Doctrine of mental reservation

[Paphnutius]

Perhaps it is just me, but I would not think that telemarketers have the right to know if I am home.

[Sojourner]

[quote name='Paphnutius' date='Dec 19 2005, 01:51 PM']Perhaps it is just me, but I would not think that telemarketers have the right to know if I am home. 
[right][snapback]830601[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
Well, from a personal convenience standpoint, I understand and support your position on this.

I just have trouble justifying using something like this in a situation that doesn't involve life or death, or at least the potential for serious injury to someone.

[Theoketos]

Telemarketers do have a right to the truth...

[Paphnutius]

[quote name='Theoketos' date='Dec 19 2005, 12:41 PM']Telemarketers do have a right to the truth...
[right][snapback]830641[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
Why do they have a right to know if my mother is in or not?
It is not a matter of convenience. Simply becuse someone asks if my mother is in does not entitle them a right to know that.

If you say that they have a right to know the truth exactly, then what is to keep someone from asking about a personal secret from someone else?

I am just curious as to why you think they have the right to know.

[beatty07]

There are so many approaches to this, it's quite dizzying.

I don't care for the approach that uses a different definition for "lie" than what practically everybody else uses. In common parlance, a lie is something you say even though you know it isn't true. We can add the condition of right to know, but now we've stopped speaking the same English that everyone else is using. Why not use the standard definition and say that a lie is okay if they don't have a right to the truth?

Even if you'll grant me that, the troubles are only beginning. There are many moral theologians...maybe the majority...who insist that a lie is never acceptable even if there is no "right to know." So if you have Jews in your attic, you can't tell the SS "no there aren't Jews in my attic." That's a lie, and lies are wrong, and the end doesn't justify the means, they say.

Hence, the idea of mental reservations. It amounts to being clever. You might say "no I'm not hiding a Jew", which is true. You are hiding not a Jew, but many Jews. You reserve the information to which he has no right, but you don't speak an untruth. Admit it: you once used this trick on your parents!

Anyway, I find the whole thing very unconvincing. It's hard for me to imagine explaining at my Judgment, "too bad those Jews got tortured and killed, but hooray for me for not lying, right?"

I get accused of proportionalism for this, i.e., "the ends justify the means." But that begs the question because the whole argument is whether speaking untruth is inherently evil. If it is, then I'll admit that no ends will justify it.

[Aloysius]

they don't have a right to know, but everyone has a right to the truth.

see, this mental reservation thing never gives licence to tell mistruth, it just means that you do not have to volunteer all information.

like if the telemarketer mispronounces your name and you say, no "mispronounced name" isn't here. well, that's true, no one going by that name is there. he doesn't have a right to the information of how to pronounce your name if you don't want to tell him, you are not morally obligated to tell him how to pronounce your name. just speak the truth always, but don't always volunteer information people don't need to know.

[beatty07]

I don't think you must always speak the truth. Lemme try to explain:

- speaking untruth is not inherently wrong; take for instance actors on stage.

- "that's different." Why? Because everyone knows they're acting, so there is no deception.

- therefore, it is the deception to which we object, not the physical pronouncing of untrue words.

- but deception is allowable in the absence of a right to know. E.G., you are intentionally deceiving the marketers by telling them "[mispronounced] isn't here."

- so if neither speaking untruth nor deception is always wrong, then how is lying always wrong?

I'm not a proportionalist, I'm not saying lies are a "necessary evil." I'm saying that if it's the SS looking for Jews, then a lie is downright good.

Disclaimer: the title refers to the "Church Doctrine of mental reservation." If anybody can show that this is a Church Doctrine, then I'll recant. But I don't think it has that status at all. It's just a theological opinion.

[Paphnutius]

What is the purpose of speech beatty07?

[beatty07]

That's a complicated question. Perhaps the best answer is COMMUNIO. Cuz everything sounds more smarter in Latin.

Yeah I know I'm supposed to say "truth." But I'm not convinced this an exhaustive answer. For instance, if I am in a remote wilderness speaking the truth to trees and rocks, I am not fulfilling the purpose of speech. I'm just annoying the wildlife.

It's also relevant that Truth, Goodness, and Beauty are only separate concepts in our finite minds, not in the simplicity of God. So when speech gets very far from goodness, in ceases to serve Truth in the greatest sense. Maybe that's an intellectual sleight-of-hand, I'm not sure.

And though casuistry has gotten a bad rap through overuse, it has its place and I'm going to bust some out. If a ten-year-old is home alone by accident - I dunno, took the bus instead of meeting her parents or something - and the neighborhood sex offender sees her going in and asks "are your parents home?" What should she do? She should lie. Boldly and confidently, knowing that she is doing the good.

Telling the truth is a good, but it is not the highest good. When it conflicts with a higher good it gives way. It's very important that I convince you of this, because sooner or later a woman is going to ask you "what do you think of my shoes?"

[Paphnutius]

[quote name='beatty07' date='Dec 19 2005, 07:46 PM']Yeah I know I'm supposed to say "truth." 
[/quote]
Darn you caught me!

[quote]  For instance, if I am in a remote wilderness speaking the truth to trees and rocks, I am not fulfilling the purpose of speech.  I'm just annoying the wildlife.
[/quote]You are correct. Speaking to a rock does not fulfill the function of speech.

[quote]It's also relevant that Truth, Goodness, and Beauty are only separate concepts in our finite minds, not in the simplicity of God.  So when speech gets very far from goodness, in ceases to serve Truth in the greatest sense.  Maybe that's an intellectual sleight-of-hand, I'm not sure[/quote]I would agree with you there.

[quote]She should lie.  Boldly and confidently, knowing that she is doing the good.
[/quote]She should speak the truth in such a way that it would ward off the offender. The 10 year old could say, "that I am going to speak with my parents" or "...etc... Remember your double effect. One may not preform evil so that good may come from it.

[quote]It's very important that I convince you of this, because sooner or later a woman is going to ask you "what do you think of my shoes?"
[/quote]

The function of speech is to manifest or to convey the truth. You have admitted this so I will not go into it any further.

I will point out, though, that to tell a lie is not simply to tell an untruth. To tell a lie is to say something that is contrary to what one believes to be true. It is important to note "what one believes to be true." This is so because if one honestly believes X to be the case, although Y is the truth, one may profess X without telling a lie. X in this case is an untruth, but advertance is a requisite for sin.

This could be the case of the little girl. Should could believe that her parents are home and say that they are. If she does not believe that they are, it would be a lie to do so. I know this is a little late in the discussion to bring this up, but I was reviewing some notes on mental restriction/reservation and another way of enacting this is by way of custom, meaning that if it is generally accepted by custom for a phrase to be ambivalent, then it may be used. If this is true, then the girl may say that her parents are home for it would appear that in society for a minor to say that his parents are at home could mean either or legitmatly. Talking about a sleight of hand....

[Paphnutius]

My point with bringing up at the end what is acceptable by custom was to repoint us towards equivocations. I wanted to show that the 10 year girl would not in reality be telling a lie because she could use an equivication. Another example of an equivication would be someone asking a priest about a sin that was confessed to him. The priest could say "I do not know" meaning that he does not know apart from the confession. It is not a lie, but an equivication in this instance and so may be in the girl's.

I wish I could find it, but I remember reading somewhere by Augutine that a man should not slay his soul by lying even for the life of another.

[Sojourner]

[quote name='beatty07' date='Dec 19 2005, 06:13 PM']Disclaimer:  the title refers to the "Church Doctrine of mental reservation."  If anybody can show that this is a Church Doctrine, then I'll recant.  But I don't think it has that status at all.  It's just a theological opinion.
[right][snapback]830847[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
Yeah, I got the title from the New Advent article, which refers to the "doctrines of strict and wide mental reservation." I don't think it's Church Doctrine with caps.

[beatty07]

[quote name='Paphnutius' date='Dec 19 2005, 09:09 PM']She should speak the truth in such a way that it would ward off the offender. The 10 year old could say, "that I am going to speak with my parents" or "...etc...
[right][snapback]831040[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

This is what drives me nuts about mental reservation. Her goal is to deceive...i.e., to convince mr. creepy that Mommy and Daddy are inside or probably so. She is TEN. Can we really demand the level of cleverness required to pull off a mental reservation? Can't you imagine the hemming and hawing that would go on? Not very convincing. The same holds true for the adult who is looking the SS in the eye. No way, little girl. Just lie.

[quote]Remember your double effect. One may not preform evil so that good may come from it. [/quote]

It seems to me that this begs the question. My whole point is that the action isn't evil. If it is, then the discussion is over. Regarding the distinction about truth and what one believes to be truth, that's a good one. But you have to grant me my hypothetical situation - that the girl is morally certain her parents aren't home.

[quote]The function of speech is to manifest or to convey the truth. You have admitted this so I will not go into it any further.[/quote]

No! not admitted! For our ten year old, the function of speech is to defend herself from a terrible evil. For our good German hider of Jews, the function of speech is to save life. What's wrong with that?

And you're right about Augustine...he took a very hard line on lying. As terrifying as it is to disagree with him, I'm pretty convinced on this point.

[Paphnutius]

[quote name='beatty07' date='Dec 20 2005, 11:44 AM']This is what drives me nuts about mental reservation.  Her goal is to deceive...i.e., to convince mr. creepy that Mommy and Daddy are inside or probably so.
And you're right about Augustine...he took a very hard line on lying.  As terrifying as it is to disagree with him, I'm pretty convinced on this point.
[right][snapback]831782[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
I would not say that her goal is to decieve so much as to protect herself. The way that a mental reservation works is through ambiguity due to circumstances and such that allows the person do deceive himself. There is not deception on the part of the one using the mental restriction so long as one is speaking the truth.

I am sorry, I must not have picked up on the girl being morally certain that her parents were not home. I thought that it was by accident that she took the bus, making it possible that she could have believed her parents were waiting for her at home. Also, I pointed out that for a minor to say that his or her parents are home when they are not, may be understood as an equivication by custom.

[quote]No!  not admitted!  For our ten year old, the function of speech is to defend herself from a terrible evil.[/quote]My apologies for taking too much liberty with your statement about you knowing what I anticipated. I am sorry.

Here comes the argument from authority CCC:[quote]2482 "[b]A lie consists in speaking a falsehood with the intention of deceiving[/b]." 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

2485 [b]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[/b]. 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. [/quote]

My point was that the 10 year girl would not be lying if she used an equivocation. Can we expect it from her? If she has reached the age of reason for herself then, yes.

I would write more, but right if I do not get going now I will be late. Take care.

[Theoketos]

And just to be clear on what I ment earlier. The civil authorities would have a right to the information that the Bishop has.