Lie To Save The Innocent?

[Mr.Cat]

To insure that I respond precisely to a particular user in question, I offer in bold their writing in addition my response to such. I apologize for the length, but I am a tad long winded I confess in humility.

[b]I'm not sure what mr. cat is getting at. ryhme intended.[/b]
Even though you yourself wrote “[i]I appreciate your thoughtful reply cat[/i]”, you now suggest that you do not understand what I proposed. Even though you have seemed to understand my responses enough to ask relevant questions concerning my responses until now, [i]while the rhyme is cute it is unnecessary.[/i]

[b]No one disputes that you shouldn't lie if you don't have to.[/b]
From the reading of the topic I have not viewed any competent response that suggests it is ever permissible to “lie” or intentionally deceive another. Rather, the confession that this is not permissible with respects to the more dynamic aspects of this profession. This would be in agreement with those proposals I offered.

[b]No one disputes that reserving is the best option.[/b]
Mental reservations are not “lying” if properly used.

[b]If the ex asked "did you see them in the last hour in their" and he was in a hurry to another place and you said no and he moved on.... and you have seen them, then you've lied. i acknolwedge the use of lying isn't needed many times,,,, but still insist it's needed other times not uncommonly.[/b]
You have refused so far to clarify the points in my previous responses about all of your supposed hypothetical situations. The “[b]how[/b]” and “[b]why[/b]” such intentional deception could save someone from injustice or death. ([i]Quoting myeself from before.[/i]) For these are the primary two reasons one has proposed to justify lying in these hypothetical situations. My point is that your proposals are not reasonable and therefore they justify nothing. However, if you were to answer this it would actually be possible to discuss this matter in more detail. [u]Still it does not justify intentional “lying”[/u]

[b]So, if cat was just making those points and not trying to debate, then sure, i might have missed his point and acnowledge his point. there's not much else to be said though unless he's trying to debate something i'm not seeing.[/b]
These points are being made to show the fundamental flaws in your arguments. To quote myself: "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." "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."

[b]I'd still like his response for why he thinks it's a venial sin, and how that is okay givne that death could occur if you don't sin.[/b]
To quote myself: “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.” “That if one did intentionally deceive for “justifiable reasons” that the possible gravity of that particular sin could be reduced.” “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 do not believe this justifies the proposal that I suggested this would always be “venial sin” or that it is “okay”. Therefore, I respectfully request you keep to the actual language being used and abstain from assumptions.

[b]Unless he's saying it's never going to happen that you have to lie, and if you think you have to... only then it's a venial sin....[/b]
Never once did I suggest that it is a viable option to “lie”. Rather, to quote myself again, I suggested: "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." "As Catholics we are to be honest and truthful always." "I would personally propose that there is possibly no justification to intentionally deceive another person with the explicit right to know a particular truth..." "My proposal, as I stated before, is that it is never condonable to intentionally deceive another person."

Therefore again, I respectfully request you keep to the actual language being used and abstain from assumptions.

[b]But he hasn't shown how it's not ever that you'd hav eto lie whereas i think i've shown plausible exampls where you'd have to[/b]
To quote myself again, objections to your supposed plausible situations: "For no one, to my knowelge, has not clarified of “how” and “why” such intentional deception could save someone from injustice or death." "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?" Therefore I propose that your “plausible situations” are indeed not reasonable as you yourself confessed, “So while my examples themselves are a bit detached from reality...” Therefore you have failed to submit a viable and reasonable explanation to why: ([b]1[/b]) a mental reservation could not be used or ([b]2[/b]) when “lying” is the absolute only opinion.

Rather, I have proposed that “lying” is never permissible explaining this to the best of my ability in the contexts of the teachings of the Church. I have allowed other persons, who are skilled in theology and apologetics, review my responses as well. They do not appear to have any major objections to my responses. Likewise, I have shown that you sufficiently understood my proposals or ignored (intentionally/unintentionally) what I wrote previously.

Edited February 22, 2008 by Mr.CatholicCat

[dairygirl4u2c]

just because your reply was thoughtful doesn't mean you made a compelling argument or responded adequately to my points.

okay i admit hypotheticals were not that great in the how and the why.
the reason i don't know what you're getting at is because you keep pointing out that my hypotheticals smell of elderberries... but not saying why the fundamental point is bad.

just because me and you smell of elderberries and thinking of good examples does not mean they don't exist, plausible situations. do you realize what you're suggesting? you seem to be suggesting that choosing not to lie isn't ever going to cost someone a life. you'd say that book "would you lie to save a life" is flawed at the premise because there's never plausible situations that lying would save a life. what seems detached from reality is thinking there's never a plausible siautation that lying would never be the only way to save a life.

the reason i'm saying you're suggesting this, is because that's the only way i could understand you to be insisting that i explan the how and why. i'd assum you're suggesting that.... caus the only other alterantive is for you to be bashing my hypotheticsals as bad and missing the point that i'm making, which i have kept telling you. since i keep telling you, it'd be you persisting in missing the point.

the reason i'm stating things that you might be assuming is because i'm trying to show you that even your best arguments given your best possible assumptions are not making your argument make sense. i'm not just creating a strawman just to knock it down and win.

also, i'm not sure what exactly you're saying is detached.... that it'd be very rare a sitaution you'd have to lie in, or that the only way i could form a good example is to create an unrealistic situation or arguing from abstraction? if you're saying it's because it's rare, then maybe. since i had a hard time thinking of hypotheticals means it might not be that common... but it could also mean i smell of elderberries at thinking of hypotheticals. it seems the book i mentioned is not flawed, and common perception that lying sometimes is the only way to save a life is not flawed.
it's not like i'm making arguments based on premises like making a squre a circle or something that is inherently a nonlegit premise.

-it's also such that you might want to save your own life, or hte life of another if they have them hostage, caus eif you refuse to say anything and they insisted at pain of death that you tell.... then you're allowing your own life to be killed.
-it's also such that if lying is going to greatly increase the probabilty of saving someone, you'd be bound to take that risk, according to my premise that lying can be justified.
-but the main point is that lying sometimes is the only way to save a life.

so... do you want me to think of good examples? is that the only way for me to prove my argument? or will you accept that there's good hypotheticals out there?

Edited February 23, 2008 by dairygirl4u2c

[dairygirl4u2c]

sorry for the lack of clarity in my writing, i'll put more effort into it

Edited February 23, 2008 by dairygirl4u2c

[Mr.Cat]

[b](1) just because your reply was thoughtful doesn't mean you made a compelling argument or responded adequately to my points.[/b]
My opening response is directed to the statement, “I'm not sure what mr. cat is getting at.” This response took into account this quotation that suggested something opposed to this and likewise that, quoting myself again, “you have seemed to understand my responses enough to ask relevant questions concerning my responses until now.”

The fact that you considered my response thoughtful, you continued to respond to my posts, or otherwise do not convince me that you found my proposals “compelling”. Therefore, this is clearly not the intention of my initial response. The distinction must be made in this discussion between “compelling” and “understanding”.

[b](2) okay i admit hypotheticals were not that great in the how and the why.[/b]
If one admits these hypothetical situations were not “great” in how and why for what reason would one propose hypothetical situations that do not highlight the seemingly center of one’s proposal, that lying is sometimes absolutely necessary to save someone from injustice or death? This admission is confusing to me in light of this discussion.

[b](3) the reason i don't know what you're getting at is because you keep pointing out that my hypotheticals smell of elderberries... but not saying why the fundamental point is bad.[/b]
Never once did I use the phrase “smell of elderberries” in my commentary or response to your hypothetical/theoretical proposals, therefore I respectfully ask that you keep to the actual language being used and abstain from assumptions. By your own admission you admit that they do not necessarily explain a seemingly center of one’s proposals, that lying is sometimes absolutely necessary to save someone from injustice or death. Therefore it would possibly be more effective to simply propose the “fundamental point” to be debated rather than those hypothetical situations themselves.

However, in my suggestion that points were “fundamentally flawed” is that you proposed that these “hypothetical situations” justify the primary point one is making, presumably that: [i][color="#808080"]“Intentional deception is sometimes justifiable and possibly necessary to prevent injustice or death.”[/color][/i]

[b](4) just because me and you smell of elderberries and thinking of good examples does not mean they don't exist, plausible situations.[/b]
I could think of very real situations where lying could prevent someone from dying. In my hypothetical situation person “x” comes to “a” demanding that hey renounce the existence of the supernatural or be murdered by person “x” through some means. If they renounced such they would be a traitor to their beliefs but they would live.

I did not claim or do I claim that situations do not exist that lying could possibly prevent injustice or death. I however claim that no Catholic, being a follower of Christ, could be praised for failing to uphold truth openly and honestly. If this were not the case our Lord would not ask us to become martyrs for Him who the “Truth”. However, in this particular situation it is possible to propose that this supposed threat, if presumed real, situations lessen the culpability of person “a” or possibly the gravity of the sin if they were to renounce the reality of the supernatural because of person “x” and their threat.

[b](5) do you realize what you're suggesting? you seem to be suggesting that choosing not to lie isn't ever going to cost someone a life.[/b]
As I proposed in the previous response, I do not claim or intentionally “suggest” that intentional deception could never possibly prevent injustice or death to someone, therefore I respectfully ask one keeps to the actual language being used abstaining from assumptions. Although one must also in reason propose that a “lie” could also cause injustice or death. I propose that intentional deception of another has a stronger possibility of provoking injustice or death of another for it prevents the recipient to accurately judge reality in order to act.

[b](6) you'd say that book "would you lie to save a life" is flawed at the premise because there's never plausible situations that lying would save a life. what seems detached from reality is thinking there's never a plausible siautation that lying would never be the only way to save a life.[/b]
To quote myself: “[i]For these are the primary two reasons one has proposed to justify lying in these hypothetical situations. My point is that your proposals are not reasonable and therefore they justify nothing. However, if you were to answer this it would actually be possible to discuss this matter in more detail. Still it does not justify intentional ‘lying’.” [/i]In this response I propose that your hypothetical situations do not sufficiently or reasonably provide evidence for the point that one is attempting to conclude. Although, I point out that if one were to clarify my query to the “how and why” it could prevent injustice or death we could possibly discuss the particular matter in more detail. [i]If I believed there was never any situation that “lying” could prevent injustice or death [b]why would I ask for clarification[/b]?[/i]

[b]I propose however, as I did in my quotation of myself, that it is never justifiable to intentionally deceive another.[/b] For clarification this means that it is never to be thought that it is praiseworthy or permissible to “lie” in certain instances because of extenuating circumstances. However, as I have pointed out before, certain conditions or situations could possibly lessen the culpability or gravity of the sin.

[b](7) the reason i'm saying you're suggesting this, is because that's the only way i could understand you to be insisting that i explan the how and why.[/b]
The reason I request for an explanation of the “how and why” is for this, to examine the particular situation being proposed, for even hypothetical situations should be examined and given appropriate consideration. For this reason I wrote, quoting myself, [i]“However, if you were to answer this it would actually be possible to discuss this matter in more detail.”[/i] Again, I respectfully request that one keeps to the actual language being used abstaining from assumptions.

[b](8) i'm not just creating a strawman just to knock it down and win.[/b]
[b]I do not presume intentional deception or malicious intentions upon your part or anyone until they have given sufficient evidence for such.[/b] However, even then I do not necessarily assume these things to be true but rather that this is my perception. Therefore, I did not necessarily believe or propose that you intentionally established an informal logical fallacy known as a “straw man”. [i]However, I do possibly suggest that some claims being suggested could possibly be related to such an informal logical fallacy, but I have not examined your proposals in light of this so far.[/i]

Since I do not have a clear statement to understand your position, I can only presume that your proposal follows something similar to the following: [color="#808080"][i]“It is possible that intentional deception of another can prevent injustice or death. That it is likewise possible that this is justifiable in certain situations that would compel a person of conscience to act accordingly, thus intentionally deceiving another. Therefore, if this act were considered “sinful” by a person it would oppose reason and good conscience.”[/i][/color]

You have proposed in place of my argument, [color="#808080"][i]“what seems detached from reality is thinking there's never a plausible siautation that lying would never be the only way to save a life.”[/i][/color] I however propose that it is never permissible to intentionally deceive another. I propose for truth must always be upheld by Catholics honestly and openly.

[b](9) also, i'm not sure what exactly you're saying is detached.... that it'd be very rare a sitaution you'd have to lie in, or that the only way i could form a good example is to create an unrealistic situation or arguing from abstraction?[/b]
You yourself were quoted by me in my response claiming [i]“So while my examples themselves are a bit detached from reality...” [/i]So I presume you are already aware that I am referring to your hypothetical situations. Thus, I will quote myself in what I meant by detached: [i]"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."[/i] However, as I pointed out before this does not automatically dismiss it from being examined or considered. Otherwise I would not take my time to examine such hypothetical situations.

[b](10) if you're saying it's because it's rare, then maybe. since i had a hard time thinking of hypotheticals means it might not be that common... but it could also mean i smell of elderberries at thinking of hypotheticals. it seems the book i mentioned is not flawed, and common perception that lying sometimes is the only way to save a life is not flawed.[/b]
I am not privy to if such situations could be common, rare, or nonexistent. Likewise I am not privy to your ability of proposing hypothetical situations in order to support your fundamental proposal as this was mentioned and discussed prior in this particular response. Could it be possible that the “only” way to “save a life” is “lying”? I will not pretend to suggest that this does not exist but at the same time I have not found a situation where this is the “[b][u]only[/u][/b]” [u]possibility and is the direct cause[/u].

[b](11) it's not like i'm making arguments based on premises like making a squre a circle or something that is inherently a nonlegit premise.[/b]
Understood and noted, with respect to other comment made in relationship to your proposal that I presumed prior in this particular response.

[b](12) -it's also such that you might want to save your own life, or hte life of another if they have them hostage, caus eif you refuse to say anything and they insisted at pain of death that you tell.... then you're allowing your own life to be killed. [/b]
I do have the tendency to preserve my own life rather than destroy it, therefore I most likely would desire to “[i]save my life[/i]” or possibly even have my life saved. But for example, if I were called to deny my faith or die, [i]I hope I would choose a death of martyrdom[/i]. [i]It most certainly would shorten this topic would it not?[/i] However, this is again a hypothetical situation that has been addressed prior I believe.

[b](13) -it's also such that if lying is going to greatly increase the probabilty of saving someone, you'd be bound to take that risk, according to my premise that lying can be justified.[/b]
I think another user very bluntly rebuttal this idea, and very accurately, in suggesting that (paraphrase) “the ends do not justify the means.” If one were “[i]bound[/i]” to intentionally deceive another then one’s obligation to uphold truth honestly and openly has been seemingly negated. To the existence of such situations, this has been addressed prior I believe.

[b](14) -but the main point is that lying sometimes is the only way to save a life.[/b]
This proposal has not been rejected. However, the dynamics and implications of this have been discussed previously.

[b](15) so... do you want me to think of good examples? is that the only way for me to prove my argument? or will you accept that there's good hypotheticals out there?[/b]
The use of hypothetical proposals I personally do not find of much interest. The fundamental proposal that you are intending to highlight by that hypothetical situation I am very interested in. Would I accept that there is a compelling hypothetical situation that would display that it is possible intentional deception could prevent injustice or the loss of life, yes, which I believe I actually proposed an example earlier. However, I think it is good to point out that this was not in dispute.



[color="#808080"][b]It [u]appears[/u] where we differ from your proposal is that it would be “[u]permissible[/u]” to intentionally deceive another under certain situations or that one is “[u]bound[/u]” under certain situations to intentionally deceive another.[/b][/color]

Edited February 24, 2008 by Mr.CatholicCat

[dairygirl4u2c]

[quote]Could it be possible that the “only” way to “save a life” is “lying”? I will not pretend to suggest that this does not exist but at the same time I have not found a situation where this is the “only” possibility and is the direct cause.[/quote]

then we agree there might be some plausible situations.
your situation of "say you dno't believe in God or I'll shoot you" is a situation where a life could be saved but it's not quiet an innocent life such as what i just quoted you on. one miht say you contradicted yourself since you said what i quoted and what you said about "do you believe in God", but i'll assume you did not because there's some important distinctions inherent in your assumptions, i'll presume.
the again, it might mean i don't know what you mean by "direct" etc.

also... when i said we both smell of elderberries at thinking of plausible situations... i wasn't referring to situations like "ill shoot you if you don't disclaim God" but of those other plausible siutations that you were referring to in the quoted text.

i'd suggest, thought am not claiming proof, that there's probably plausible situations where the only way to save an innocent life is to lie. you are hesitant to assume this. i presume it, and maybe your insistance in asking how and why is because your hesitancy? i suppose that is the better assumption on your part that i should have presumed, but it's still a grand proposal, wouldn't you agree?
you'd be suggesting by questioning whether that plausible situation exists: that the book "would you lie to save a life" is flawed at the premise. that the common understanding is flawed that sometimes you have to (by "have to", i mean in terms of practial necessity if it were the only way to save the life... not in terms of morality of lying in that situation). etc

just some opinons, which are normative and not much can be argued about in terms of deductively proving the other wrong.
i'd agree one might take a bullet for sayting the belive in God and that'd be reasonable, and it wouldn't be unreasonable to lie but it's not heroic. that's just my opinion.
it's quasi heroic that someone would not lie if it meant an innocent person would die were they not to lie. they at least are sticking to their convictions. but i pretty strongly suggest their convictions are flawed... God wouldn't require a sin of you lying but he woujld require the life be saved... if it was the only way for them to be saved, then it wouldn't be a sin.
-as for "bound" as you said... i'd say they are bound by a duty to them but it's not such that it's completely unreasonable to think that you shouldn't lie. so if i were to use a latin word here, i'm not sure what it'd be, but it'd be something that wouild say "not definititvely bound like by sin" but they are "bound" more generally by notions of duty to save life etc.

i'll get back to this thread after i take some time to brain storm plausible situations.
the only thing that really needs clairfied by you... is the first paragraph stuff about your proposed gun/God confessiong hypo and that there no "direct" plausible situation stuff and how you would agree or disagree with it's a grand claim, or at least counterintuitive, on your part that there's never a plausible situation. (and that book and common understanding is wrong etc)

Edited February 24, 2008 by dairygirl4u2c

[Mr.Cat]

I believe my previous response has given sufficient answer to the bulk of what is being written now. The queries now seem to either ignore or show misunderstanding of what I have written. While I admit I wrote a “[i][color="#C0C0C0"]mind numbingly long response[/color][/i]” I think that many things written are self-explanatory in their context and intentions and respond to this already.

[dairygirl4u2c]

just because it was mind numbingly long, doesn't mean it was clear, or even addressed some important points.
particularly, these:

[quote]how you would agree or disagree with it's a grand claim, or at least counterintuitive, on your part that there's never a plausible situation. (and that book and common understanding is wrong etc)[/quote]

[quote]your situation of "say you dno't believe in God or I'll shoot you" is a situation where a life could be saved but it's not quiet an innocent life such as what i just quoted you on. one miht say you contradicted yourself since you said what i quoted and what you said about "do you believe in God",[/quote]

but, i think i know the answer to them. i just wish you'd agree it's counter intuitive your suggestino that there might not ever be a plausible situation where lying would be necessary. (in the sense of only practical way to save the life)

the reason i want you to concede that, is because i think the presumption is sound and is "reasonable" for me to suggest as the default that such situations exist, ie that there are plausible situations where lying is the only way to save the life. in the quote below, you labeled my explanation as not reasonable. in terms of my hypos themselves, they were not reasonable in what they intended to do, but in terms of my fundamenatla point, they very much were reasonable because my fundamental point is that there's gotta be plausible situations. and any suggestions such as your;s that there's not such situations, is more unreasonable and detached from reality than suggestions that there's never a plausible situation where lying is the only way to save the life.
[quote]To quote myself again, objections to your supposed plausible situations: "For no one, to my knowelge, has not clarified of “how” and “why” such intentional deception could save someone from injustice or death." "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?" Therefore I propose that your “plausible situations” are indeed not reasonable as you yourself confessed, “So while my examples themselves are a bit detached from reality...” Therefore you have failed to submit a viable and reasonable explanation to why: (1) a mental reservation could not be used or (2) when “lying” is the absolute only opinion.[/quote]

it appears you're trying to avoid acknowledging the sweepting, probably detached from reality, suggestion that there's never a point when lying is the only way to save the life.

i acknowledge that you're saying "possibly" there's no situation, but that's probably more unreasonable and detached from reality, don't you think?

fyi, i think the reason i have misread you, is because you said this when we first started going back and forth:
[quote]I propose that both presumptions cause a situation that is almost purely theoretical, therefore slightly detached from reality.[/quote]
when you said "you propose" that, it appeared to me as you were saying you proposed that there are, in fact, no plausible situations. i didn't realize you meant that there only might not be any.
you against used langauge that would lead one to believe that they in fact didn't exist here:

[quote]“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.

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. 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. 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.[/b] For no one, to my knowelge, has not clarified of “how” and “why” such intentional deception could save someone from injustice or death.[/quote]
and since you said this, you were again not saying only "far fetched' (the reason i proposed maybe you mean far fetched is because to assume/propose they dn't exist makes the least sense than to propose they do)
and since you said the last paragraph particularly the last sentence, it looked like it'd seem you'd have to agree, that "how and why" would prove that a plausible situation does indeed exist. by the fact that you said that, you're underlying assumption was probably hte most unreasonable... because you're assuming there might not ever be any plausible situations. that that book is flawed, that common perception is flawed etc for thinking there's surely palusible situations.

i suppose by wanting you to say all that, i'm just quibbling, and so is only petty demanding of satisfaction, but i think it's warranted since you said my claim was unreasonable. (and the possible contradiction of God/deny him example and the "plausible situation" doesn't really make sense as the answer to what i was asking for at that the time i said we can't think of plausible situations... as you would have to concede we can't think of any if you propose there aren't any.... so you either gave a bad example or you need to clarify, right?)
you'd probaly argue that it's most unreasonable to assume plausible situations exist as it's an open question and worth asking, but to assume, or even only propose (in the sense of a theory that is not proven or disproven... i am only clarifying to avoid the confusion that the word "propose" has caused earlier), is to assume that book is flawed, and common perception is flawed.
contra that bolded text i did, the most reasonable proposal is that we just smell of elderberries at thinking of those situations, no?

Edited February 25, 2008 by dairygirl4u2c

[Mr.Cat]

I am not quite sure why you keep insisting that I am proposing something that I did not, a matter addressed previously in my responses. Possibly you should spend more time actually responding to my posts rather than avoiding it. After examining the most recent post, you are indeed erecting a straw man argument. For the majority of your writing does not address what I proposed, therefore I have no need to make further response, moreover because I touched on these points before.

[jeffpugh]

I know why. She doesn't read.

[Alycin]

[quote name='Sacred Music Man' post='1468631' date='Feb 25 2008, 01:35 PM']I know why. She doesn't read.[/quote]

Seriously.


DairyGirl, there comes a point in the realm of debate where one can make the mistake of refusing to admit defeat and insisting on asking the same questions over and over and over again expecting different answers.

Your questions have been answered. You claim that they haven't, but perhaps you just fail to see (or are choosing to ignore in an effort to try to prove to yourself that you're not wrong) that they have been adequately answered and explained to death.

[Slappo]

I think the problem here isn't so much one of debate, but one of communication. As an outsider looking in on the argument I can see where Dairygirl is making a few presumptions that are easy to make if one is not well versed in the philosophy of logic (as in Socratic logic). Mr. Cat is doing a decent job arguing, however I believe some things could have been made more clear.

1. In addressing hypothetical situations:
What I believe Mr. Cat to be saying is not that he agrees that a hypothetical situation exists where lying is the only way to live or protect the life of another innocent, but rather that [b]one can never know the certain outcome of a situation in which lying may or may not save the life of oneself or an innocent.[/b]

For further clarification on this point: With the situation listed above with the Nazi, one can never have certain knowledge that the Nazi will indeed search the house, find, and kill all the Jews one is hiding if one keeps silent when questioned.

This will fall true with ANY hypothetical situation. One can never have certain factual knowledge (even if the Nazi were to specifically say "I WILL come in and search the house if you do not respond) of the actions someone else will take. The Nazi could change his mind, be struck dead with a heart attack, be called on the radio as soon as he is about to search the house, be killed by a stray bullet, etc. Only an omnipotent being can have certain knowledge of the future.

2. Venial Sin/Mortal Sin situation:
All Mr. Cat is saying here is that although lying is a sin of grave matter, two more things are necessary for mortal sin. Namely: Full consent of the will, and full knowledge of the sinful nature of the act. If one were to not fully consent to lying one may not fall into mortal sin, [b]however the act would remain sinful[/b]. This means, under no circumstances does Mr. Cat (from what I can see, however it is the position of the Church) view it as justifiable to lie as it is better to die or even let others die then commit a venial sin.

3. Thou Shalt Not Kill:
The Church does hold [b]murder[/b] as an intrinsic evil which is never permissible. Under the biblical commandment, the word kill is referring to murder as understood by the Catholic Church. Self defense, just wars, etc does not fall under murder and is therefore not a breaking of the commandment.

4. The Right to Life and Lying:
I think there has been enough said on this and I don't know how to further make the point. But to clarify the Church's teaching, the Church allows for discreet language and intention to be used behind such situations when a person does not have the right to the knowledge they are asking for.

For instance with the Jew and Nazi. "No I am not hiding any Jews in this house." (The Jew happens to be hiding in my house, but I am not hiding him, he is hiding himself. He is a welcome guest in my house, not a refuge). Although it is taken as a falsity in the eyes of the Nazi, one is still upholding the truth.

A hypothetical situation like the one you gave is not viewed as lying in the eyes of the Catholic Church.

5. The book "Would you Lie to Save a Life":
It would be absurd to say that there is never a situation where a lie could or has saved someones life. It is NOT however absurd to say that [b]one may never know with [u]certainty[/u] as to when a lie will save a life.[/b]
Therefore the fallacy of the book title is not that lies can never save lives, [b]but that one can never know that one's lie will save a life as one cannot see the future outcome of the lie[/b]. Take for instance the example before of the woman who lied to save her husbands life when instead it killed him. The book title should rather be "Would you Lie to Possible Save a Life".

Edited February 26, 2008 by Slappo

[friendofJPII]

This question was asked in my Ethics at class at FUS. Dr. Harold told us that you could say, "no, there aren't any dirty, rotten, Jews here...." because the adjectives would make the statement true, but you couldn't just say no.

[Autumn Dusk]

This is a real scenario:

A young adult is in a very dangerous home. The parents, the source of the danger, are interrogating her if she is going to keep talking to them, etc. There is immediate physical danger if this person does not get out. This is the pinnacle of many other efforts to fix things. This person has a solid plan to get out and knows that they are misleading their parents.

There is no way to change the direction of the questions in order to say "I am not/am doing something"

Are you truly saying that this person would be guilty of sin for lying?

[friendofJPII]

[quote name='Autumn Dusk' post='1471867' date='Mar 1 2008, 02:43 PM']This is a real scenario:

A young adult is in a very dangerous home. The parents, the source of the danger, are interrogating her if she is going to keep talking to them, etc. There is immediate physical danger if this person does not get out. This is the pinnacle of many other efforts to fix things. This person has a solid plan to get out and knows that they are misleading their parents.

There is no way to change the direction of the questions in order to say "I am not/am doing something"

Are you truly saying that this person would be guilty of sin for lying?[/quote]


you can mislead but you cannot out right lie. If we say that lying is licit in order to secure a good, we open the door to a utilitarian phil. which is another can of worms.