Doctrine of mental reservation

[beatty07]

deleted: duplicate post. oops.

Edited December 20, 2005 by beatty07

[beatty07]

OK it looks bad but I'm still fighting.

The problem, according to the CCC, is that one fails in justice and charity by leading one's neighbor into error.

What if there is moral certitude or even probablilty that the factual truth, once known, will be employed for grave evil. Now it is the untruth which is just and charitable. Just, because it renders the evil intention its due. Charitable, because it protects your neighbor from perpetrating a terrible evil.

I guess I'm arguing an "epikeia" or however its spelled...that there exist situations which the Catechism's statement doesn't mean to address.

I feel like I'm out on a limb here, but maybe it works....what do y'all think?

I don't want to spend too much effort on one little hypothetical...can we agree that a situation might exist in which the only options were to lie, or to deliver others to crimes too heinous to mention? I'm saying that in that situation, untruth spoken in order to deceive is good.

[beatty07]

If I may tax your patience even more...I just thought of this...

One might confidently say that it is immoral to bash someone's head with a brick. Such an action is contrary to the nature of heads, bricks, and is a corruption of the act of bashing. The statement would be unlikely to meet with objection.

But it doesn't mean to cover every conceivable head-brick-bashing. If the head in question belongs to one who is about to detonate a bomb, and the only way to stop him is by throwing a brick, then the violence is not immoral. The action is not only allowable, it is good and virtuous.

If violence can be done to God's children to prevent evil, can it not be done to the truth?

The comparison even provides vocabulary for analyzing when a lie is a moral good. Proportion to the end, lack of other options, intention of the good rather than the evil, etc.

Does that work?

Edited December 20, 2005 by beatty07

[lifescanticle]

My knee jerk reaction is to say that lying is always wrong. My knee jerk reactions are often wrong. I can see legitimate ways to word answers to questions so as to incompletely answer the question yet appear to have answered the question to the satisfaction of the inquirer. The inquirer would then have to listen carefully enough to realize that the question was not completely answered.
If pushed and the answer would endanger a life. i would lie. This is a great topic!

[Paphnutius]

[quote name='beatty07' date='Dec 20 2005, 02:12 PM']What if there is moral certitude or even probablilty that the factual truth, once known, will be employed for grave evil.  Now it is the untruth which is just and charitable.  Just, because it renders the evil intention its due.  Charitable, because it protects your neighbor from perpetrating a terrible evil.
[/quote]
That is what the use of mental reservation is all about. You want to say that in cases of justive vs. veracity, one must choose the greater good of justice. Mental restrictions attempt to satisfy both. Also, I am not sure if the untruth could be charitable for it is an offense against the truth. This would be a slippery sloop to saying that we can mitigate the truth...

[quote]I guess I'm arguing an "epikeia" or however its spelled...that there exist situations which the Catechism's statement doesn't mean to address.
[/quote]I think it is spelt epichea and I think that it only applies to laws of the Church, and positive laws at that. For those that do not know, epichea is a principle that one excuses oneself from a law (of the Church I believe) because it is so difficult and onerous that it is unlikely that the legislater would have included it in the scope of the law. It is a tricky princple to apply, and not one that we hear much about. Also, it would appear to excuse only from a positive law (one that commands an action to be done such as "always protect life") and not excuse from a negative law (one that commands that an action must not be taken under any circumstances "it is wrong to murder"). Negative laws are never to be broken or excused from if I am correct. I am open to correction, though. This is because of the very nature of a positive law and negative law. Thus, I do not think that epichea could be used here because it applies (I am looking for proof) to Church law, and also because it excuses from positive laws and never from negative laws.

[quote]I don't want to spend too much effort on one little hypothetical...can we agree that a situation might exist in which the only options were to lie, or to deliver others to crimes too heinous to mention?  I'm saying that in that situation, untruth spoken in order to deceive is good.[/quote]I have mentioned on another thread, that one is never in a case that the [b]ONLY[/b] option is a sin. It would not seem in the nature of God to place a person in a positioon where he must choose from two evils without anyway of doing good. Perhaps I am overstating your case, but I would argue that one is never bound to do an evil which is what lying is via CCC.

[quote]If I may tax your patience even more.[/quote]You are not taxing my paitence. I enjoy charitable discussions such as this. I hope that I have not offended you when I assumed your stance earlier.

[quote]But it doesn't mean to cover every conceivable head-brick-bashing. If the head in question belongs to one who is about to detonate a bomb, and the only way to stop him is by throwing a brick, then the violence is not immoral. The action is not only allowable, it is good and virtuous.
[/quote] Here one would have to understand the difference between murder and defense of self or others. Plus I would need to see where it is proven that violence is by its very nature evil. Two young brothers may rough house every one in a while yet this is perfectly natural and healthly while it may seem to be violent.

Your intention is not to kill the person, for if that were it would violate a principle of morality (that is desiring an evil in itself). Your intention is to stop the detonation of the bomb. Lying is intentional by its nature, see the definition by the CCC. If you do not intend to lie, then I would believe that it is not a lie for advertance and adherence must both be present in sin. I need some time to mull this over, though. Paitence please.

Edited December 20, 2005 by Paphnutius

[beatty07]

gosh, I'm not offended. This is fun! And important.

And of course there's no such thing as a situation where the only option is to sin. We'd have a pretty goofy God were that the case. But I will assert, probably taking your words too literally, that there are situations where one must do an evil. I mean something very precise though, and it only occurs when every option involves some evil. This is very different from every option involving sin! Head-bashing is an ontological evil, no matter who does it or when or why. But if the context is right, then the action that brings about this evil is morally good. That's if it is done to avoid a greater evil. I haven't stated this well, but what I'm getting at is basic double-effect stuff.

You're right that epikeia isn't terribly relevant.

Does anyone else find the "mental reservation" idea rather silly? I just think it's too clever. It's trying to accomplish the goal of deception by your speech, yet still not lie. It seems like legalism to me.

I used to be a master at mental reservations when I was under my parents' roof. "Steven, where did you go tonight?" "I went to the mall." Of course by going to the mall I meant we drove by it on the way to the real destination. That's a perfect case of mental reservation. Obviously an immoral one!

But my weaselly technique allowed me to commit the sin of lying to my parents, while still feeling smugly satisfied that I "told the truth." It was a false distinction. I lied. I spoke words that I knew would be interpreted in an untrue way, in order to decieve. I'm trying to argue that the reservation/lie distinction is equally questionable when used for good.

[Paphnutius]

[quote name='beatty07' date='Dec 20 2005, 04:38 PM'] But I will assert, probably taking your words too literally, that there are situations where one must do an evil.  I mean something very precise though, and it only occurs when every option involves some evil.  This is very different from every option involving sin!  Head-bashing is an ontological evil, no matter who does it or when or why.  But if the context is right, then the action that brings about this evil is morally good.  That's if it is done to avoid a greater evil.  I haven't stated this well, but what I'm getting at is basic double-effect stuff.
[/quote]
Yes, but one of the basic concepts of double effect is that the good must be at least immediatly present in cause as the evil, meaning that one must not perform an inherintly evil deed so that good may come from it. The CCC (2485)I quoted showed that lying is by its nature to "be condemned." Violence is not to be condemend by its very nature. The four conditions for the application of the double effect principle are thus:
1) The object must be good.

In your case it is the prevention of the detonation of the bomb. In the girl's case it is preserving her well being

2) The evil that will result from the good object must be merely permitted and not willed in itself

In the head-bashing, the death of the person is not willed in itself, but in your scenario where the girl intentionally lies, she intentionally wills the deception of the attacker and thus an offense to truth. In short lying is an intentional willing of an evil act de facto.

3) The good must be at least equal in cause as the evil or indifferent act

In the case of the bomber, the death of the bomber is not equally causal in the event for the bomb could have been prevented from detonating if the bomber had simply been knocked unconscious. In the case of the girl, however, the lie or deception is the primary cause here. It is important to note, though, that if a person threw the brick intentionally killing him, then it is indeed a wrong.

4) The good must be commensurate of the evil result.

In the bomber the prevention of the bomb from going off (possibly killing others) is commensurate to the [i]possible [/i] death of the bomber. It should be pointed out, that you said the brick was thrown, and thus one did not intend to kill. The preservation of the girl's temporal well being is not commensurate of her spiritual well being.

[quote]You're right that epikeia isn't terribly relevant.  [/quote]But you are correct in your spelling. It may be spelt both ways I have found.

[quote]Does anyone else find the "mental reservation" idea rather silly?  I just think it's too clever.  It's trying to accomplish the goal of deception by your speech, yet still not lie.  It seems like legalism to me.
[/quote] It may be overly legalistic in some cases, yes. It does not have the goal of deception. It has the goal of some good, otherwise one must not employ it. Mental reservation must have a suffecient reason for its use. It is not something that can just be thrown about here and there.

[quote]But my weaselly technique allowed me to commit the sin of lying to my parents, while still feeling smugly satisfied that I "told the truth."  It was a false distinction.  I lied.  I spoke words that I knew would be interpreted in an untrue way, in order to decieve.  I'm trying to argue that the reservation/lie distinction is equally questionable when used for good.
[/quote] You did not have a suffecient reason for your parents have the right to know where you are their child while you are a minor living underneath their roof. So yes your case was immoral. Plus, as a side note, you did not lie for to tell a lie as defined earlier to tell a falsehood.

I am not intending to argue that all cases are moral, but that there are cases when it should be used. Also, as mentioned above, mental restriction is not you deceiving the other person, but simply allowing the person to deceive himself. One does not have a strict obligation to always correct everyone.

[beatty07]

[quote]Plus, as a side note, you did not lie for to tell a lie as defined earlier to tell a falsehood.
[/quote]

From my perspective, everything else is a side note and this precisely is the crux. Is it not a lie to speak words that you know will be understood untruly, with the intention to deceive and to sell that untruth?

I'll try a reduction to the absurd to illustrate. In it, I'll stipulate that mental reservations aren't lying. Words that you know will be misunderstood with the intention of convincing someone of a falsehood are not a lie, as long as they can be construed as truth according to information you reserve. So when the SS asks, 'are you harboring Jews,' I immediately invent a new language in my head. My invented language happens to coincide exactly with English, with the exception that the meaning of "yes" and "no" are reversed. So I say "no," which is true in the language I'm using. So I claim not to have lied.

I'm confident we can all agree that this scenario is ridiculous. I pose it because I think it follows once we accept "mental reservation." It's about language games.

Edited December 21, 2005 by beatty07

[beatty07]

Just to get across why I'm hanging on to this so tenaciously, I'll mention a non-hypothetical application that is of gravest import.

The invasion of Europe on June 6, 1943 would probably have failed if not for lying. It was obvious to the Axis that an invasion was coming, and they were preparing for months. The only question was where. A brilliant and wildly successful campaign of misinformation convinced the High Command that the invasion would be far to the south of the actual place. In other words, vast amounts of untruth were spoken with the intention to deceive. While the Nazis had prepared the real area somewhat, their reinforcements were oriented primarily elsewhere.

It is beyond question that lying saved countless lives on both sides of the conflict. It is less certain, but I think probable, that a failure of the invasion force on D-Day would have crippled the Allied war effort for the foreseeable future, giving Germany time to focus on the eastern front and replenish their lines.

In other words:
If we hadn't lied we may well have lost World War II.

[Paphnutius]

[quote name='beatty07' date='Dec 20 2005, 07:11 PM'] Is it not a lie to speak words that you know will be understood untruly, with the intention to deceive and to sell that untruth?
[/quote]
Given the definition of a lie from the Catechism, a mental reservation is not a lie. Plus, not as a side note, I have mentioned time and time again that the intention of a mental restriction is not the deception of the other.

[quote]So when the SS asks, 'are you harboring Jews,' I immediately invent a new language in my head.  My invented language happens to coincide exactly with English, with the exception that the meaning of "yes" and "no" are reversed.  So I say "no," which is true in the language I'm using.  So I claim not to have lied.
[/quote]It is not all about language games. What you have described is known as strict mental restriction and many moral theologians agree that it is not moral to use them. Broad mental reservations are not an invented language, but speak in ordinary terms but are reserved due to the circumstances. That is the difference between a strict mental reservation and a broad mental restriction. The former relies upon the words to reserve, the latter the circumstances.

If you are inventing a language and not speaking in terms that the ordinary person may understand, then you are not using a mental reservation. They are not the same as lying, for lying intends to deceive the other and is a statement contrary to what one believes to be true. A mental reservation is stating the truth that may be reserved in the mind of the receiver due to the circumstances. If the one who is receiving the communication deceives himself into thinking the falsehood, then so be it.

[quote]If we hadn't lied we may well have lost World War II.[/quote]And so what you are saying is the ends justified the means? Plus I am not sure if it would be lying. One would have to know what they expressed and how. Yes it may appear to be legalistic, but you still have to answer to the fact that lying by its nature is to be condemned.

Edited December 21, 2005 by Paphnutius

[Norseman82]

[quote name='beatty07' date='Dec 20 2005, 07:21 PM']
The invasion of Europe on June 6, 1943 [right][snapback]832242[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

1944....

[beatty07]

I thought I made it clear that the D-day example was about why I'm arguing, not a moral argument itself. I'm running out of different ways to state that I don't believe that the ends can justify the means. I don't believe that good ends can justify evil means.

Let's go back to the terrorist with a detonator. What if you had a chance to foil his plan by telling him a lie? I could invent a situation in which the only options were lying to him or killing him. It might be a complicated scenario, but it could certainly exist. According to your position, you would just have to kill him rather than telling a lie. Because killing is sometimes allowable but lying never is. At 2:16AM between packing and studying for a final, I'm not up to a syllogistic refutation of that. I just know it can't be right.

I'm leaving for a few months tomorrow. Please don't think I'm under the impression that I've fired a parting shot and "won." I'm confident you have a good response. Given the time of night, I may have just written something really stupid. Unfortunately, I can't stick around to hear your answer....which is regrettable because this has been a thoroughly enjoyable exchange! Thanks Paphnutius!

[Paphnutius]

[quote name='beatty07' date='Dec 21 2005, 01:28 AM']Let's go back to the terrorist with a detonator.  What if you had a chance to foil his plan by telling him a lie?  I could invent a situation in which the only options were lying to him or killing him.
[/quote]
One should never have the intention of killing the other. One should never resort to killing a person right off. I have shown that if one were in a situation where one had to prevent the detonation of a bomb, one could "attack" the aggressor as long as he did not will or intend his death. If his death resulted from the attempt to save others, it is unfortunate but could be permissible. We are missing the point that when you throw the brick at someone you are not performing an act evil in itself. It is not wrong to throw bricks. The death of the other person may result, but that evil is a result and not a cause. In the situation of lying, telling the falsehood with the intention of deceiving, the evil is the willed action and the cause.

You started by attempting to justify lying in some cases, then went to attacking mental reservations, and now you are back to justifying lying. (we make wonderful circles here on phatmass! ).

Lying is always immoral for it implies an evil intention.

1) Lying is evil (CCC).
2) Evil is not to be done so that good may come from it.
3) Lying is not to be done so that good may come from it.

Mental reservation is not always immoral (one must have a suffecient cause) because:

1) It is not telling a faleshood or lie.
2) The reservation is due to the circumstances and not the words.
3) The intention is not deception.
4) One has a right to veil truths from those who do not have the right to that knowledge.


[quote]I'm leaving for a few months tomorrow.  Please don't think I'm under the impression that I've fired a parting shot and "won."  I'm confident you have a good response.  Given the time of night, I may have just written something really stupid.  Unfortunately, I can't stick around to hear your answer....which is regrettable because this has been a thoroughly enjoyable exchange![/quote]Take care my friend. It has been enjoyable and feel free when you come back to pick this back up for I do not want you to get the impression that I snuck in the last word while you were gone. :