Generally speaking, lying is when we present something as being true that is not actually true. And generally speaking, lying is a sin. But not every lie is a sin. Sometimes lying can be our moral obligation. Consider the scenario in which your moral obligation to protect life is pitted against your moral obligation to tell the truth. Protecting life is the weightier moral imperative of the two, and thus lying to protect that life would be the right thing to do. This happened frequently in Nazi Germany when those who harbored Jews lied to Nazi officers to protect the Jews’ lives.
While most people recognize the above as a morally acceptable lie (if not morally obligatory), are there other instances in which lying is morally acceptable, particularly when telling the truth is not superseded by a higher moral law?
A common example of a lie that most people would deem to be morally acceptable is the acknowledgement we give that we have read the terms and conditions. Whenever you sign up for a service or download an app, you’ll be presented with the terms and conditions and asked to verify that you have read those terms and conditions before proceeding to the next step. Virtually no one actually reads them, and yet we all check the box that we have done so. Is that lying? Technically speaking, yes. It is not true that we have read the terms and conditions, and yet we verify that we have. But would anyone actually consider this to be a lie? No. It’s understood that companies ask us to verify that we have read this information for their own legal protection – not because they actually want or need us to read the terms and conditions.
Or consider the following scenario: You are planning a surprise party for a family member. In order to keep it a secret, you have to lie about where you are going, what you have in the bag, what you spent your money on, etc. Are these lies morally justified given the fact that they are for a good purpose? I think most people would say so. Indeed, when the person for whom the party is being thrown learns that they were told untruths in order to keep the party a surprise, do they respond, “I can’t believe you lied to me!”? No, they do not think you have done anything wrong.
If lying can be justified if it serves a good purpose, however, would a husband be justified in lying to his wife about their financial situation, if his purpose for doing so was good (e.g. to prevent her from worrying)? If not, what is the difference between this situation and the former? I have one in mind, but I’m interested in hearing your thoughts on this.
What about when your wife asks you if you think she is fat, or if a particular dress makes her look fat? What about when someone asks you what you think of their new shoes (particularly when you know they don’t want your honest opinion, but simply want you to affirm what they already believe about them—that they are wonderful!), and you don’t like them? Is it ok to lie to them in order to spare their feelings, to meet their expectations, or to avoid a conflict? Is it more important to be truthful by giving your honest opinion, or to tell them what they want to hear?
Finally, consider the common American greeting: “How are you doing?” In our culture this is virtually equivalent to “hello.” When I pass by my coworkers in the morning and they say “How are you doing?” I do not respond with, “Actually, I’m glad you asked. I’m doing horrible. Let me tell you what’s going on in my life.” No, I respond by saying, “I’m doing good. How are you doing?” In fact, I respond this way even if my life is falling apart at the seams. And so do you! Is this lying? After all, you are presenting something as being true which is actually not. I am persuaded that while this is a lie by definition, it is morally benign for at least two reasons.
First, the person who says this is usually not expecting an honest answer, nor concerned about your actual state of affairs (evident by the fact that they say this as they are passing you in the hall). Indeed, it is usually not conceived as a question at all, but rather a statement. It is a form of greeting, not a genuine inquiry. Indeed, if I were to respond truthfully, telling them how I am really doing, they would probably be shocked (and in some cases, annoyed). They are not expecting, or in some cases even desiring an honest answer to that question. They are expecting to hear “I’m doing fine. How are you?”, to which they will respond “Good, thanks” and then either go on their merry way, or begin a conversation with you. I don’t think most people, if at some later point found out you were actually going through hell, would look back on your answer and say, “I can’t believe he lied to me!” Why? Because they understand that “I’m doing good. How are you?” is just another way of saying “hello.”
You may be saying, yes, but some people actually do want to know how we are doing. Indeed. And we can usually tell the difference. It may be in the way they say it (voice inflection, body movements, etc), or — as has happened to me on several occasions — when I respond, “Fine,” they’ll ask me a second time, “How are you really doing.” That lets me know that they are offering more than a greeting; they are inquiring into my welfare.
The second reason I think it is morally benign to lie about your actual condition when someone asks you, “How are you doing?”, is that we are not compelled to divulge the details of our lives to everyone who asks us, even if they want an honest answer. Indeed, in many cases I may not want that person knowing how I am really doing, or the details of my life. Or maybe we would ordinarily give an honest answer to the person who asks us, but because we are not yet ready to divulge the details of what is going on, we say “I’m doing fine.” Indeed, I’ve been in this situation with my closest friends and family. There have been situations I am going through in which I don’t know heads from tails, and until I’ve figured some things out, I don’t want anyone else to know what is going on. When my friends or family later learn of what was going on, they do not respond, “I can’t believe Jason lied to me. He told me he was doing good, when he really wasn’t.” People understand that we may not want to, or be ready to divulge our actual state of affairs, and thus do hold us morally culpable for a lie.
What are your thoughts on this? Can you think of any other examples, or counter-examples?
June 10, 2009 at 12:56 am
I believe that regardless of the situation, lying is wrong. Therefore in the case of the surprise party, I would not agree with that case being valid. I realise I may be a minority in that but there we go.
I do agree that in Nazi germany it was ok as it is the lesser of two sins.
Regardless whether lying hurts someone or not, it is still morally wrong. When people ask whether they look fat? I answer tactfully but thruthful as I answer the question they “meant” to ask (Does this look good on me or not?).
Also, friends tend not to ask me about shoes etc as I tell them the truth. I now have to say certain things like “I don’t like them, but they suit you” to which they are happy.
In the how are you doing greeting. Thats the harder one. I would say you should be honest and either say good (if you are) or “not so good, but it’ll be ok” if you’re not but don’t want to talk.
Thats my 2 cents worth anyway! 🙂
LikeLike
June 10, 2009 at 3:54 pm
Hello Jason:
I’m glad Scott replied to this question. With regard to Nazi Germany he said, “…it was ok as it is the lesser of two sins.” I don’t know how many times you have put forth the assertion that there are times when lying is not a “sin,” but my guess is that his belief that lying is always a sin, though it may be the lesser sin, will be by far the view of the majority. I base this on my own personal experience of asking this question to groups of people and using Nazi Germany as an example.
That said, I agree with you Jason, lying to Germans to save the life of innocent Jews, “No, there are no Jews in my house,” would not be a sin. But people by far an large have a difficult time with this concept.
I have asked the same groups the following question (and there were those who were irritated that I would even suggest that there were times when lying would not be a sin). If in Nazi Germany I was hiding several Jewish children and the Nazi’s knocked on my door looking for them and insisted on searching my home, and I knew they would be found, would it be a sin for me to protect the lives of the children by killing the Nazi police. The answer is always “no” because it would be self defense (of the children and myself). If you’re wondering where I’m going with this, on further questioning it is almost always the case that people believed it would not be a sin to kill in order to protect the children, but it would be a sin to lie to protect the children (though, as did Scott, many said they would lie even though it was a sin).
Some would call the idea that the lying would not be a sin situational ethics, or proportionalism, or the like. I can understand why many might think this at first. However, even after explaining I do not change most people’s view of this. They can not seem to get a hold of the idea that the ethic does not change based on the situation, but that the unchanging ethic actually tells us how to react in different situations.
Now, they can see that killing a Nazi who simply knocked on the door as murder, but killing the same Nazi to protect the children is self defense. They understand that the motive for killing is the difference in killing, and thus whether it is morally right or wrong to do so. However, most do not see that motive is also a factor in whether lying is a sin or not. I think most people do see protecting the children is a moral imperative, but they say they will commit the “lesser of two sins” to protect the children. Protecting innocent life is always lawful under the law, that is the ethic upon which the morality of our actions are based.
Mark
LikeLike
June 10, 2009 at 5:02 pm
Scott,
You seem to hold to the “lesser evil” view of moral conflict: When two moral absolutes conflict, we are morally obligated to violate the lesser of the two, and then repent afterward. In contrast, the greater good view holds that in the same situation, we are morally obligated to violate the lesser of the two, but in doing so we have not sinned. I think the latter is much more sound as a moral theory. Indeed, when the Egyptian women lied to save the Hebrew children, they were not condemned, but rather praised as having done something good. Besides, how could God allow situations in which moral absolutes conflict, and we are forced to sin?
I’m with you on the “how do I look” line. I tell people the truth, albeit tactfully.
I am shocked that you wouldn’t agree on the surprise party. That one seems obvious to me.
How about a new one? Have you ever left a light on in the house so as to give the appearance that you are home (to ward off possible thieves), when in fact you are not? That is a form of lying. But I don’t think anyone would consider it a moral wrong. Then again, you considered covering your tracks for a surprise party wrong, so I could be wrong on this one.
As for “how are you doing,” I disagree. I won’t elaborate as I’ve already done so in the post. But I think your response is fine. My only problem is that your suggested response can open up the “c’mon, tell me what’s going on” conversation, and we may not want to get into that. I don’t think we have to sacrifice our privacy just because someone makes a statement that sounds like a question (when they don’t mean it as such). Well, it looks like I have elaborated after all. 🙂
Jason
LikeLike
June 11, 2009 at 12:32 am
Well now, I’m jolly well going to have to think on this one!
Thanks Mark for your thoughts and Jason for elaborating slightly more. To think that at times “lying” might not be a sin.
Hmm, not heard it put the way you guys have done.
I’ll comment later to tell whether I changed my mind or not……….
LikeLike
June 11, 2009 at 12:47 am
Well that took a long time didn’t it!! Congratulations and thanks!
I’ve changed my mind!! It was the Egyptian women that persuaded me in the end, as I always thought that was an odd scenario. Also, I got thinking of the light on in the house which moved to playing poker (which I do)and bluffing.
I wonder though whether there could be a clear cut statement for all scenarios such as “It is fine to lie when the alternative leads one to sin, or when lying is expected by the person being lied to”. I believe that statement allows the surprise party lying and poker bluffing (as they expect to be lied to) as well as protecting lives (for to not do so facilitates sin).
LikeLike
June 11, 2009 at 1:10 am
Ok, last post before other people post! (its 9:00am BST here!)
Just been conversing with a friend. They reckon that lying as a sin comes to the commandment “Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour” and the jewish custom is that you are allowed to break one of the commandments if by not doing so breaks one higher up.
This definition implies that lying in poker or leaving a light on doesn’t become defined as lying. Also, it is possible to deceive someone while only telling the truth which would become a sin.
LikeLike
June 11, 2009 at 10:37 am
Scott,
I feel your shock. I remember when my college professor first brought this issue up to the class. It was before I learned about moral philosophy and the issue of conflicting moral absolutes, and to be honest, I thought he was a sinner! I couldn’t believe he thought lying could ever be morally benign.
I didn’t think about poker. Good one.
I like your statement, “It is fine to lie when the alternative leads one to sin, or when lying is expected by the person being lied to.”
As for your friend, it sounds like he espouses to the greater good view.
Jason
LikeLike
June 11, 2009 at 12:40 pm
What scriptural principle are you relying upon when you say lying is circumstantially “not wrong”?
The Hebrew and Greek definitions are: to speak falsely, to fabricate, and to make a false statement.
Romans 12
17. Recompense to no man evil for evil. Provide things honest in the sight of all men.
Ephesians 4
15. But speaking the truth in love, may grow up into him in all things, which is the head, even Christ:
Colossians 3
9. Lie not one to another, seeing that ye have put off the old man with his deeds;
10. And have put on the new man, which is renewed in knowledge after the image of him that created him:
I John 2
21. I have not written unto you because ye know not the truth, but because ye know it, and that no lie is of the truth.
Proverbs 13
5. A righteous man hateth lying: but a wicked man is loathsome, and cometh to shame.
Proverbs 12
22. Lying lips are abomination to the LORD: but they that deal truly are his delight.
In answer to most of the scenarios you offer, I would say it is always wrong to lie. There are, however, a couple of situations you mention which prompt further discussion.
I have polled quite a few people about the “surprise birthday” and while most of them said such deception was not lying, several people were adamant that it was. The fallacy here, of course, is ad populum. It is immaterial what people, or the majority thereof, think about this scenario. If you make a false statement, you have lied. One is not authorized to change word definitions in order to excuse behavior.
That said, a misleading statement is not necessarily a false statement. One can speak the truth and leave out relevant information. Since it is impossible for God to lie, what is one to make of the following?
I Samuel 16
2. And Samuel said, How can I go? if Saul hear it, he will kill me. And the LORD said, Take an heifer with thee, and say, I am come to sacrifice to the LORD.
Is God telling Samuel to lie? Of course not. The Bible tells us Samuel did what the Lord instructed him to do, which included offering a sacrifice. If Saul had asked what his mission was, Samuel would have truthfully informed him of his intended sacrifice. Leaving out information may mislead, but, according to Scripture, it is not lying.
The other situation you mention is our obligation to prevent greater harm. Is it “not wrong” to lie if a life is saved because of the lie? Commission of the act does not sanction the act. I might lie to save a life (if there is no other option), but that doesn’t mean lying is “not wrong.” The Bible does not directly sanction telling a deliberate falsehood, so it appears incorrect to say lying, in any circumstance, is “not wrong.”
Secular law recognizes circumstances can mitigate criminal acts. Does the Law of Christ contain the same principle? Transgression always requires confession and repentance. Even sins of ignorance require sacrifice and repentance upon the knowledge thereof. Circumstances do not make sinful acts righteous, so even if there is a scriptural principle which mitigates sinful acts, it is incorrect to say those acts are not sinful (or wrong).
Christ mentioned two circumstances which have been used to justify technical infractions to serve a greater need: David and his men eating bread reserved for priests, and the priesthood working on the Sabbath (Matthew 12:1-8).
But a closer examination of Matthew 12 demonstrates otherwise. Jesus said, “Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven…” (Mt. 5:19). Neither Ahimelech sinned by giving bread, nor did David sin by eating it; and the priests did not sin by working on the Sabbath. Christ was not saying their actions were unlawful, per se; He was condemning the hypocrisy of the Pharisees who condoned their actions while condemning the apostles. In other words, He rebuked them by essentially saying, “If your interpretation of the Law is correct, then the priests, David and Ahimelech sinned by their actions.” That their deeds were lawful is further illustrated by verses 9-13. Christ healed a man with a withered hand and demonstrated is it lawful to do well on the Sabbath days. Consequently, there is no mitigation principle in Matthew 12.
In closing, you justify lying by citing the Hebrew midwives’ protection of Israeli babies by misleading Pharaoh. As aforementioned, a misleading statement isn’t necessarily a lie, else God is a liar (Hebrews 6:18). This is the critical passage:
Exodus 1
16. And he said, When ye do the office of a midwife to the Hebrew women, and see them upon the stools; if it be a son, then ye shall kill him: but if it be a daughter, then she shall live.
17. But the midwives feared God, and did not as the king of Egypt commanded them, but saved the men children alive.
18. And the king of Egypt called for the midwives, and said unto them, Why have ye done this thing, and have saved the men children alive?
19. And the midwives said unto Pharaoh, Because the Hebrew women are not as the Egyptian women; for they are lively, and are delivered ere the midwives come in unto them.
We learn from this passage that the midwives disobeyed pharaoh by not killing newborn Hebrew boys. When the king called them to account, they replied as recorded in verse 19. Where does it say they lied to pharaoh? Did he not accept their explanation? If Hebrew women were indeed “lively” and delivered before the midwives came, what falsehood is stated? It could very well be the case that the midwives were either deliberately slow in performing their duties or their servants were instructed to delay their services to enable the Hebrew women to give birth prior to their arrival. Lively women and slow midwives ensure live births. To insist they lied is a classic case of eisegesis.
Again, what is your biblical argument for condoning lying?
LikeLike
June 11, 2009 at 2:46 pm
Mark,
I think you are right. Most people would consider lying to the Nazi’s to be a sin, albeit a justified one. Of course, you and I both know truth isn’t decided by what the majority of people think. I think the majority’s conclusion is bad moral philosophy.
The response you get to the question of killing vs. lying to the Nazis is an interesting one. I think it just goes to show how little thought people give to these moral challenges.
You are right, people confuse this with moral relativism or situation ethics, but it’s not. In moral relativism the person determines what is the right thing to do, whereas what I (and most moral philosophers of the absolutists strip propose) is that the situation determined which objective moral value we follow.
Jason
LikeLike
June 11, 2009 at 3:36 pm
Your stated position is substantively the position of a situational ethicist. According to Webster, situation ethics is “a system of ethics by which acts are judged within their contexts instead of by categorical principles.” Thus, the situation determines the morality of the act. Lying is or isn’t wrong depending upon the situation. The issue isn’t choosing a preferential moral value; it is whether it is okay to lie. Are there situations which allow fornication? How about murder?
What do you do if you must choose between your unborn child and your wife? What if a doctor tells you it’s one or the other? Is murder then “not wrong”? An innocent life will be murdered — so, which one?
You say truth isn’t decided by majority opinion, and I agree. But truth isn’t decided by minority opinion either (you are not arguing that). It appears your proof amounts to your insistence that you are right.
If lying is righteous when saving a life, why stop with life? What about reputation, feelings, etc. Where does one stop? Every line you draw will be an arbitrary one. You evince an every-man-for-himself principle that cannot stop with Nazis. For absolutists, there are difficult moral choices and circumstances may force us to neglect one in favor of another; but that does not imply a denial of wrong.
LikeLike
June 11, 2009 at 3:53 pm
Scalia,
How am I condoning lying? Generally speaking lying is wrong, but there are times in which it is morally benign (poker, surprise party), or even morally obligatory (hiding Jews). I am no more condoning lying by arguing that there are times in which telling a falsehood is not a moral wrong, than I condone killing by pointing out that there are circumstances in which killing another human being is not morally wrong. There are times in which killing is morally acceptable, as well as lying. We’ve been discussing what those situations are. I think Scott summed it up nicely: “It is fine to lie when the alternative leads one to sin, or when lying is expected by the person being lied to.”
There are many things like this when it comes to morality. It’s often the case that what is moral is not entailed in the act itself, but in the motive or intent. Take cutting. If I asked you if it was wrong to take a knife and cut your neighbor’s heart out, you would probably say yes. But what if you were a doctor doing it to save her life, rather than a murderer doing it to harm her? That changes the moral character of the act. In both cases the act is the same. Only the purpose/intention is different, and that is where the moral issue lies. And yet no one would accuse me of saying I am condoning cutting people’s hearts out! So why do you accuse me of condoning lying when I make the same point? When it comes to determining whether it is wrong to lie, there are other moral considerations that come into play other than just the act itself.
We seem to agree that one is obligated to lie when the moral obligation to tell the truth conflicts with a higher moral law. We simply disagree as to whether or not lying in such circumstances is a sin. I argue that it is not. We have not committed the lesser evil, but performed the greater good. There are two problems I have with your view. First, it blames one for that which is unavoidable. If you can’t escape moral conflicts in a fallen world, how can God hold us accountable when we must break His laws?
Secondly, the lesser evil view results in the absurd conclusion that in conflict situations one has a moral duty to do that which is immoral. This boils down to claiming that God commands for us to sin in conflict situations, and then repent for our obedience to His command. That makes no sense.
The midwives lied because it wasn’t true that the Hebrew women were giving birth prior to the midwives’ arrival. Verse 17 says they “saved the men children alive.” When? While helping the women give birth, not at some time afterward. It was an active role they took, not a passive one.
Jason
LikeLike
June 11, 2009 at 4:10 pm
Scalia,
One more time. What I am advancing is a standard position by Christian ethicists who believe in objective, moral values. It has no relationship to moral relativism or situation ethics. According to moral relativism, moral choices are determined by the individual in the moral situation, whereas according to moral absolutists, moral choices are determined by the situation itself. In other words, moral relativism holds that moral rules can differ from person to person in identical circumstances, whereas moral absolutism holds that moral rules apply equally to everyone in identical circumstances. As long as the circumstance is the same, the same moral rule applies to any individual who is in it. As Dennis Prager notes, moral absolutists recognize that “an act that is wrong is wrong for everyone in the same situation, but almost no act is wrong in every situation. Sexual intercourse in marriage is sacred; when violently coerced, it is rape.”
Given the fact that I have given reason after reason supporting my position, it is highly disingenuous of you to say “it appears your proof amounts to your insistence that you are right.”
Your last paragraph is an example of the slippery slope fallacy. While it is wrong to kill human beings, there are exceptions to this such as capital punishment. Your argument is like saying, “Well, if we can kill people for having killed another human being, why stop there. Why can’t we kill our parents, or our boss?” You act as though there are not clear explanations as to why telling a non-truth is morally acceptable in certain situations, while it is not in others. That is simply not true. A principle has been developed, and clearly articulated.
Jason
LikeLike
June 12, 2009 at 6:59 am
Scalia:
Even Jewish law needed interpretation, and Jesus interpreted law Himself. I agree that there are moral absolutes, and I agree that both killing and lying are generally wrong. With killing, we have homicide, the taking of a human life. With lying, the telling of a falsehood, deception, untruth, purposely misleading…and most people would say that you can lie by commission and omission.
That said, the law has more than just the letter, but the spirit, i.e. the spirit of the law. God’s laws are not arbitrary, and there are weightier matters of the law just as there are capital crimes and non-capital crimes.
I used homicide as an example. Let’s say there is a man named Joe in my house. I purposely shoot and kill Joe. Have I committed a crime? Have I sinned? I hope you say you don’t know the answer to either question because you don’t know the “situation.” You don’t know all of the circumstances involved. Because you can’t answer the question does that mean you ascribe to situation ethics? I will assume that your answer is “no.” But why? Because you need more facts to determine the motive/reason for the killing.
So on the one hand Joe has a half million dollars and I decided I want it with no strings or Joe attached. I shoot and kill Joe, and take the money.
Or, a man comes into my house through the window apparently to rob my home and perhaps harm my family. I tell him to stop. He fires a gun at me but misses. I return fire and kill the intruder. His name is Joe.
In both instances we have the same people, same house. In both instances I have the same firearm, I fire the same bullet, it strikes Joe in the same place, and he dies just the same in both instances. However, the first instance is clearly murder. The second is clearly justifiable homicide. And I would say that would be true according to both Biblical and civil law. Why the difference? What is the difference? The difference is the motive and reason for the killing. There is no difference in action, mechanics if you will, from the moment the gun is aimed and fired. Again, the only difference is motive and reason, and these exist within the hearts of men, a motive is not an action. The point here is that just as within our criminal laws it is usually necessary to prove motive and intent in order to prove a crime, so with God’s law.
Additionally, you must keep in mind that protecting and saving innocent life is an underlying principle of the law as well.
11 Rescue those who are unjustly sentenced to death; don’t stand back and let them die. 12 Don’t try to avoid responsibility by saying you didn’t know about it. For God knows all hearts, and he sees you. He keeps watch over your soul, and he knows you knew! And he will judge all people according to what they have done. (Prov. 24:11-12)
When David and his companions ate the consecrated bread it would have generally been a sin, but because of the “situation,” i.e. the circumstance, the welfare of David and his men outweighed the law concerning the consecrated bread because their welfare was the weightier matter. You wrote concerning this matter:
“Christ was not saying their actions were unlawful, per se; He was condemning the hypocrisy of the Pharisees who condoned their actions while condemning the apostles.”
But Jesus said:
25 And he said to them, Have you never read what David did, when he was in need and was hungry, he and those who were with him: 26 how he entered the house of God, in the time of Abiathar the high priest, and ate the bread of the Presence, which it is not lawful for any but the priests to eat, and also gave it to those who were with him? 27 And he said to them, The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath. 28 So the Son of Man is lord even of the Sabbath. (Mk 2:25-28)
Jesus did say what David did was unlawful, but clearly he was not saying David sinned. In fact, in this case Jesus is making clear that the weightier matter (their well being) outweighed the lesser matter and in fact it was a “good thing” that they ate. Likewise, there would have been nothing wrong with Jesus and His disciples taking enough grain to eat any other day of the week (it wasn’t considered stealing), but the Pharisees were accusing them of “gathering” on the Sabbath. Jesus again made it clear that the well being of the people outweighed the Sabbath ordinance in these circumstances. And this is certainly not relativism as Jason has pointed out. With regard to the midwives in Exodus, again, it is clear they lied:
15 Then the king of Egypt said to the Hebrew midwives, one of whom was named Shiphrah and the other Puah, 16 When you serve as midwife to the Hebrew women and see them on the birthstool, if it is a son, you shall kill him, but if it is a daughter, she shall live. 17 But the midwives feared God and did not do as the king of Egypt commanded them, but let the male children live. 18 So the king of Egypt called the midwives and said to them, Why have you done this, and let the male children live? 19 The midwives said to Pharaoh, Because the Hebrew women are not like the Egyptian women, for they are vigorous and give birth before the midwife comes to them. 20 So God dealt well with the midwives. And the people multiplied and grew very strong. 21 And because the midwives feared God, he gave them families. (Ex. 1:15-21)
The Scripture says the “midwives feared God and did not do as the king of Egypt commanded.” It says the midwives “let the male children live.” And because of their actions, not lack of them, but their actions, God rewarded them. Why? Because they feared God and so saved the innocent lives of the children. There is nothing ambiguous here. I do think that you are having difficulty because you do not see that preserving innocent life is always lawful, and I don’t think that you look at motive and reason as being part of the law and the interpretation of the law.
Lastly, I think it is partially a cultural misunderstanding that many people are not aware of. You’re consideration of the events seems to be very analytical and dichotomistic which is not unusual for Western thinking. However, Hebrew and other non-western cultures have been largely influenced by people whose thinking has been synthetic and holistic. What I mean here is that, for example, with the midwives, you find it necessary to somehow say that the midwives did not lie to Pharaoh because if that were the case, in your mind, God would be rewarding them for lying. I have heard others say that the midwives lied, but God was not rewarding them for lying. Again, dichotomistic thinking which only begs the question. If one were to think holistically you would take what I said concerning the law and motive into account. Then you would view the whole story, not single out one part and conclude that “God rewarded the midwives for lying which is wrong.” Holistically, you would conclude the same thing the actual narrative in Scripture concludes which is because the midwives feared God they let the male children live, i.e. they saved the lives of the male children in defiance of Pharaoh’s order.
Rahab clearly lied as part of hiding the spies and protecting them. But we do not read that Rahab had faith because she lied, but because she hid the spies. That is the holistic way of thinking about the Rahab narrative in Joshua 2. The story when taken as a whole is one where Rahab hides and saves the lives of the spies; the story is not about a woman lying.
Just as Jason said, I’m not advocating or condoning lying. I don’t advocate or condone killing people, but there are times when it is necessary and it is not a sin to do so. Look, I won’t lie for a surprise birthday party. In my house it was a strict, strict rule that no one was to answer the phone and say, “So and so isn’t here right now,” when in fact they were. Again I say that motive and intent is part of interpreting the law (just as it is in our criminal law). So I don’t believe in situational eithics. I believe in moral absolutes that originate with God, without them I could not make the determinations I make just as I could not decide if someone was guilty of murder or not (according to the laws of the land) without the criminal code. But there is interpretation of these absolutes, and motive and intent are part of the code as well. If you shoot the bad men to protect innocent children you are not a murderer but a hero. The midwives and Rahab were not liars but women who saved innocent lives. Hope that helps.
Blessings,
Mark
LikeLike
June 12, 2009 at 1:04 pm
Mark, I appreciate your reply because, unlike Jason’s, it attempts to give biblical justification for your position. I have many pressing responsibilities right now and that precludes me from commenting further for a little while. But, rest assured, I shall reply to your post because I most definitely disagree with your argument — respectfully.
Jason, I’ll reply to yours as well. Needless to say (but I’ll say it anyway) I think your reasoning is way off the mark here. I’ll explain later.
LikeLike
June 15, 2009 at 2:02 pm
By insisting there are circumstances wherein lying is not only acceptable, but good. If that doesn’t condone lying, I don’t know what does.
You’re confusing categories. Murder is a subcategory of killing which enables one to articulate a distinction. What is lying a subcategory of? One can say lying is a subcategory of misleading statements/actions, but if we accept the biblical definition of lying, you are confusing misleading with lying. Nobody argues killing is “generally” wrong (even vegetarians kill plants when they eat). In fact, killing occurs every day and the vast majority of it involves eating or travel (bugs on the windshield). Murder, by comparison, is relatively rare. What you’re doing is confusing the subcategory with its more general one. The proper categories are: killing/murder and misleading/lying. According to the Bible, a misleading statement, so long as it is true, isn’t a lie, but lying is consistently condemned in both testaments as sin. Until you identify a scriptural passage which justifies lying, your argument is arbitrary.
To justify circumstantial lying, you write the following:
You argue that lying is “right” when there is a weightier moral imperative. Thus, according to you, so long as a weightier moral imperative exists, an act is justified (the end justifies the means). But these statements, including what you subsequently write, do not ground your conclusion in anything other than your opinion. To encapsulate, you insist lying is acceptable so long as there is a greater moral obligation. But does any act then become acceptable if there is a greater moral obligation? Does sin become righteous under greater moral imperatives?
Let’s consider some real-life scenarios. What if a woman discovers the family you’re hiding and tells you she will keep the secret if you sleep with her? Is fornication (or adultery) justified because you’re obligated to save that family? What if she asks you to steal food for her in exchange for her silence? I could go on and on with myriad examples, but the point is made. Under your argument, how do you “escape” this moral conflict? What “absurd” moral duty do you have, Jason? If the “motive” is to save lives, what biblically prohibited act is precluded?
Your argument fails, because it is manifest there is no scriptural justification for adultery, fornication, homosexuality, stealing, etc. And no “greater moral obligation” will sanctify those acts. Consequently, a failure to find a scriptural justification for lying vitiates the notion lying is “not wrong.”
God didn’t say that, Jason, you did. Nowhere does the text say they saved them “while helping the women give birth.” It merely says they “saved the men children alive.” You insist the word “saved” necessitates an active role but again you appear confused as to what occurred here. Whether the midwives assisted childbirth or delayed coming, the fact remains it is what they DID NOT DO that saved those babies. They merely refused to kill the babies. They did not rescue them from others who would kill them. They were ordered to kill those babies and they simply didn’t do it.
Let’s say Jason Dulle is scheduled for execution by electrocution at high noon and “Scalia” is the appointed executioner. Let us also say that, by law, the execution cannot occur after 12:05 p.m. and Scalia believes Jason doesn’t deserve to die. Scalia then deliberately delays coming to the death chamber until 12:06 p.m. Who saved Jason? Who is responsible for saving Jason’s life? The fact the executioner didn’t show up at the appointed time would just as much save Jason’s life as someone cutting power to the building prior to throwing the switch.
There is no textual evidence the midwives lied, but let’s acknowledge it for the sake of argument. Even if they lied, God never commended them for lying. It is obvious He commending them for NOT KILLING the Hebrew babies. Thus, we have a case of God commending them in spite of their lie, not because of it.
What you are advancing is a redefinition of situation ethics. I’ve given you the standard definition which is confirmed by various sources. Want another? American Heritage Dictionary: “A system of ethics that evaluates acts in light of their situational context rather than by the application of moral absolutes.” Against this, you argue that moral absolutes dictate what every person would do in certain situations. As my counterexamples illustrate, that claim lacks rational heft.
A thousand bald assertions will never yield a sound conclusion. I understood your argument the first time around and after re-reading it, nothing has changed. You confuse categories and insist what the Bible calls sin is justified by the situation (greater moral obligation). I’ve asked you for the scriptural justification for your claims and the only (very weak) argument you offer is to claim the Hebrew midwives lied to Pharaoh and that God blessed them for it. As aforesaid, nothing in the text demonstrates they lied and even if they did, God blessed them for not killing the Hebrew babies, not for lying. Again, your only “evidence” is to confuse categories and to baldly insist greater moral imperatives justify the means to fulfill them. Without a better argument which includes a scriptural foundation, your proof amounts to your insistence that you are right.
Slippery slope? In order to avoid answering my questions, you falsely label them as an example of this well-known fallacy. I correctly identified your “principle” and asked you questions that demonstrates how flawed it is. You again confuse “killing” with murder and argue as if your re-directed argument somehow vindicates your flawed principle.
Again I ask, if greater moral imperatives justify lying, then why stop with life? Your “principle” is arbitrary regardless of what you think all people should do in certain circumstances.
LikeLike
June 15, 2009 at 4:07 pm
Hi, Mark! Thank you again for your very good reply. Although I disagree with your conclusions, I like the way you present your views. I’ll quote snippets of your post and reply accordingly.
Please see my earlier replies. Biblically, a misleading statement or act isn’t a lie and murder is a subcategory of killing. The biblical words for “lying” mean false statements. Uttering something false is a lie; saying something misleading (if true) is not.
We can modify the killing/murder category to homicide/murder, but that doesn’t change the argument. Homicide is generally wrong but murder is always wrong (you agree) but the question is, of course, whether lying is always wrong. You argue that the situation, motive and intent differentiate murder from homicide and apply that same reasoning to lying. But this assumes lying isn’t always wrong and confuses lying with what is misleading. The only justification you & Jason offer are situations you think most people will agree condones lying. But corralling people to one’s camp doesn’t establish the argument, else ad populum arguments are suddenly rational. Merely saying, “well, you wouldn’t let people die, would you?” doesn’t demonstrate contextual lying isn’t a sin; it merely demonstrates, at best, what the majority thinks. Saying lying is “generally wrong” isn’t what the Bible says about it. To assume beforehand that lying is “general” and not absolute is to beg the whole question.
You implicitly refer to Matthew 23:23, but notice what the full verse says:
Matthew 23:
23. Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have omitted the weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith: these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone.
Weightier matters do not justify neglect of the “lighter” ones. Doing one does not justify leaving the other undone.
Again, Christ said:
Matthew 5
19. Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
Any teaching, any teaching, which insists “minor” laws can be legitimately broken is prohibited by Christ.
I will pass over your “killing Joe” illustration since I believe I addressed that in my reply to Jason’s post. 🙂
Yes, I agree this is a principle of the law. The question is whether sinning is appropriate to accomplish this.
I’ll shortly explain why I disagree with this, but please remember Jason is arguing there is nothing “unlawful” about lying to save people’s lives. Even if I agree with you that David, etal, broke the law, Jason is arguing that lying doesn’t break any law if there exists a greater moral imperative necessitating a lie.
That said, I don’t think you fully engaged my argument. You correctly quote what Jesus said, without, I think, fully considering why I wrote what I did. We have at least two interpretive options why Jesus said what He did about the Law:
1) Jesus affirms David and the priests actually broke the Law by their actions.
2) Jesus assumes the Pharisees’ interpretation to demonstrate their hypocrisy.
I believe option 2 conforms to the biblical record, whereas you argue in favor of option 1. If 2 holds, my argument is sustained. Let’s now analyze option 1.
The Pharisees did not teach David broke the law by eating hallowed bread, nor did they teach a violation of the law by priests working on the Sabbath. I’ll explain why, but if this holds, Christ’s statements to them become nonsensical under your interpretation. If they already believed David, etal, broke the law, then it is no defense to the apostles for Christ to point that out to them. They would simply answer, “Of course, they broke the law, and so are your disciples!”
Notice further verses 9-12 of Matthew 12:
9. And when he was departed thence, he went into their synagogue:
10. And, behold, there was a man which had his hand withered. And they asked him, saying, Is it lawful to heal on the sabbath days? that they might accuse him.
11. And he said unto them, What man shall there be among you, that shall have one sheep, and if it fall into a pit on the sabbath day, will he not lay hold on it, and lift it out?
12. How much then is a man better than a sheep? Wherefore it is lawful to do well on the sabbath days.
Christ did not merely say that the work of healing is “not sinful.” He stated that it is LAWFUL. In other words, there is no breach of the law, technical or otherwise, for healing somebody on the Sabbath. A man rubbing wheat to eat the kernels and the healing of the sick are no more violations of the Law than for priests to offer sacrifices to facilitate worship. Hence, the actions of David, etal, were not violations of the law. If so, the context of the passage is broken and, as aforesaid, Christ’s rebuke of the Pharisees is misdirected. Consequently, option 2 is the best explanation of Christ’s words. “Why do you accuse my disciples of breaking the Law when you absolve David and the priests from the very same type of violation?”
You then offer your view that the midwives lied in Exodus 1. Since your position is the same as Jason’s, please see my reply to his post.
Why did God kill Uzzah? Why did God destroy 50,070 persons for looking into the ark at Bethshemesh? Uzzah profanely wanted to touch the ark and the stumbling oxen was his opportunity? Every last one of the 50,000 destroyed by God looked at the ark in direct defiance of God’s Law? I most certainly believe motive is important to God and I addressed it in so many words when I acknowledged God considers ignorance a mitigating factor of judgment, but to argue that God “holistically” approves of lying because of an end-justifies-the-means principle is going beyond textual warrant.
Thanks again for your substantive post.
LikeLike
June 24, 2009 at 11:06 am
I think you all need to remember something very important. Evil doers are not under covenant with the Heavenly Father. If someone is trying to find out where you are hiding people so they can kill and torture them, they are evil doers. Why would the Heavenly Father care one bit if a believer lied to a murderer, suspected murderer, torturer, etc.? He would not. Can you imagine the Heavenly Father telling Joshua or David to go gather up their soldiers and attack the Amalekites, and then tell them to make sure you don’t lie to them before you kill them because then you would be sinning? That view of God is a view of God that can only be seen (by me, at least) as a contradictory, weird, unstable, strange God. Also, understand that the book of Proverbs says, “Do not be overly righteous, lest ye destroy yourselves. Becoming too obsessive about not lying, will lead you to go around saying some pretty stupid things. So be carefull and reason this out according to the points I have laid out here. I make good sense, I believe.
LikeLike
June 24, 2009 at 12:10 pm
What do you mean by “under covenant” with God? Are you referring to unsaved persons? If so, then is is okay to commitment any act upon them since they are not under God’s covenant? If so, why stop with lying? Are we authorized to beat, torture, steal and imprison them because they are not saved? Is any act sanctified if committed against the unsaved? If not, WHY not?
Your argument, as I see it, is:
a) Unsaved persons are not under God’s covenant.
b) Morality does not apply to the unsaved.
c) Therefore, it is moral to lie to the unsaved.
Against this, you may argue that a greater moral imperative must exist to justify lying; but if that is the case, then what relevance does their “covenant” standing bear? Your argument rests upon their covenant relationship with God, not moral imperative. And if moral imperative is your foundation, then you must address the above arguments in order to sustain your assertions. If you choose to ignore those arguments, then you’re merely restating the position of those who agree with you.
Your argument actually opens the “intellectual” door for far more immorality than you contemplate. Once certain rational principles are abandoned, there is no logical stopping point.
As asked above, will you commit adultery to save lives? Will you perform homosexual acts to save lives? Will you steal to save lives? Will you murder one person to save 10, 100, 1,000, 10,000 persons? Is there anything you wont do if there exists, in your mind, a greater moral imperative. If not, why not?
LikeLike
June 24, 2009 at 2:05 pm
Scalia,
I’ll be honest when I tell you that I have checked out of this debate due to the length of the comments. Each comment has become a chapter, and I simply do not have the time to engage. And yet, I still get notified every time a comment is posted. I perused your reply to Mark, and noticed that you said I am “arguing that lying doesn’t break any law if there exists a greater moral imperative necessitating a lie.” Actually, that is not my claim. The command to tell the truth is always a law, and not telling the truth breaks that law under any circumstance. My claim is that under circumstances in which two objective moral values conflict, and we choose to break the less weighty law, we are not morally culpable; i.e. God does not consider it a sin, and we do not need to repent. Just wanted to clarify that.
Jason
LikeLike
June 24, 2009 at 2:32 pm
Brother Jason, thank you for the clarification. However, how do you explain the following?
And…
And…
And…
My brother, I cannot see how these quotations square with your clarification. If killing is, at times, morally obligatory (e.g. death penalty, self-defense), how does that break any of God’s laws? How does “cutting” a person during surgery break any of God’s laws? As my counterexamples illustrate, there are times one cannot avoid moral conflict and our fallen nature may choose one immoral act against a greater immorality. That, however, does not change the immorality of the act itself. Moreover, you say my position is “absurd” but what “moral duty” do you have when choosing adultery over protecting that family?
When you compare circumstantial lying with surgery, self-defense and keeping the lights on when you’re not home, what other conclusion was I to draw? You ask how God can hold us accountable when we must break His laws, and then you “clarify” that with saying that lying always breaks His law. Maybe we need another clarification?
My position is it is always wrong to break God’s laws even if, from our perspective, we are performing a greater good. To argue otherwise is, so far, without logical merit.
LikeLike
June 24, 2009 at 3:52 pm
Scalia,
The specific topic I was speaking to was the moral status of breaking a commandment when one is forced to do so in virtue of a moral dilemma in which two moral command are in conflict. That situation is different from the supposed counter-examples you offered from my previous comments. Killing someone in the case of capital punishment or self-defense is not the breaking of a command of God, because God did not command us not to kill in such circumstances. The issue of cutting, as I discussed it, was to show that actions in themselves often do not determine what is moral and immoral—intent is often decisive. These are apples compared to the oranges of moral dilemmas.
Here’s my best shot at clarifying: Cutting someone for life-saving surgery breaks no moral law. Killing someone for having murdered someone else does not break a moral law. Lying does break a moral law, and we are morally culpable for doing so except in circumstances in which we are forced to do so to avoid breaking a higher moral law. The issue is not breaking vs. not breaking God’s law. The issue is whether we are morally culpable for doing so. I argue that in the case of moral dilemmas, we are not morally culpable.
As for the other matters I have brought up like answering “fine” to the question “How are you?” when you are not really doing fine, or telling your spouse a lie to keep their birthday party a surprise, my stance is that these are not genuine lies. Maybe I should have titled the post, “When Not Telling the Truth is not Lying.”
Jason
LikeLike
June 24, 2009 at 4:32 pm
Well, I’ll just drop the clarification stuff because it doesn’t seem to be going anywhere. Per your last post, we are at least technically on the same page with respect to lying — that it always breaks God’s law. We differ on moral culpability. You write,
Jason, I’ve asked this again and again. One more time: Are you morally culpable if you sleep with a woman to save the lives of the family you’re hiding? When faced with a moral dilemma, is any act morally benign if there is a greater moral obligation?
LikeLike
June 24, 2009 at 5:42 pm
Scalia,
As I said, I had checked out of this debate, and thus had not read your question. I simply cannot read and respond to the amount of material you post (lengthwise). It’s too overwhelming. I am a family man, have a full-time job, commute, and have a ministry. I have to ration my time, and that necessitates that I pick and choose what to respond to (not just on this blog, but the emails I get through the ministry of IBS).
My knee-jerk resopnse would be “no,” but I’m not sure why that is the right response. In other words, I’m not sure why lying is justified, but adultery is not under such circumstances (other than the fact that I have explicit Biblical precedent for God blessing people for lying in order to protect the lives of His people). I would have to think about this further. It could be that you are pointing out a genuine abductio ad absurdum, or it could be that I have yet to recognize the morally significant distinction that I perceive with my moral intuition. Given the Biblical data, I tend to think it is the latter.
Jason
LikeLike
June 25, 2009 at 8:28 am
I understand the limits of time. I am every bit as busy as you (perhaps more) and if you didn’t read my questions earlier, I totally understand.
Actually, I don’t post that often to your site. However, when you invite philosophical discussions of topics you post, you’re going to get longer replies if there is disagreement. That’s the nature of philosophical dialog.
Okay. If I understand you correctly, you would allow the family you’re protecting to be murdered, including the children, if you had to commit adultery. No “moral imperative” justifies breaking God’s sexual law. And even if you went ahead and slept with that woman to save lives, you would “repent about it afterwards,” correct?
You have NO explicit Biblical precedent for God sanctioning a lie. I know you’ve “checked out” of this debate earlier; but I thoroughly refuted your only Biblical argument — that the Hebrew midwives lied. They didn’t lie and even if they did, God did not bless them for that. God blessed godly men who lived in polygamy (even kings who were specifically prohibited from having multiple wives) but one cannot legitimately claim God blessed them for polygamy (e.g. David & Bathsheba).
You haven’t given ANY Biblical data, other than your false claim the Hebrew midwives lied. If you want to “check out” again, I understand; but if you traipse down this well-known false trail to excuse lying, be prepared for more “lengthwise” replies because such an argument hits a scriptural brick wall.
LikeLike
July 8, 2009 at 5:53 pm
Actually,
Exodus 1:16-19 is very clear that the midwives lied.
Verse 16 says, “but saved the men children alive”. They didnt simply “show up late” as they claim in verse 19. They were physically there and made a conscience decision to not kill the males.
Furthermore, the King of Egypt asked them why? He didnt ask them how or what was going on. In verse 28 he asked them “Why” they were saving the males.
The response the midwives gave is not the same that the Bible said in verse 17. According to verse 17, they spared the male lives “because they feared God”. Not because the Hebrew women were lively and they just showed up late.
LikeLike
July 8, 2009 at 7:31 pm
You didn’t engage my argument, so this hardly amounts to a rebuttal. The passage defines what saved the men children alive means: they didn’t kill the male Hebrew babies. Thus, “saved” is defined by what they didn’t do.
I think you’re referring to verse 18, not 28. From Pharaoh’s standpoint, he didn’t have a clue what the midwives were doing (else he wouldn’t ask), only that his order wasn’t being carried out. Hence, he asked them why they “saved the men children alive.”
Their reply?
And what did Pharaoh do? He accepted their explanation and did not punish the midwives. Pharaoh assumed the midwives were delivering those babies and essentially asked them why they were disobeying him. When they explained the babies were delivered prior to their arrival, he believed them and let it go at that. There is no textual evidence they lied. It is possible they lied, but that conclusion is not forced by the text.
Again, you’re not engaging my argument. You either didn’t read it or you don’t understand why your “refutation” doesn’t work. Of course the midwives feared God and of course that was the reason they didn’t kill those babies. As my “execution” illustration demonstrates, saving a life can be accomplished by inaction as well as action. Why did the executioner show up late? Because he thought the condemned didn’t deserve to die. Replace that reason with “because he feared God” and you get the same result. If asked why he came late, he could legitimately reply that traffic held him up. Traffic can indeed slow you up, but he can conveniently leave out the part he started late knowing that traffic at lunchtime would delay his arrival. Since no falsehood is told, there is no lie.
LikeLike
July 9, 2009 at 5:20 pm
I’ll concede the “saved is defined by what they didn’t do” part.
Going from there, the simple fact is that Pharaoh asked why the males were being saved or why the midwives didnt kill them.
The truth is that they feared God and were not going to kill them.
Verse 17 says they feared God and did not what the king commanded them. They made an effort to disobey they king. Why? Because they feared God.
In verse 18, Pharaoh asked them point blank, “Why?”. They said because the boys were being saved because the Hebrew women were giving birth before they got there.
That simply is not true. Whether or not they were giving birth before they got there has nothing to do with “Why?” they were letting them live.
The “how” may very well have been them showing up late, but its not the “why”.
The same goes for your execution example.
The “how” may have been the executor leaving late and thus getting into bad traffic to slow him down to give him a good cover story or “lie”, but its not the “why”.
LikeLike
July 9, 2009 at 5:48 pm
You’re insisting the midwives lied because their late arrival isn’t really why they didn’t kill those babies. Since the text reveals that the real reason they saved those babies was their fear of God, they must have lied when they said they came too late.
If I have correctly restated your argument, your conclusion does not follow. The Bible informs us in no uncertain terms that it is IMPOSSIBLE for God to lie. Yet, when Samuel worried that Saul would kill him if Saul found out about Samuel’s mission to Bethlehem, what did God tell Samuel to say?
I Samuel 16
…And the LORD said, Take an heifer with thee, and say, I am come to sacrifice to the LORD.
Of course, the real reason for Samuel’s trip was to anoint a king to replace Saul, but God instructs Samuel to say something else. God very clearly tells Samuel to mislead Saul about his trip. So if we accept the infallability of the scriptures, a misleading statement isn’t a lie. Omitting the real reason one has done something isn’t a lie so long as one avoids making a false statement.
In Exodus 1, if the midwives deliberately delayed assisting delivering mothers and the babies were born before their arrival, then it is certainly true there is no way the parents would allow the midwives to harm their babies. Consequently, their statement to Pharaoh is true even if it wasn’t the real reason for sparing the children.
LikeLike
July 9, 2009 at 6:08 pm
That’s quite interesting, as 1 Samuel 16 is in no way about God’s actions. It wouldnt have mattered if Samuel had “lied” rather than mislead ( will get into that next) as it wasnt God doing it. It doesnt even matter that God was the one instructing him to lie ( God does that in 1 Kings 22).
So therefore, since God was not the one lying or misleading, the conclusion of your 3rd paragraph doesnt follow.
Your also confusing misleading and making a false statement, as though one is “lying” and the other isnt.
The Hebrew word for “lying” does mean to deceive and mislead and most definitely includes deceitful speech.
Lying isnt only exclusive to false statements. It includes misleading and being deceitful.
As I have already established that being misleading or deceitful speech is lying, it doesnt matter if its true that the parents wouldnt allow the midwives to harm the babies, as its still misleading as to the real reason behind the saving of the babies.
Again, it goes back to what Jason and Mark were saying. It has to do with motive and intent.
LikeLike
July 10, 2009 at 1:33 am
Yes, that’s quite interesting because it most certainly does involve God’s actions. According to your definition of lying, God is instructing Samuel to lie.
According to you, any misleading or deceitful statement (or act?) is a lie. And since you apparently believe the scriptures do not record God directly committing such acts, God is not a liar.
God’s commands are either obligatory or optional. I assume you consider His commandments obligatory. If not, your argument is fallacious in another way, but I’ll refrain from elaborating unless you believe you’re exempt from some or all of His commands.
If God commands His servant to lie to another person, He intends that command to be carried out. Moreover, since the servant of God is obligated to carry out God’s order, s/he MUST lie. Hence, if God commands A to lie to B, then God intends to deceive B. And if God intends to deceive B and if His servant carries out His command and deceives B, then God deceives B. The fact God uses an intermediary does not negate culpability.
What if God commands you, Josh, to commit adultery? If His commands are not optional, you’re obligated to commit adultery. God then becomes the efficient cause of sin. You might object that God could not command you to sin and you would be right. However, since you define lying as any misleading statement, your argument has God decreeing something the scriptures insist He cannot do — lie! If He cannot command adultery, He cannot command a lie.
However, is it true God doesn’t directly mislead people?
Ezekiel 14
9. And if the prophet be deceived when he hath spoken a thing, I the LORD have deceived that prophet, and I will stretch out my hand upon him, and will destroy him from the midst of my people Israel.
Whether or not God uses an intermediary to deceive a false prophet, God is taking full responsibility for deceiving him. Not only does this refute your argument, by your own standard, God is a liar.
Genesis 22
2. And he said, Take now thy son, thine only son Isaac, whom thou lovest, and get thee into the land of Moriah; and offer him there for a burnt offering upon one of the mountains which I will tell thee of.
Here God misled Abraham by making him think he was to kill his son and offer him for a burnt offering. Did God lie to Abraham? By my standard, no; by your standard, yes.
Judges 20
18. And the children of Israel arose, and went up to the house of God, and asked counsel of God, and said, Which of us shall go up first to the battle against the children of Benjamin? And the Lord said, Judah shall go up first.
Well, Judah went up first, lost 22,000 men and were routed in battle. Does one really think Israel asked God how they could be defeated in battle? They sought God’s counsel about the battle and they followed God’s instructions expecting a victory. Instead, they suffered two massive defeats. God absolutely knew Israel was seeking His counsel for victory and they relied upon His word. Did God lie to them? By my standard, no; by your standard, yes.
Sheqer (the prominent Hebrew word for “lying”) literally means to speak falsely, to fabricate. It occurs some 113 times in the Old Testament and it is never used to describe “misleading” statements. It is a deliberate falsehood.
When you make such a claim, please cite the specific Hebrew/Greek words with literal definitions and scriptural examples.
The Greek word is pseudos which literally means to make a false statement.
God claims responsibility for deception via intermediaries and God directly misleads His servants. Thus, via your standard, God is a liar. Since it is impossible for God to lie, your standard is askew.
LikeLike
July 10, 2009 at 1:00 pm
I’m going to ignore all of your above statements besides the Sheqer one because everything you wrote above hinges on your wrong view of Sheqer.
Sheqer comes from Shaqar and both mean to deal falsely or to deceive. Sheqer is translated 13 times as falsehood, 13 times as falsely, deceitful/ deceit 3 times.
But it seems you don’t understand that words are defined by context( yes, even Hebrew and Greek). You keep trying to keep “lying” narrowed down to a technicality of, “Well, I really didnt lie, I just mislead you in a completely different direction although I understood full well the question”. Its still a falsehood, its still a deception. Why? Because its about motive and intent. Lying encompasses not just the truth or untruth of a specific spoken word, but the entire substance of the conversation and intent and motives of the person speaking.
Here we go all they way back to what Jason and Mark said.
To be perfectly honest, I find it quite odd that you can condone someone being misleading and deceiving someone else, and yet condemn lying in the same breath.
You said “God claims responsibility for deception via intermediaries and God directly misleads His servants. Thus, via your standard, God is a liar. Since it is impossible for God to lie, your standard is askew.”
Thats interesting in light of 1 Kings 22. In the above , you made a direct distinction between God lying and God misleading. By your own admission, if misleading someone is the same as lying someone than God would be a liar, correct?
* 20.* And the LORD said , Who shall persuade Ahab, that he may go up and fall at Ramothgilead ? And one said on this manner, and another said on that manner.
* 21.* And there came forth a spirit, and stood before the LORD, and said , I will persuade him.
22.* And the LORD said unto him, Wherewith? And he said , I will go forth , and I will be a lying spirit in the mouth of all his prophets. And he said , Thou shalt persuade him, and prevail also: go forth , and do so.
23.Now therefore, behold, the LORD hath put a lying spirit in the mouth of all these thy prophets, and the LORD hath spoken evil concerning thee.
This is pretty simple here. God commands spirits to go lie to Ahab.
You said “The fact God uses an intermediary does not negate culpability.”
You still hold to that?
LikeLike
July 10, 2009 at 2:00 pm
Of course you’ll ignore it, because it defeats your argument.
Actually, sheqer occurs at least 116 times in the Hebrew Old Testament. You must have a faulty concordance.
I most certainly do. Biblical words are defined by their usage and poetic passages do not correlate to strict definitions. I’ve asked you to provide me with examples. I can provide you with 116 of them, but space is limited. You won’t find one clear example of sheqer being used to describe a misleading statement, as opposed to a false one.
Why are you side-stepping the argument? By your standard, God is a liar. The Bible emphatically tells us God CANNOT lie and that it is IMPOSSIBLE for God to lie. But your definition of lying directly contradicts the Bible. Instead of acknowledging this problem, you attack my position. Go ahead and attack, but that doesn’t disentangle your position from incoherence.
And I find it quite odd your definition of lying makes God a liar. You cannot have it both ways. Either God is a liar, or misleading statements aren’t lies.
I never said misleading someone is the same as lying; that’s what you said. For the umpteenth time, YOUR standard is any type of misleading statement is a lie. That makes God a liar in your book, not mine.
LikeLike
July 10, 2009 at 2:18 pm
I have the faulty concordance huh?
Scalia said “Sheqer (the prominent Hebrew word for “lying”) literally means to speak falsely, to fabricate. It occurs some 113 times in the Old Testament”
I guess we both have a faulty Strongs.
Scalia said “I never said misleading someone is the same as lying; that’s what you said. For the umpteenth time, YOUR standard is any type of misleading statement is a lie. That makes God a liar in your book, not mine.”
That was not my point. It was a question. You agreed that God mislead people in the OT. I asked that if misleading someone was the same as lying to someone, would God be a liar? I already know the answer to that, and was
And finally, I love how you have conveniently left out the 1 Kings 22 discussion. It completely destroys your entire argument as 1 Kings shows God commanding someone to lie with the intent to have someone killed. You said if God commanded someone to lie he is culpable and makes him a liar, didnt you?
And this is why I am going to check out of this argument. It seems as though you have a problem with a very contentious spirit and cannot hold a decent conversation without a using a condescending and arrogant tone. Also, due to the fact that you purposely ignored my 1 Kings 22 reference(cant blame you, to be honest) I found you to be very disingenuous
Take care
LikeLike
July 10, 2009 at 3:42 pm
I’m not using Strong’s. I’m using my Hebrew Bible.
Odd. You ignore the greater part of my next-to-last post (because it completely destroys your argument?) and you object because I’ve ignored one passage you cite??
Even if I Kings 22 “destroys” my argument, it doesn’t help your position at all. At worst, the Bible is contradictory and cannot be trusted as God’s word. Neither you nor I believe that, so it behooves us to carefully analyze scriptural statements and assert only what best conforms to them.
I Kings 22 is a well-trodden philosophical argument much older than you and I. Rest assured, I am not at all avoiding it. Your definition of lying is so manifestly inadequate, I didn’t deem it necessary to address it in order to demonstrate your position is unscriptural. I once believed as you do now and realized that my definition of lying (which I got from Finney and is the position you now hold) immediately implodes under biblical scrutiny.
Vigorous advocacy isn’t condescending and arrogant. Nevertheless, I sincerely apologize for anything I’ve written that you deem uncharitable. It was not my intent to offend or hurt you.
In Christ,
Scalia
LikeLike
May 24, 2010 at 12:40 pm
Ok so this is a woefully old post and I doubt anyone will ever read this, but I just want to say that, in American law, sexual activity that is coerced or forced by violence (or the threat thereof) is rape, not consensual sex. So if you are forced to engage in intercourse because someone is threatening violence, you have been raped– you have not given your *natural consent.* I mean, consider the woman who submits to sex because a man has a knife to her throat. Is that adultery? No; certainly not, that is rape, even the Bible would agree. So if someone threatens your family with violence unless you agree to sex, the moral thing to do is to have the sex. Because sex without natural consent is indeed rape. So this scenario you all have been tossing around is not particularly relevant to the discussion.
LikeLike
May 24, 2010 at 12:48 pm
Cristine,
I read it since I am the blog owner, but you’re right, few others will see it!
Without going back through all of the comments I can’t be sure what you are responding to, but I would generally agree with you here. It would not be wrong because the person is not consenting.
LikeLike
May 30, 2010 at 1:52 pm
Christine writes,
Like Jason, I don’t know what you’re replying to. Nobody is “tossing around” the scenario you describe. I’ve offered a hypothetical, though realistic, scenario wherein a Christian is hiding persons in h/er home to protect them from murder. A neighbor discovers the secret and agrees to keep silent in exchange for sex. I think you’re claiming sexual acts in that context are coerced and are, therefore, not sinful. Under your standard, killing somebody in exchange for your neighbor’s silence is permissible. What if your neighbor, instead of asking for sex, asks you to kill his estranged wife? Is killing one person benign if your motive is to save seven other lives? What if you kill your neighbor because s/he discovers your secret? Is that okay, too? What if your neighbor insists you deny your faith in Christ? Is your denial permissible because it is coerced? Is there no line you will draw to protect the people you’re hiding? Your scenario logically entails the-end-justifies-the-means and that, of course, logically entails the collapse of morality.
As I’ve stated in other posts, a person may believe s/he has to lie to protect another’s feelings or another person’s life, but that doesn’t make lying right, nor does it turn the falsehood into truth merely because we think we’re being coerced.
LikeLike
August 28, 2010 at 7:39 pm
Well, for starters, while killing someone to save another is a zero sum game (since someone ultimately dies), sex only affects the person who is having the sex. Indeed, it seems like a sacrificial act, to endure the violence of rape (let’s call it what it is– it isn’t adultery, adultery implies consent because it implies desire; are you really implying that someone who submitted to sex under coercion would still be committing the sin of coveting?), than to allow someone to be hurt because you Finally, The Bible (as much as people would like for it to be), does not have a black-and-white morality. Oftentimes in a sinful world we find ourselves in situations where we can either sin one way or sin another. This is one of the wages of sin. In these cases, I believe the best thing to do is pray to God to save this world and hope ardently for His forgiveness.
And the slippery slope thing is a little outmoded. The Bible does not deal in slippery slopes– although it doesn’t address all scenarios, it is fairly specific about the things it does address. Extrapolating slippery slopes is a human endeavor. In this world we have a book that gives us about 75% of the information; faith makes up the rest and we have to make decisions in context. Slippery slopes scenarios are just not useful.
LikeLike
August 29, 2010 at 4:05 pm
Christine writes,
This is a distinction without substance and, hence, irrelevant. Stealing a two-cent stick of gum is different than robbing a bank of a million dollars, but it is still stealing. The fact an immoral sexual act isn’t the same as murder does not negate the immorality of the act. Nobody is arguing the effects of both acts are identical.
Then your observations under this thread are irrelevant to the topic. The title to this thread is When Lying is not Wrong. To draw an accurate parallel with your assertions, the title would be When Adultery is not Wrong. However, since you argue coerced sex isn’t adultery, the parallel is illusory.
If you’ve read all of my posts under this thread, you know that’s exactly the point I was making. Lying is always a sin, but real-life circumstances may cause some people to think they need to lie in order to perform a greater good; but that makes your appeal to “coercion” unintelligible because you are arguing against moral culpability when sex is coerced. If coerced sex isn’t a sin, why would you “hope” for forgiveness?
This shows you do not understand a slippery slope fallacy. To demonstrate a slippery slope, you must show why one or more premises used to build an argument do not justify its conclusion. My argument, encapsulated, is as follows:
1) If sin is permissible to preserve righteousness, then righteousness is relative.
2) Righteousness is not relative.
3) Therefore, sin is not permissible to preserve righteousness.
This is not a slippery slope. If the premises are true, the conclusion follows (modus ponens).
Your argument thus far cannot attack 1 because you argue there is nothing wrong with sex under coercion. Hence, sin isn’t preserving righteousness because no sin is being committed. Your stance is, as noted, quite diluted because you support your argument by citing the necessity of choosing one sinful act over another; and if you are really saying sin is permitted to accomplish a greater good, then you’re affirming an end-justifies-the-means morality. That’s not a slippery slope; it is the logical consequence of your statements.
Perhaps you think the slippery slope is in the following argument:
A) If one approves of a particular sinful act (S1) to accomplish a greater moral good (GMG1), then sinful acts in general (Sg) are permissible to accomplish any GMG.
B) S1 is permissible for GMG1.
C) Therefore, Sg is permissible for GMG.
Or,
A) S1 & GMG1 –> Sg & GMG.
B) S1 & GMG1
C) Sg & GMG
In order to legitimately call this a slippery slope, one would have to construct a rational defense against A. On what basis does one allow S1 for GMG1? It is either based upon our personal conventions or an absolute standard. But an absolute standard is inviolable, else it would not be absolute. If it is based upon our conventions, there is no rational defense against Sg; and if it is based upon an absolute standard (S1 to the exclusion of Sg), what is that absolute standard? That is where this debate began. My argument is sinful acts are not made righteous by circumstances. Sinful acts are always sinful acts, even if we feel compelled to perform them. Consequently, lying is never right, even though we may think we have to lie in order to accomplish a greater moral good.
If a genuinely sinful act is excused for a GMG, you have no rational basis for condemning other sinful acts performed for the same reason. You imply you would draw the line at killing a human being, but it isn’t murder if it’s coerced is it? Doesn’t murder imply malice aforethought? The finality of the act is not at issue. If motive is the sine qua non of your moral worldview, you are logically compelled to tell us why one is rationally permissible and the other is not. If the act itself is inviolable (killing a human being) then motive is off the table. Was bombing Hiroshima & Nagasaki morally permissible in order to save many, many more lives that would have been lost if Japan were invaded by our Marine Corps? If motive is decisive, you would say yes. Hence, you are rationally committed to the proposition it is permissible to kill human beings for GMG. If motive is irrelevant, your appeal to it is inconsistent.
LikeLike
February 3, 2011 at 2:37 pm
I was reading philosopher Edward Fesser’s blog when I ran across a post he had on this same subject, with similar conclusions:
http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/search?updated-max=2010-11-22T18:15:00-08:00&max-results=20
Jason
LikeLike
November 27, 2011 at 2:46 pm
This is a great article, but it left my friends and I still wondering about one thing. If the word deceit means lying to Someone for your own betterment, what is the ONE WORD that means lying for the betterment of the other person? I’ve searched everywhere, but have found nothing. Please email me if you have an answer to this question.
LikeLike
February 27, 2014 at 10:31 pm
stupid
LikeLike
February 27, 2014 at 10:34 pm
It was really interesting…we were said to write a story based on the theme that if a lie saves a life-let me tell the lie. So this was really helpful for me..Thnx a lot 😉
LikeLike
February 27, 2014 at 10:37 pm
Can anyone just help me with some other examples??? plz….:)
LikeLike
February 2, 2016 at 4:04 am
i’ve seen the film Jacob the Liar and it seems like the discussion here could help me to understand more about Lying. with regards on morality, how would you morally evaluate the decision of Jacob Heym to give up his life after a series of ies he did regarding the radio?
LikeLike
October 24, 2016 at 3:47 pm
Hi everybody
LikeLike
October 24, 2016 at 3:48 pm
Hi jorden here
LikeLike
October 24, 2016 at 3:49 pm
I need a speech for twelve year olds about lying is badq
LikeLike
October 25, 2016 at 12:05 am
Jim jorden:
Well, the truth is, as the article clearly notes, not all lying is bad so it is most difficult to formulate a speech for a 12 year old using the old “broad brush” to that all lying is bad when in fact lying is not always bad and to tell that to a 12 year old would be a lie in and of itself and a deception that would make the 12 year olds distrust you.
I would point out the case of Jesus himself lying to his brothers when the Jews were out to kill him. You can read about this account in John’s Gospel chapter 7. Jesus told his brothers he was not going to the Jew’s Feast of the Tabernacles (an annual Festival) knowing that his blabbermouth brothers wanted to bask in a moment of fame although they did not believe in Jesus either. They would however broadcast Jesus’ whereabouts to gain self-recognition by association and reveal Jesus to his adversaries. So Jesus said he was not going to the Feast and then, he abode still in Galilee until his brothers left for the Feast.
10 But when his brethren were gone up, then went Jesus also up unto the feast, not openly, but as it were in secret, not drawing attention to himself; and, just as he had suspected the Jews were looking for him at the feast and saying, “Where is he?”
LikeLike