But a lie is, by definition, a statement at variance with the mind of the speaker. As such, it is a perverse use of a natural faculty and so wrong simply.

This is quite different to saying what is true, but misleading to another.

Because the one involves the perverse use of a faculty, namely speech, and the other does not. Lying is a sin against (rational) nature.

A person who lies intends to say something that does not accord with his mind and that is a great evil. His further, or ulterior intention, namely to mislead, may be good or bad, according to circumstances, but the good end (misleading) does not justify the evil means chosen, namely lying.

Similarly, a lie may not mislead at all, for to say what one does not believe to be true (although one may hope it is, e.g., “No one else knows about it”) but which turns out to be true in fact, makes it no less a lie; for it was not an expression of the speaker’s mind. But the malice of lying is the same.

We also agree that misleading someone for the sake of frustrating evil intent is no breach of charity. What I’m trying to understand is why you countenance passively but not actively misleading in such instances, since both methods yield the same result.

To my way of thinking, in neither case does the evildoer deserve to know the truth, since he will only use it as an occasion to do evil. Whether I mislead by what I say or by what I choose not to say is of no import.

No, I am not a pacifist. I no more believe that all deliberate killing of other people is murder than I believe that all deception is lying.

That the origin of the universe is Mind is apparent from Genesis 1:1 “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth, taken together with Romans 11:33 “O the depth of the riches of the wisdom and of the knowledge of God” Now, knowledge is the conformity of the intellect to the thing known and this we call truth. So the good of the intellect is the knowledge of the truth. That God is truth, our Lord declares, where he says, “I am the way, the truth and the life” (John 14:6)

If everyone were obliged to disclose the whole truth to everyone that asked it, even those who intend to use it to harm oneself or others, that duty would often conflict with charity and both commands could not be obeyed simultaneously; but it is no breach of charity to frustrate the evil will of another; accordingly, we may for a sufficient cause, mislead another. At least, so many theologians teach, whereas, since the decree of Innocent XI dated 2 March 1679, no Catholic theologian has taught that a lie is ever permitted, this opinion being condemned as “at least scandalous and pernicious in practice.”

After all, if some lies, why not some murders?
Lies don’t take human lives, unless perhaps they’re lies in the course of war, which also takes lives. Are you a pacifist?

Of course. But we may not do evil that good may come of it. To say what we know to be false or do not believe to be true is always evil and incapable of justification; for, the origin of the universe is Mind and the good of Mind is truth, so wilfully to asert what is false can never serve any good end whatsoever, but is contrary to the supreme, original Good.

Of course we can use speech to deceive an evildoer, or, rather, as in the rather hackneyed examples I have given, to allow him to deceive himself.

It is precisely those theologians who believe the prohibition on lying to be absolute who have been so diligent in exploring the legitimate means of deceiving, without actually lying – and for obvious reasons. On the other hand, it is those who hold that lying is sometimes allowable, who tend to equate all deception with lying, which is to suggest that the commandments of God are impracticable for humankind, which is the end of all morality whatsoever. After all, if some lies, why not some murders? And such a position has its advocates, too.

But lying to save a life (or lives) is simply wrong. There is no proportion between the death of the body being averted and the death of the soul being incurred by lying, which is the thrust of St Augustine’s argument and of St Thomas’s, too.

I don’t think I have ever said anything about a six-week mark. I think you must have someone else in mind. At any rate, I don’t think “human life” is the decisive category here. A human spermatozoon is human life. So is a human skin cell. But, since I know you know that, I look forward to hearing you clarify your question.

Also, I don’t so much support abortion as favor the idea that there shouldn’t be legislation in this country prohibiting abortion, at least at early stages. I also happen to think that, generally speaking, abortions are regrettable, that attitudes that regard them too casually may be morally criticizeable, and that the legal availability of abortion services shouldn’t be regarded as providing a moral license to engage in irresponsible procreative behavior.

—

Ehrlich, I think you’re right in your emphasis on reasonable disagreement, though I think you might have made more out of Jacobson’s statement than was there. It’s hard to say since he hasn’t clarified what he meant.

But I’d like to hear more about how you’d answer Fred. You’ve said elsewhere that you think human life begins at the six-week mark, and you’ve offered your reasons and logic for believing so. What flows from this decision? Do you support abortion before six weeks and not after?

Michael PS, wrote:
A lie is wrong, because it is a statement at variance with the mind of the speaker, for truth is the correspondence between the signifier and the thing signified.
To lie is a misuse of the faculty of speech and a sin against Truth.

Thanks for answering. I don’t know if you want to go any further with this, or just suggest I pick up one of those manuals of moral theology, but it seems to me your answer just begs the question, and that you’re confusing truthful speech with what’s True because it’s good and beautiful, with what’s God’s created reality. God gave us speech to use for good ends, and surely to use it to deceive and thereby restrain evildoers is a good end.

Blake, the loving our enemies I was referring to in my post at 6:22 yesterday was what I mentioned in my first sentence there: acknowledging that they mean well, acknowledging to ourselves and to them that their intentions are good. Where they go wrong is in placing the welfare of women, as they see it, above God’s command to preserve life.

I think it’s clear that love entails empathy, and that when we empathize with people, when we’re willing to put ourselves in their shoes, we judge them less harshly because we understand them better. This doesn’t mean that we excuse or downplay their wrongdoing. It means, in the case of pro-choicers, that before we condemn their actions, we recognize that their actions are aimed at accomplishing a very real good. It means we forgo the emotional satisfaction of condemning them as people, as “murderers.” And of course if we do that, they are far more likely to listen to our criticism. Would you condemn a starving man stealing food in the same terms you’d condemn a well-to-do man for stealing caviar? Our criticism needs to be proportionate, or else people will just dismiss us.

The same is true with many “either/or” questions. Either team X is going to win the game or not. There’s nothing about this question which precludes reasonable disagreement about who is going to win.

If you really cannot see what room there might be for reasonable disagreement over abortion and abortion legislation, here’s what I suggest: find someone whose thoughtfulness and intelligence you deeply respect, and who is well read on the topic. Carefully articulate to this person your own views about abortion and abortion legislation, and whatever grounds you have for them. Then ask this person to direct you to some well thought out arguments that lead to a different conclusion, as well to point out the possible weaknesses in your own argument.

If you don’t know of anyone who can help you in this regard, shoot an email to any local philosophy department with a Ph.D. program. Hire a graduate student to give you a tutoring session in which you can present your argument and then have him or her critique it. This is what they’ve been trained to do. I’m sure someone would be willing to help.