't admit they are justifying the end. they don't say how they're not.

they just apparently, for all i can tell by the lack of openness and honesty, ignore the issue. and the thread just fades away.

[GuyWithAFoil]

Do you, dairygirl, fall under that category as well?

[dairygirl4u2c]

i don't claim "the ends don't justify the means".
i take it as a rule of thumb, but that's all. i don't have justify making exceptions to it, then.
people here do stake that claim.

[cathoholic_anonymous]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' post='1459289' date='Feb 11 2008, 10:17 PM']Situation # 2 actually happened in WWII. A woman was asked if jews were in her house and she said yes right under her feet. The nazis laughed and glanced under her table, not realizing the jews were hidden in the basement.[/quote]

That was Betsie ten Boom, the sister of the more famous Corrie. The sisters' story can be read in full [url="http://www.rejesus.co.uk/the_story/saint/saint8/index.html"]here[/url].

[cathoholic_anonymous]

To answer the question, as Catholics we believe a.) that all life is sacred and b.) that a good end can never justify bad means. The two principles don't contradict each other at all in this particular circumstance. Jesus said, "I came that they might have life, and have it to the full." In doing everything you can to protect and uphold life, whether that means saving people from death or simply ensuring that their dignity and worth as human beings are respected, you are in the service of truth. In short, if a Nazi came to your front door and asked if you were hiding Jews, you would be testifying to God's truth (that all life is holy and to be cherished) rather than uttering a lie.

[dairygirl4u2c]

1 it seems like you're making rationalizations, if you lied then it's an evil mean.

2 if not a rationalization... which i could see as a valid argument given that you're deeming it not an evil mean to begin with... then it seems like you could apply the "not evil to begin with" argument to so many other situations so as to render void effectively "the end doesn't justify the means".

it's still a matter of using that slogan when it suits your agenda and saying it's not evil to begin with when it doesn't suit your agenda.

3 if not an effective void of the theory. to a degree... i mean, i'd agree this isn't evil... and clear things we could all agree... but what about the things that are not so clear? at the very least, "the ends doesn't justify the means" does not help many times such as to render it an obscure premise, that could plausibly be viewed as allowing people to use it or not use it only when it suits their agenda.
so while those who say all that absolute truth stuff.... implying to me that it can't be aboslute and not clear... are trying to have their cake... claiming absolute when it suits their agenda... and eat it to... not claiming it when it doesn't suit their agenda. they've effectively rendered void the absolute truth argument, in many senses.

Edited February 19, 2008 by dairygirl4u2c

[rkwright]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' post='1465764' date='Feb 19 2008, 03:03 PM']1 it seems like you're making rationalizations, if you lied then it's an evil mean.

2 if not a rationalization... which i could see as a valid argument given that you're deeming it not an evil mean to begin with... then it seems like you could apply the "not evil to begin with" argument to so many other situations so as to render void effectively "the end doesn't justify the means".

it's still a matter of using that slogan when it suits your agenda and saying it's not evil to begin with when it doesn't suit your agenda.

3 if not an effective void of the theory. to a degree... i mean, i'd agree this isn't evil... and clear things we could all agree... but what about the things that are not so clear? at the very least, "the ends doesn't justify the means" does not help many times such as to render it an obscure premise, that could plausibly be viewed as allowing people to use it or not use it only when it suits their agenda.
so while those who say all that absolute truth stuff.... implying to me that it can't be aboslute and not clear... are trying to have their cake... claiming absolute when it suits their agenda... and eat it to... not claiming it when it doesn't suit their agenda. they've effectively rendered void the absolute truth argument, in many senses.[/quote]

I'm still looking into it, but as I understand the Catholic Church has never bought Kant's de-ontological ethical system. To say that people here are advocating absolute truth absolutely would be inaccurate. So many of the threads involve making the 'tough' decisions, choosing a lesser evil over a greater, a 'justified' war, legitimate use of self-defense even if it kills the attacker, ect.

[cathoholic_anonymous]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' post='1465764' date='Feb 19 2008, 09:03 PM']1 it seems like you're making rationalizations, if you lied then it's an evil mean.

2 if not a rationalization... which i could see as a valid argument given that you're deeming it not an evil mean to begin with... then it seems like you could apply the "not evil to begin with" argument to so many other situations so as to render void effectively "the end doesn't justify the means".[/quote]

You couldn't apply it to many other situations. It works in this situation only because the sanctity of human life as God's creation and gift is the ultimate truth, and no one who is striving to honour and protect life in their every thought, word, and action can depart from that truth. And this [i]is[/i] an absolute.

Edited February 19, 2008 by Cathoholic Anonymous

[rkwright]

I don't know how credible the source is but consider the following...
[quote]RULES
Jesus teaches that the person not the rules take presidence. In the Gospels Jesus is often shown curing people in the synagogue on the Sabbath (for example in Matthew 12). This goes against the Jewish Sabbath laws.

When questioned about the authority of the Law regarding the rules of the Sabbath Jesus replied:

“Man was not made for the Sabbath, the Sabbath was made for man”

This can be applied the Law as a whole; inferring that man is not subordinate to the law, but the law was given to man in order to help us understand the concept of sin and how to live a good life.

Kant on the other hand enforces rigid rules to which no exceptions can be made under his principle of universalisability.[/quote]

From
[url="http://www.tutor2u.net/newsmanager/templates/?a=773&z=62"]http://www.tutor2u.net/newsmanager/templates/?a=773&z=62[/url]

[Mr.Cat]

The matter that should be firstly addressed is the question. Both questions presume that intentional deception will protect the innocent or save lives from injustice. Likewise, it presumes that if one does not offer this intentional deception that the innocent will not be protected and lives will be lost unjustly. I propose that both presumptions cause a situation that is almost purely theoretical, therefore slightly detached from reality.

The first question reads: “[i]would you lie to save innocent people's lives? (assume the lie would end the problem and everything was contingent on your lie)[/i]”. This question also assumes that the persons to be saved are indeed innocent. However, it does not give an explanation to how or why this single act of deception could possibly “save” in the degree as it describes.

The second question reads: “[i]if the nazi's were at your door intent to kill all jews and asked if there were jews in your house, and there were jews in your house, and not saying anything would surley tip them off. would you lie? (again assuming lying would end the risks of death)[/i]”. This question presumes that the Nazi persons at the door have authority, which in this case they might ignore such a deception searching the residency finding those persons that one is attempting to protect. It is indeed already proposed in this theoretical question that there is the intention to “kill” but in other “theoretical” situations this risk of death may not exist at all.

As Catholics we are to uphold truth honestly and openly, however we are only obligated to reveal truth to those persons whom have the right to know. This does not excuse a Catholic to not “uphold truth honestly and openly” but rather allows for mental reservations. A mental reservation is the retaining of truth but doing it in a manner that allows truth to be upheld still in an open manner.

In the supposed example of in Nazi Germany an officer approaching you asking if you are hiding “Jews” from the Nazi Authority, while this is an extreme example a mental reservation could still be made. While I am not privy to the exacting question, even if only theoretical, or those conditions that surround it. But if the answer was “[i]I am a trusted German Citizen[/i]” or even possibly “[i]How could I hide Jews[/i]?” This is not necessarily a deception but it does not necessarily reveal the information the inquirer expected. The interpretation of such a message is left to the inquirer.

In any case if it were discovered that deception or mental reservation was used to impede governmental investigation or law enforcement (just or unjust) it would not be good for the person whom deceived or made such a mental reservation. Further, even if one confessed to doing an act that was considered unlawful or illegal would result most likely in penalties. Thus such examples are more theoretical, thus being more detached from reality. In the case of the Nazi officer “asking”, it seems to me personally the Nazi officer if having authority would simply search the residency with or without permission. In such an event the confession of such a person would not matter until such persons were found.

However, even in those cases if a Catholic were to intentionally deceive another person(s) for just reasons it is conceivable that it would not be “mortally wrongful” but possibly only venially. As Catholics we are to be honest and truthful always.

Edited February 21, 2008 by Mr.CatholicCat

[dairygirl4u2c]

i appreciate your thoughtful reply cat.

to me, it seems like you're trying to jump hoops, make me say thigns like "did you see them in hte last hour" etc sp that you can't use your "reserve" argument. (you're not staring, so techincally you don't know argument. )

the nazi example is rare, but certainly there are more everyday examples where lying can save innocent people. not just nazi example stuck in teh 40s.
i do appreciate that you might consider reserving instead of lying if it will suffice, though.

ultimately, you did not really state why it's justified to plainly lie. that's the whole point that i want englightened on. i can apprecaite what they said above, that when it's someone's life in danger, you can lie if needed because of the sacrity of life. but, to me, that doesn't really explain why you can't lie, say, to save your house from being burned down from baddies or a host of other things. it seems pretty relative to me. so yeah i tend to think you *could apply it to many other siutations. there are serious things that could be saved if you would lie, and the other persons did not deserve to know, like the police etc.
why is it just relegated that you can lie to save lives but nothing more?

how can this be an exception ot the ends justigy the means stuff? my numbered list is still a concern for me.
i'd bet that people would say they'd lie to save their home from being burned down. if htey were starving in a rich society, and they were strapped and the only way they could live is to steal, that they would.
these are just examples to make the point. there's definitely everyday examples where lying would change things. (bad guys, insurance issues, business stuff etc etc) i cna think of some if you don't believe me. so while my examples themselves are a bit detached from reality... i don't think my fundamental point is at all, and to think otherwise is to actually be detached.

Edited February 22, 2008 by dairygirl4u2c

[faithfulrock3r]

[quote name='rkwright' post='1465817' date='Feb 19 2008, 06:26 PM']I'm still looking into it, but as I understand the Catholic Church has never bought Kant's de-ontological ethical system. To say that people here are advocating absolute truth absolutely would be inaccurate. So many of the threads involve making the 'tough' decisions, choosing a lesser evil over a greater, a 'justified' war, legitimate use of self-defense even if it kills the attacker, ect.[/quote]
no, but it IS based primarily on Thomas Aquinas's teachings, which, I believe, agreed with Kant in that the ends do not justify the means, and somethings are intrinsically evil, no matter how they are "used". I can't say for 100% certainty, but i think lying was one of those evils.

however, i could be wrong. please check this for yourselves, bcuz i'm rather lazy

Edited February 22, 2008 by faithfulrock3r

[Mr.Cat]

Proposing hypothetical situations that escape from reality and suit the conditions that you specify would to me classify as “hoops”. This is the reason why I opened up with mentioning that they are detached from reality.

I never suggested it was justified to lie, however I did suggest that in certain situations there are justifications that could lessen the seriousness of the sin or the culpability of the person committing it.

I would personally propose that there is possibly no justification to intentionally deceive another person with the explicit right to know a particular truth...

[dairygirl4u2c]

i don't think anyone would disagree if someone has a right to know somethin then it's wrong to lie to htem, so that point isn't of much weight in this discussion.

i don't see the point pointing out that my hypos are far fetched if all they are doing is making the point. what if a pissed off ex demanded to know where their ex was in a rage of murder, they were at the door instead of a nazi etc etc.
or a rage of someone wanting to burn down another's house
or other things i could mention that are more common.
it's not that detached from reality, my fundamental point. only the specific hypos i used.

i'm not sure if most here think it'd be a sin but would do it anyway. that's an interesting question i'd have to find out. i'd assume the people here don't think it a sin, such as what they are saying above.

it seems outlandish that most christians would lie because it seems to them the right thing to do, yet saying a sin. if it's a sin, that would imply that God would rather us not do it. if he'd rather us not do it... then that would mean that he'd rather you let your ex be murdered by her angry spouse...
just doesn't seem right. i see no reason to think otherwise other than strictly adhereing to the folk wisdom of not justifying the means. to me that is detached from reality, but i still respect the doctrine generally and those who tend to want to be dogmatic about it at first when they hven't really thought about it.

Edited February 22, 2008 by dairygirl4u2c

[rkwright]

dairy I think to be fair, the Catholic Church does not always teach these things as absolutes. Look at 'Thou shalt not kill' and then ask, what about self defense?

[Mr.Cat]

[b]“Far fetched” is not what I proposed or what anyone else proposed to my knowelge, therefore I respectfully request you keep to the actual language being used. [/b]

[u]The position I proposed that hypothetical situations are by their very nature “imaginary” and dependant upon conditions set upon the person constructing such a situation. Therefore, the entire foundation of the question is set to someone’s conditions, that can be as radical as one desires them to be, or to whatever end they desire.[/u] This is what I mean by suggesting that it is “detached from reality”, for reality is not as controllable in conditions or ends as these “hypothetical situations.”

Unreasonable assumptions are interjected in these hypothetical situations that provide for ample space for emotional expression. [b]In these examples it is assumed that by refusing to intentionally deceive another person injustice or death will occur.[/b] This interjection of unreasonable assumptions used to provoke emotion does not prove or disprove anything in these particular cases. [u]For no one, to my knowelge, has not clarified of “how” and “why” such intentional deception could save someone from injustice or death.[/u]

To take another hypothetical situation from literature, “[i]The Crucible[/i]”, that is set during the Salem Witch trials. A husband had an affair with another woman, which his wife was aware of, and is seriously crime in the community that he is in. During the witch hunt, while his wife was not present, he confesses to the affair in front of the court to cast doubt upon the accusations of witchcraft. The judge does not believe him bringing his wife into the court and without a moment’s hesitation he demands her to confess if her husband had an affair. [b]In fear that he would be humiliated and destroyed in the community she lied.[/b] Thus convincing the judge the husband was indeed guilty of witchcraft and that the husband had attempted perjury; thus sealing his fate in the story, I[i] think he was crushed to death under a heavy rock.[/i]

I suggested before that hypothetical situations provide for “ample emotional expression”, in this case the wife fearing for her husband attempted to protect him with a lie, but in reality she sentenced her husband to death. [u]So moreover, in these hypothetical situations, how does one explain that they have sufficient understanding of the situation to accurately “protect” such persons with intentional deception?[/u]

[u]My proposal, as I stated before, is that it is never condonable to intentionally deceive another person.[/u] However, those [b][u]mental reservations[/u][/b] could be made or [u]that if one did intentionally deceive for “justifiable reasons” that the possible gravity of that particular sin could be reduced[/u]. This was a point of clarification in my previous response and is constant.

Edited February 22, 2008 by Mr.CatholicCat