Lies, Cons,and the American Way

[Immanuel Can]

I agree. But that begs the question of whether lying to the gestapo (or to entertain and enlighten readers) is immoral. If it is not...

It is. Because lying is always wrong.

Silence is not. Refusal to engage with immoral persons is not. Walking away is not. But joining them in their misdeeds, whatever they may be, is. And the problem is what it makes us into.

When we look for moral excuses for ourselves in the fallibility of others, we look in vain. It's on us what we do. It's not on us what they do.

I understand that this is your poition. But on what basis or principle do you base it? Obviously, if "lying is always wrong", your position is reasonable.

Well, of course, that IS the principle.

Lying is objectively wrong, because God is a God of truth, and lying is contrary to His character and intentions. We can't go deeper than that, because there is no "deeper." He's the Creator, which means that the very definition of what things are for is entirely a matter of His choosing.

Will that "persuade" everybody? Will it "persuade," in particular, those who don't believe in God? Likely not. Does it matter? Not at all. The objective truth is that that is the right answer; whether or not everybody is "persuaded" of the right answer is quite a different question.

We've already established, for purposes of the very question, that many people both lie and are deceived. If they lie about, or are deceived about, the answer to this question, it should not surprise us at all.

Do we need anybody's agreement? We might like it. It might be better for them. But it doesn't change the objective truth of the case whether or not they believe it.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Lying is objectively wrong, because God is a God of truth, and lying is contrary to His character and intentions.

I am interested in “lying” and “conning” because 1) the biological world (absent humans) is one where lying and conning (tricks, camouflage, deception, predation) are the very basis of life, and 2) because all this is reflected in our *human world*. Personally, I have concluded that *this is the way the world is* and I suspect it will continue on in that way.

The god who created *all this* cannot be the god you describe. If God is reflected in the biological world, and hence in man’s world, the reflected god cannot be (is not) as you say.

However, to imagine a God of pure truth and goodness has a use. If that god has no connection to our world it is a *lovely concept*.

What is really interesting though is how a man who well understands the way things really are chooses to get along in such a world as ours. Because even ‘the man of truth’ must play the world’s game. It cannot be avoided.

[Immanuel Can]

Lying is objectively wrong, because God is a God of truth, and lying is contrary to His character and intentions.

The god who created *all this* cannot be the god you describe.

Well, one might make that mistake, because in a sense, God didn't create "all this," if by "all this" you include the present faults, deceptions, errors and lies. The Bible says when God created the universe, it was "good." (Gen. 1) The rest is actually a product of the fallenness of this world, as a result of man's alienation from God, along with the commensurate alienation of man's environment from the purposes of the Creator.

But all of that's a subsequent choice made by us, not a feature of the world as it was created by God.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Am I clear in what I say and do you understand what I mean when I say that the world — the biological world, the world of nature — is a world of dishonesty, deception, feigned appearance, etc?

What do you — from your perspective as one who defines a thoroughly good and truthful god — say about that world?

along with the commensurate alienation of man's environment from the purposes of the Creator.

What do you mean by “commensurate alienation of man’s environment”?

[Alexiev]

It is. Because lying is always wrong.

Silence is not. Refusal to engage with immoral persons is not. Walking away is not. But joining them in their misdeeds, whatever they may be, is. And the problem is what it makes us into.

When we look for moral excuses for ourselves in the fallibility of others, we look in vain. It's on us what we do. It's not on us what they do.

I understand that this is your poition. But on what basis or principle do you base it? Obviously, if "lying is always wrong", your position is reasonable.

Well, of course, that IS the principle.

Lying is objectively wrong, because God is a God of truth, and lying is contrary to His character and intentions. We can't go deeper than that, because there is no "deeper." He's the Creator, which means that the very definition of what things are for is entirely a matter of His choosing.

Will that "persuade" everybody? Will it "persuade," in particular, those who don't believe in God? Likely not. Does it matter? Not at all. The objective truth is that that is the right answer; whether or not everybody is "persuaded" of the right answer is quite a different question.

We've already established, for purposes of the very question, that many people both lie and are deceived. If they lie about, or are deceived about, the answer to this question, it should not surprise us at all.

Do we need anybody's agreement? We might like it. It might be better for them. But it doesn't change the objective truth of the case whether or not they believe it.

So the principle is God's will. Fair enough. But the Ten Commandments don’t prohibit lying. They ban "false witness." If "love you neighbor as yourself" is a key principle, you might be required to lie to protect your neighbor.

I'll grant I'm no theologian (although I've read most of C.S. Lewis's and Chesterton's apologetics). But I'm not so sure the Christian God inevitably prohibits lying. Perhaps you can enlighten me. "Do unto others" suggests lying to protect others from injustice if you would want them to do the same for you.

[Alexiev]

One more point: St Paul wrote to the Corinthians that "love never faileth but whether there shall be prophesies they shall fail.... and whether there shall be knowledge it shall vanish away."

A lie, if it is a sin, is a sin against knowledge (i.e. knowing the truth). But doesn't love trump knowledge?

[Immanuel Can]

I understand that this is your poition. But on what basis or principle do you base it? Obviously, if "lying is always wrong", your position is reasonable.

Well, of course, that IS the principle.

Lying is objectively wrong, because God is a God of truth, and lying is contrary to His character and intentions. We can't go deeper than that, because there is no "deeper." He's the Creator, which means that the very definition of what things are for is entirely a matter of His choosing.

Will that "persuade" everybody? Will it "persuade," in particular, those who don't believe in God? Likely not. Does it matter? Not at all. The objective truth is that that is the right answer; whether or not everybody is "persuaded" of the right answer is quite a different question.

We've already established, for purposes of the very question, that many people both lie and are deceived. If they lie about, or are deceived about, the answer to this question, it should not surprise us at all.

Do we need anybody's agreement? We might like it. It might be better for them. But it doesn't change the objective truth of the case whether or not they believe it.

So the principle is God's will. Fair enough. But the Ten Commandments don’t prohibit lying. They ban "false witness."

The Ten Commandments are only a very small part of the Biblical commandments. Lying and deception are prohibited multiple times, in multiple ways.

If "love you neighbor as yourself" is a key principle, you might be required to lie to protect your neighbor.

As in what case?

I'll grant I'm no theologian (although I've read most of C.S. Lewis's and Chesterton's apologetics).

Those are good choices. Both men were highly intelligent, but wrote with a clarity that makes difficult ideas easy to digest. I would say that Orwell, in the secular realm, had a similar combination of clarity and profundity. And they all were fairly contemporary with each other, interestingly...Chesterton, then Lewis, then Orwell, but all overlapping significantly.

But I'm not so sure the Christian God inevitably prohibits lying. Perhaps you can enlighten me.

How interested in that are you? I ask because I could say quite a lot about that subject.

I think there's lots of ways to get at that. One is that God Himself does not lie (Heb. 6:18). God is light, and light reveals truth (1 John 1:5). His followers are commanded to "walk in and proclaim the truth" (2 Cor. 4:2). Jesus said, "I am the Truth..." (John 14:6), Satan is called, "the Father of Lies" (John 8:44), "Lying lips are an abomination to the Lord "(Prov. 12:22), "...he who declares lies will perish..." (Prov. 19:9). There's a whole ton on this in Scripture...do I need to show you more? Probably not, right?

"Do unto others" suggests lying to protect others from injustice if you would want them to do the same for you.

I think I'll need to see your case. I'm not sure you can suggest a scenario in which it's morally requisite to tell a lie. But I'm open to hearing one, if you've got one.

[LuckyR]

Oh, not at all. There are quite a lot of people who advocate it, and some even consider it meritorious.

The radicals who, this morning, launched a vicious attack on Israel yelling "Allahu akbar" seem to think their killings are highly virtuous. And in the West, we routinely dignify the murder of innocents by calling it "choice."

Ok, but my point is: for those who do, they can often find a particular individual in a particular situation which "violates" their code.

Perhaps. But really, what is that to you and I?

If we have opportunity, we may wish to prevent such violations of morality. If we do not, we cannot. But either way, the thing we really have to attend to is not who THEY are being, but the persons YOU and I are being. It is to the care of our own souls that we must attend first. Nothing is morally achieved by our joining the corrupt in their corruption.

Oh, I'm not saying that these "violations" are to be avoided as evidence of moral failure. I'm saying that simple rules do not (for most folks) accommodate the various nuances, details and circumstances common in Real Life that lead to (legitimate) exceptions to rules of all types, including moral codes.

[Alexiev]

How interested in that are you? I ask because I could say quite a lot about that subject.

I think there's lots of ways to get at that. One is that God Himself does not lie (Heb. 6:18). God is light, and light reveals truth (1 John 1:5). His followers are commanded to "walk in and proclaim the truth" (2 Cor. 4:2). Jesus said, "I am the Truth..." (John 14:6), Satan is called, "the Father of Lies" (John 8:44), "Lying lips are an abomination to the Lord "(Prov. 12:22), "...he who declares lies will perish..." (Prov. 19:9). There's a whole ton on this in Scripture...do I need to show you more? Probably not, right?

"Do unto others" suggests lying to protect others from injustice if you would want them to do the same for you.

I think I'll need to see your case. I'm not sure you can suggest a scenario in which it's morally requisite to tell a lie. But I'm open to hearing one, if you've got one.

If the gestapo ask,"Do you know where the Jews are hiding" you can either say yes (the truth), no (a lie) or I'm not saying (also a potential lie, because of torture and truth serum). No is the obviously best response, producing the optimal result. It's what you would want others to do for you, too.

[Immanuel Can]

Ok, but my point is: for those who do, they can often find a particular individual in a particular situation which "violates" their code.

Perhaps. But really, what is that to you and I?

If we have opportunity, we may wish to prevent such violations of morality. If we do not, we cannot. But either way, the thing we really have to attend to is not who THEY are being, but the persons YOU and I are being. It is to the care of our own souls that we must attend first. Nothing is morally achieved by our joining the corrupt in their corruption.

Oh, I'm not saying that these "violations" are to be avoided as evidence of moral failure.

Well, that's what they are. A "violation," by definition, is a "failure" to follow a rule. Of course, it may also be a "decision" not to follow a rule. But it's certainly a species of moral failure, if the rule in question is, itself, morally imperative.

I'm saying that simple rules do not (for most folks) accommodate the various nuances, details and circumstances common in Real Life that lead to (legitimate) exceptions to rules of all types, including moral codes.

Well, this is the difference between obedience to a commandment and obedience to the spirit of the commandment. A commandment itself does not necessarily speak to specifics; instead, it gives a general axiom, a compass point toward which decisions must be made. But once the axiom is given, one is still obligated to figure out, in the hurly-burly of real life circumtances, what is the best way to honour that axiom.

So, for example, if we take the axiom, "It is wrong to lie," we still need to figure out what constitutes a "lie," and how we can legitimately avoid telling one. So we might puzzle over whether such marginal cases as allowing an error to persist, or refusing to speak or to offer information can be construed as "lying." However, what we need not be in doubt about is the moral direction that should instruct our judgment: namely, that to lie is wrong.

And then there is certainly a hierarchy of moral values, as well. To love one's friends is a universal value; but what to do when one's family comes into conflict with one's friends? Then, one often has to make a decision about which value is to be prioritized, in which circumstance, and why. And if one doesn't have a given hierarchy of values, that's impossible to do.

But "exceptions" are quite a different thing. An "exception" would imply that it's okay to do immoral things under certain circumstances. So again, you'd probably have to give me a specific case before I could puzzle out what the right values would be, and what the right consequent action would be. Got one?

[Immanuel Can]

How interested in that are you? I ask because I could say quite a lot about that subject.

I think there's lots of ways to get at that. One is that God Himself does not lie (Heb. 6:18). God is light, and light reveals truth (1 John 1:5). His followers are commanded to "walk in and proclaim the truth" (2 Cor. 4:2). Jesus said, "I am the Truth..." (John 14:6), Satan is called, "the Father of Lies" (John 8:44), "Lying lips are an abomination to the Lord "(Prov. 12:22), "...he who declares lies will perish..." (Prov. 19:9). There's a whole ton on this in Scripture...do I need to show you more? Probably not, right?

"Do unto others" suggests lying to protect others from injustice if you would want them to do the same for you.

I think I'll need to see your case. I'm not sure you can suggest a scenario in which it's morally requisite to tell a lie. But I'm open to hearing one, if you've got one.

If the gestapo ask,"Do you know where the Jews are hiding" you can either say yes (the truth), no (a lie) or I'm not saying (also a potential lie, because of torture and truth serum). No is the obviously best response, producing the optimal result. It's what you would want others to do for you, too.

I would say nothing at all. In that way, I do not lie. But I also do not assist the Gestapo.

Now, if they were to apply something like a "truth serum," (which don't work the way fiction imagines they do), and they were to so drug me that I no longer had moral judgment, I might accidentally tell them; but in such a case, a lie would not have helped anyway, and the overriding concern is gone, because I'm not morally culpable for something that was forced out of me against my will.

The thing is, though, that moral axioms only really come into play when you have strong incentives to be immoral. And such is the case you're suggesting. If the only time I tell the truth is when it's easy to tell the truth, then how committed to truth am I? But if I stand for the truth when nobody else will, and even against my own apparent "best interests," then you can be sure I'm a truth-lover.

[Walker]

Is lying immoral? If so, would it be immoral to lie to protect a friend, or lie to the Gestapo about where the Jews are hiding? If these lies are acceptable, doesn't that show that it is not lying ipso facto that is immoral, but some result that comes from lying? Any opinions?

The moral issue is not about lying. The issue is about telling the truth. The truth is precious and must be protected from evil, as must all precious things.* The truth is self-protected, but it is reckless to expose the truth to evil, for among evil's many specialties is twisting the truth.

The moral action is to tell the truth to those who deserve the truth.

Example: a stranger walks up to you on the street and asks for your personal numbers, and does not tell you why. Does this person deserve the truth? No, he does not. He could be evil, you don't know. And, if the personal numbers are sensitive enough to cause you or others harm, giving this person the truth would be immoral.

Your Example: The Gestapo asks you where the Jews are hiding. Do they deserve the truth? No, they do not. Therefore, giving the Gestapo that information would be immoral.
(As an aside to that: If the Gestapo gives you a Sophie’s Choice, then you have no choice but to take it and go to hell now, and now, and now, and finding cause for the Sophie's Choice will not deliver you from hell.)

Telling the truth to those who do not deserve the truth, is immoral, when the measure is death and its unnecessary risk.


* Example: A faceless centralized state authority makes it their mission to find out what is precious to Winston Smith, then straps a rat cage to his face and psychologically coerces him to betray what is precious.

[Alexiev]

I would say nothing at all. In that way, I do not lie. But I also do not assist the Gestapo.

Now, if they were to apply something like a "truth serum," (which don't work the way fiction imagines they do), and they were to so drug me that I no longer had moral judgment, I might accidentally tell them; but in such a case, a lie would not have helped anyway, and the overriding concern is gone, because I'm not morally culpable for something that was forced out of me against my will.

The thing is, though, that moral axioms only really come into play when you have strong incentives to be immoral. And such is the case you're suggesting. If the only time I tell the truth is when it's easy to tell the truth, then how committed to truth am I? But if I stand for the truth when nobody else will, and even against my own apparent "best interests," then you can be sure I'm a truth-lover.

When faced with two bad alternatives, sometimes one must choose one of them. In addition, you haven't responded to the example of the writer who ficitonalizes a story which is presented as true to entertain, enlighten snd elucidate.

Since you recommend Orwell, perhaps you have read his"Reflections on Gandhi". Gandhi refused to have sex with his wife because he felt that close attachments create prejudices which prevent one from loving and supporting everyone equally. He was right. But (Orwell points out) most of us don't aspire to sainthood. For us love means favoring one person over others.

Perhaps the Saint should refrain from lying and aspire to perfection. The rest of us should muddle through as best we can, loving our neighbors as ourselves, and enhancing our personal anecdotes to entertain, amuse and inspire them. We should think not only about what is best for OUR souls, but also about what promotes happiness and well-being for others. We'll leave it to the saints to worry about their sanctity, and concentrate on more earthly benefits for us and for our fellow humans.

[Alexiev]

Is lying immoral? If so, would it be immoral to lie to protect a friend, or lie to the Gestapo about where the Jews are hiding? If these lies are acceptable, doesn't that show that it is not lying ipso facto that is immoral, but some result that comes from lying? Any opinions?

The moral issue is not about lying. The issue is about telling the truth. The truth is precious and must be protected from evil, as must all precious things.* The truth is self-protected, but it is reckless to expose the truth to evil, for among evil's many specialties is twisting the truth.

The moral action is to tell the truth to those who deserve the truth.

Example: a stranger walks up to you on the street and asks for your personal numbers, and does not tell you why. Does this person deserve the truth? No, he does not. He could be evil, you don't know. And, if the personal numbers are sensitive enough to cause you or others harm, giving this person the truth would be immoral.

Your Example: The Gestapo asks you where the Jews are hiding. Do they deserve the truth? No, they do not. Therefore, giving the Gestapo that information would be immoral.
(As an aside to that: If the Gestapo gives you a Sophie’s Choice, then you have no choice but to take it and go to hell now, and now, and now, and finding cause for the Sophie's Choice will not deliver you from hell.)

Telling the truth to those who do not deserve the truth, is immoral, when the measure is death and its unnecessary risk.


* Example: A faceless centralized state authority makes it their mission to find out what is precious to Winston Smith, then straps a rat cage to his face and psychologically coerces him to betray what is precious.

According to Keats, "Beauty is truth, truth beauty. .That is all ye know on earth, and all ye need to know."

Keats gleaned this lesson fron etchings on a Grecian urn. The youth who can never quite kiss his beloved is frozen in time. "Heard melodies are sweet but those unheard are sweeter, Therefore, ye sweet pipes, play on, not to the sensual ear, but more endeared, pipe to the spirit ditties of no tone."

The events depicted and frozen on the urn probably never happened. Are they "lies"? Are they true because they are beautiful? Does it matter? Or is it the spirit ditties that matter? Is the benign spinner of tall tales creating truth because his fabrications are beautiful? Is the father lying to drug dealers who might murder his son discovering some deeper truth through love?

The rule oriented notion that lies are always wicked because "Satan is the father of lues" seems not only simplistic, but also contradictory to the Christan ethos.

[Immanuel Can]

...you haven't responded to the example of the writer who ficitonalizes a story which is presented as true to entertain, enlighten snd elucidate.

I must have missed that part of the discussion: I don't think you said it to me. Can you point me to where you said it, so I can speak about it?

Perhaps the Saint should refrain from lying and aspire to perfection.

Is "perfection" required in order not to lie? I don't think so. All one really needs is a commitment to truth. Honest errors are not, per se, lies. Lies involve deliberate deception; so refraining from deliberate deception would be good enough to answer the "Thou shalt not lie" bell.

We should think not only about what is best for OUR souls, but also about what promotes happiness and well-being for others.

Why not both?

I suggest that the person who gives no attention to the state of his soul cannot possibly do very much good for the well-being of others.