kenrockthefirst Posted February 11, 2008 Share Posted February 11, 2008 [quote name='dairygirl4u2c' post='1458918' date='Feb 10 2008, 10:19 PM']i'm a consequentialist... so i lie frequently when people like that don't deserve the info. lying to get ahead andor at the expense of others isn't as cool to me. where do you draw the line etc? i'm all for absolute truth, but never for claiming it's clear. i'm not going to rationzlie that it's merely a venial sin, and so okay. but that rational, God would rather have us not lie and let people die. plus, lying breaks the ten commandments... i doubt you could rationalize it as a venial sin, other than to speculate that you were weak at the time. most people wouldn't be weak at the time, but openly lied. they might try to pyscho avoid it somehow but that's not being weak at the time.[/quote] dairygirl, with respect you're in danger of becoming the new [url="http://redwing.hutman.net/~mreed/warriorshtm/grenade.htm"]Budge[/url]. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cmotherofpirl Posted February 11, 2008 Share Posted February 11, 2008 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lil Red Posted February 11, 2008 Share Posted February 11, 2008 dairy, didn't you already do a poll very similar to this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deb Posted February 13, 2008 Share Posted February 13, 2008 I would lie if it would stop this thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GuyWithAFoil Posted February 15, 2008 Share Posted February 15, 2008 I've had this discussion before. and I am not quite sure what the right answer is. But God told us not to lie, thats not vague. Who are we to say that the deaths of those Jews (and in all likelihood the death of myself as well) is a [i]bad[/i] thing. our life on Earth is not the life before the afterlife, it is the BEFORE life. I imagine I would not say anything, ideally. I don't think this would break any promises of protection, it certainly wouldn't be lying. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cathqat Posted February 15, 2008 Share Posted February 15, 2008 [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." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dairygirl4u2c Posted February 17, 2008 Author Share Posted February 17, 2008 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... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GuyWithAFoil Posted February 17, 2008 Share Posted February 17, 2008 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dairygirl4u2c Posted February 17, 2008 Author Share Posted February 17, 2008 (edited) 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dairygirl4u2c Posted February 17, 2008 Author Share Posted February 17, 2008 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GuyWithAFoil Posted February 19, 2008 Share Posted February 19, 2008 Do you, dairygirl, fall under that category as well? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dairygirl4u2c Posted February 19, 2008 Author Share Posted February 19, 2008 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cathoholic_anonymous Posted February 19, 2008 Share Posted February 19, 2008 [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]. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cathoholic_anonymous Posted February 19, 2008 Share Posted February 19, 2008 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dairygirl4u2c Posted February 19, 2008 Author Share Posted February 19, 2008 (edited) 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now