Lying To Nazis

[Deb]

[quote name='realtalk.thm' post='1480604' date='Mar 20 2008, 10:17 AM']Christians. If this question was possed to Christ, what do you think would have been his answer. I wish i could just become a better mirror of christ.
















----the moon does not give as much light as the sun, but when its a full moon its quite a sight to be in the country---[/quote]

Jesus was incapable of lying. He would have just stared at them. I think he might have smoted them too.

Edited March 20, 2008 by Deb

[RandomProddy]

[quote name='Aloysius' post='1480587' date='Mar 20 2008, 02:13 PM']if it comes to it, say:
"no there are no Jews here"[/quote]

Perhaps "There are no Jewish people here" would be less ambigous. Or be British/American and carpet-bomb them instead.

[desertwoman]

If I had answered the door they would have shot me on the spot.

[prose]

Why does this question come up on here over and over again?

Is someone having a problem with Nazis that we should know about?

Edited March 20, 2008 by prose

[Cipher]

Theoretically, I would indeed lie to them. Still, I know that it's easy enough to answer a hypothetical question from the safety of our homes and jobs where it's easy to wax bravado. When you're actually faced with a quick decision that could potentially save another life (or, inversely, cost the lives of you, the person you are hiding, his family and your family), I challenge anyone to say that they would still lie without the slightest hesitation.

[Lord Philip]

[quote name='BeenaBobba' post='1480401' date='Mar 19 2008, 08:10 PM']If I felt confident that the Gestapo wouldn't be able to find my Jewish friends in my home because they were hidden extremely well, I'd try to skirt the question by saying something like, "If you want to know, come look." But that'd only be the case if I were sure they wouldn't be able to find them. Otherwise, I'd definitely lie to them.[/quote]


Dr. Peter Kreeft sheds some very important light on this.

He says that before categorizing something (e.g. as to whether something is a "lie" or not) we must simply look at the data and then react with common sense. Categorizing situations comes after, if necessary.

In this case we have bloodthirsty Nazis searching for Jews. We are hiding Jews. It is [i][b]OBVIOUSLY[/i][/b] wrong to tell the Nazis where the Jews are. So I do not tell the Nazis.

Now it is after the fact: did I tell a "lie"? Truth be told, I don't much care. I did what was obviously right. To quibble about whether it is a lie or not is to cloud what is otherwise a very clear issue. Clouding issues is not what God intends his Law to do. On the contrary, the Law is meant to free us to choose what is good, true, and beautiful.

Hope this rings true to some people as it did with me. Hearing this from his mouth was so liberating for me that I nearly leapt in my seat!

Edited March 20, 2008 by Lord Philip

[johnnydigit]

they didn't deserve to know the truth:

[i]Catechism of the Catholic Church

2488 The right to the communication of the truth is not unconditional. Everyone must conform his life to the Gospel precept of fraternal love. This requires us in concrete situations to judge whether or not it is appropriate to reveal the truth to someone who asks for it.

2489 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.[/i]

[Slappo]

"There are no Jews in my house."

As a Catholic consecrated to Mary... I don't own a house, even if material documents say otherwise... Mary owns it.

I told no lie .

"This house is free of Jewish scum!"

Jew's aren't scum... therefore Jewish scum does not exist... no lie!

"I can't stand Jewish scumbags!" ... well.. I can't stand American scumbags either... =)



They don't have a right for the information they are asking for. So tell a truth, just not the one they want to hear.

Haha... even better just thought of one...

If you happen to have the SLIGHTEST bit of Jewish blood... step outside and say...

"I'm hiding so many Jews in here that they are spilling out the door!"

The Gestapo laughs and moves on...

[AccountDeleted]

[quote name='Deb' post='1480605' date='Mar 20 2008, 08:19 AM']Jesus was incapable of lying. He would have just stared at them.
......

I think he might have smoted them too.[/quote]


Oh, I haven't had such a good laugh in ages! Thank you! The part that cracked me up was the word [u]smoted [/u]! It would have been so beautiful to watch, but I can tell you that I think instead of [u]smoting [/u]them, Jesus might have offered Himself up in exchange for the lives of those who were hiding! He was just that kind of guy!

But thank you for making me laugh.

Edited March 20, 2008 by nunsense

[dairygirl4u2c]

if it makes you feel better to say you're not justifying the means, then sure, whatever.

but you could make the argument that you're not justifying the means so many other times, that usually that motto doesn't hold much water. it's still justiifying when it suits your agenda and not justifying when it dno't.
at least in terms of refusing to discuss the matter as if there's no question.

[Aloysius]

the means are justified NOT because of the ENDS but because of the circumstances, and the means in themselves are not evil.

the point is that you cannot do an evil act to achieve a good result. but rather than look at it in that way, dairy, you have this really sterile view of the principal of ends not justifying the means whereby you think you can catch us in a loophole from it. the point is that you cannot do an evil to achieve a good; and we are saying that deceiving nazis about the whereabouts of a hidden Jew is not an evil act not just because it saves the Jew, but because the Nazi does not have the right to that information. the act is simply not evil, the means are simply not evil and thus needn't be justified by the ends. they are justified by the circumstances surrounding the act; it is a good act because the nazi does not have the right to that information and thus you have the moral right to hide that information from him.

[dairygirl4u2c]

[quote name='Mr.CatholicCat' post='1480538' date='Mar 20 2008, 12:27 AM']This only shows to me that you have still refused to read or consider my posts, which other users have admitted this appears to be the case. I am happy although that the presentation of a solid argument has left you mystified, possibly this will lead you to actually reading and considering what I wrote before. Considering everything you proposed about me, even my screen name, is wrong. All respect intended, but to be blunt, when you are prepared to actually address my arguments, the discussion is waiting at ( [url="http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?showtopic=77022&st=0"]http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?s...=77022&st=0[/url] ).[/quote]

playing mental gymnastics to get out of admitting there are plausible situations where the only way to save a life do exist and you said they might not, doesn't count as an argument.
if i misunderstood you... and you were only, and only this and nothing else, saying that we can never know the outcome of the action, and so by that techincallity cannot be held culpable or held less culpable, that doesn't count as an argument either. because it's so certain in many of these sitautions the outcome, that even that is simply dodging the arguments.

just admit that you're either justifying the mean, or more choosing what does or does not justify the mean on a case by case basis, such that the propositio doesn't do a whole lot in terms of definitively guiding actions.

also... i said we both sucked at thinking of situtaions, and by the very fact you were questioing whehter the situatios exist, whatever they were, then you too by definitio can't think of any of the situtaions. (unless you were referring to situatiosn where lying would save a life and not to the not knowing the outcome situations)

there's nothing to debate, until you address the points, so i'm not sure why you're challenging me. i should be challenging you, or you should be challenging yourself, to go back and actually read what's been written and respond in good faith and reasonably.

most people here are just trying to dodge the situation.
like saying "are nazi pigs here" so you can say "no" in good faith. give me a break. it's avoiding the underlying point, missing the point.

Edited March 20, 2008 by dairygirl4u2c

[Aloysius]

it is not missing the point. the action of withholding information from a nazi about the location of a hidden Jew is not an evil act, it needn't be justified by the ends because in and of itself it is not an evil act.

the ends not justifying the means is a good principal which means that you cannot do evil even if it would achieve good.

you must always evaluate the means themselves as to whether or not they are good in and of themselves.

your attempt to create a loophole only shows that you misunderstand what the ends not justifying the means really... well.. means (no pun intended)

[dairygirl4u2c]

it's not missing the point, in the sense that in that specific situation, the hypothetical was flawed, and the question of whether the means justify the end doesn't even come into play.

but, given that there's surely times when lying would be the only way to avoid another's death etc, one would think, pointing out the flaws in the specific hypothetical used.... misses the point.

[Mercy me]

For the preservation of self I would have lied

Edited March 21, 2008 by Mercy me