Ethics of Lying

Originally posted by PatNovak
Which act do you consider to be more moral, lying in an attempt to protect someone from harm (e.g. protecting a Jew from the Nazis), or refusing to lie so as to not bear false witness?

Refusing to lie so as to not bear false witness, because that might also be considered perjury.

Originally posted by RJHinds
Refusing to lie so as to not bear false witness, because that might also be considered perjury.

I want to make sure I am understanding you. Your perjury reference makes me think I wasn't clear in my question.

Using the Jew/Nazi hypothetical again: In a situation where you have a choice between lying and telling the truth, and lying is the only possibility to save this Jew from the Nazi, do you consider telling the truth in this instance to be a more moral act than lying in an attempt to save the Jew?

Originally posted by FMF
I don't see how lying to the person threatening to murder you affects this. There are so many precious things that a living Christian could do for his family and community once the would be murderer was gone. How would what you had said to him affect your belief in God?

Peter did not *just* "lie" to those asking if he knew this "Jesus", but he denied Him. "Confessing with your mouth" is a very real thing in Christianity, because after all, it is the first step many take in becoming a Christian. Do you *really* expect God to accept your word when you become born again, and yet not accept your word when you deny Him, that you were "just kidding"?

No, words have power, and to think that you will not be held to your word, especially regarding spiritual things, is folly. If you deny your faith in the face of threats, to either you or your family, then you have denied your faith, period.

Will you also be "just kidding" when you take the Mark of the Beast, in a cowardly attempt to save your own head, when it comes down to that? Yeah, try arguing that one on Judgement Day.

Originally posted by PatNovak
I want to make sure I am understanding you. Your perjury reference makes me think I wasn't clear in my question.

Using the Jew/Nazi hypothetical again: In a situation where you have a choice between lying and telling the truth, and lying is the only possibility to save this Jew from the Nazi, do you consider telling the truth in this instance to be a more moral act than lying in an attempt to save the Jew?

You are going to have to be a LOT more clear than that.

What exactly is the lie you're telling, and what exactly is the truth you're telling? The magnitude of the lie, and whether it is about something important are considerations.

Originally posted by PatNovak
First, the moral consequences of lying vs allowing someone to be tortured for eternity are so infinitely far apart as to not be comperable, so the effectiveness rate in this case should be completely inconsequential.

Second, do you actually think the theists here that aren't addressing the question (I exclude Robbie, because he did answer) are doing so b ...[text shortened]... ss claims because they realize how intellectually contradictory and immoral their positions are.

Ok, so now we are "immoral" for not lying?

Wow.

Originally posted by PatNovak
So if you would give a pass to an individual who lied in an attempt to protect a Jew from Nazis, would you also give a pass to someone who lied in an attempt to protect that same Jew from Hell?

Wait a minute.

We're not going to do your work for you in this. Just what is the lie being told in this instance? What lie could protect a person from Hell?

Originally posted by Suzianne
You are going to have to be a LOT more clear than that.

What exactly is the lie you're telling, and what exactly is the truth you're telling? The magnitude of the lie, and whether it is about something important are considerations.

The fact that you think it matters what the lie is says a lot about your morality (or lack thereof). To a moral person, it wouldn't make any difference what the lie was.

I am amazed at the lengths you will go to refuse to address the questions in my OP. It is really quite cowardly.

Originally posted by Suzianne
Ok, so now we are "immoral" for not lying?

Wow.

If you refuse to consider telling a lie to save someone from an eternity of torture, then most definitely you are immoral for not lying.

Originally posted by PatNovak
So is the only reason you wouldn't lie to help convert people is because you think it lacks effectiveness and is unnecessary? Like I mentioned several times before, I am not trying to discuss whether lying would be effective in this case, but whether it would be moral/ethical. I am far more interested in your view of the morality of lying to win converts than your view on the effectiveness of lying to win converts.

I guess I just don't get what you're after then.
If lying would be ineffective in obtaining the stated goal, why would I employ it?

Originally posted by Suzianne
Peter did not *just* "lie" to those asking if he knew this "Jesus", but he denied Him. "Confessing with your mouth" is a very real thing in Christianity, because after all, it is the first step many take in becoming a Christian. Do you *really* expect God to accept your word when you become born again, and yet not accept your word when you deny Him ...[text shortened]... to save your own head, when it comes down to that? Yeah, try arguing that one on Judgement Day.

You have introduced this "just kidding" expression. I did not use it. You seem to be really against someone saying "just kidding". Who has said it?

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
I guess I just don't get what you're after then.
If lying would be ineffective in obtaining the stated goal, why would I employ it?

First, I think it is extremely implausible that deception has absolutely no chance of swaying a person toward Christianity. Out of all the millions and billions that have become Christians over the centuries, how likely is it that not single individual was moved toward Christianity, at least in part, due to a lie of some sort or another? We know that lies are at least occasionally persuasive in all other aspects of life, so it is merely a special pleading to argue it never works for Christians.

Secondly, if I genuinely believed that a loved one was destined for an eternity of torture, I'd be pulling out all the stops to prevent it. I'd try everything I could think of. I probably wouldn't start out with deception as my first strategy, but I'd at least keep it in my toolbox to use as a last resort if all else failed. I think Luther would agree with me here, and I am genuinely surprised at the refusal of Christians here to even consider using deception when they believe an eternity of bliss or torture is at stake.

Originally posted by PatNovak
First, the moral consequences of lying vs allowing someone to be tortured for eternity are so infinitely far apart as to not be comperable, so the effectiveness rate in this case should be completely inconsequential.

Second, do you actually think the theists here that aren't addressing the question (I exclude Robbie, because he did answer) are doing so b ...[text shortened]... ss claims because they realize how intellectually contradictory and immoral their positions are.

First, I didn't say that; I was thinking more of 'why should I join a religion once I find out the members are lying to me about it?'

Second, I can't speak for others, but my guess is that some really do think that lying in promotion of their faith is not effective. [Perhaps they are hiding, too; point being, I think it's a legitimate hiding place.] I thought the same thing back in my Christian days.

Originally posted by BigDoggProblem
First, I didn't say that; I was thinking more of 'why should I join a religion once I find out the members are lying to me about it?'

You argued that "the effectiveness of a technique can change the moral evaluation regarding its use." My response was my argument as to why the effectiveness rate in this case is completely insignificant to any moral evaluation.

Second, I can't speak for others, but my guess is that some really do think that lying in promotion of their faith is not effective. [Perhaps they are hiding, too; point being, I think it's a legitimate hiding place.] I thought the same thing back in my Christian days.

Special pleadings and irrational positions are not legitimate hiding places, and unlike you, I am extremely doubtful that they actually believe that lying has absolutely no chance of working (in other words, you might say I think they are telling "a useful lie" ).

Originally posted by Suzianne
Peter did not *just* "lie" to those asking if he knew this "Jesus", but he denied Him. "Confessing with your mouth" is a very real thing in Christianity, because after all, it is the first step many take in becoming a Christian. Do you *really* expect God to accept your word when you become born again, and yet not accept your word when you deny Him ...[text shortened]... to save your own head, when it comes down to that? Yeah, try arguing that one on Judgement Day.

No, words have power, and to think that you will not be held to your word, especially regarding spiritual things, is folly. If you deny your faith in the face of threats, to either you or your family, then you have denied your faith, period.

If the words are uttered at the prompting of threats, then those words are coerced. It should be obvious that coerced utterances generally cannot be taken to reflect actual evaluative commitments on the part of the person uttering them. Genuine evaluative commitments are reflected in autonomous actions of free will. And, it is basically conceptually impossible to coerce another into performing an autonomous action. In fact, haven't you previously stated that free will is necessary for genuine acceptance or rejection of faith? (If you recall, this is one reason why you argued it is practically impossible to have strong public evidence regarding the question of God's existence, not that this particular argument of yours makes much sense.) Now, however, you're claiming that a genuine renunciation of faith can be constituted by some words uttered under coercion. That's you contradicting yourself, as far as I can tell. If I point a loaded gun to your head (or perhaps the heads of your loved ones) and tell you to renounce your faith or else; then you would surely be well-advised to utter some words of renunciation of faith. But, in that case, have I actually succeeded in bringing about a genuine renunciation of your faith? Of course not. That is something that could only be brought about autonomously by you; it is, in fact, something that could only be undergirded by evaluative commitments that you genuinely and introspectively hold; so, it's absurd to think I could bring it about or impose it upon you through coercion.

I think you would do well to study the doctrine of double effect and other closely related concepts. In some circumstances, there may be bads that are practically inseparable from greater goods. In some such cases, the actor is fully justified in choosing the course of action in which those bads are brought about as practically unavoidable collateral damage, with the main intention being to bring about, or preserve, the greater goods. This is especially true, of course, if the goods in question overwhelm the bads in question. This understanding should help you to better address PatNovak's lying hypotheticals. Until now, you have shirked them.

Originally posted by Suzianne
Peter did not *just* "lie" to those asking if he knew this "Jesus", but he denied Him. "Confessing with your mouth" is a very real thing in Christianity, because after all, it is the first step many take in becoming a Christian. Do you *really* expect God to accept your word when you become born again, and yet not accept your word when you deny Him ...[text shortened]... to save your own head, when it comes down to that? Yeah, try arguing that one on Judgement Day.

By the way, please ask yourself if you are consistent on this matter or not.

If I point a loaded gun to one's head and tell one to renounce one's faith, will one's doing so constitute a genuine renunciation of one's faith?

If I point a loaded gun to one's head and tell one to accept Christianity, will one's doing so constitute a genuine acceptance of faith?

If you do not provide the same answer to both questions, then something is probably wrong with your view. And, hey, what's good for the goose is good for the gander. If your uttering some words under coercion can constitute a genuine renunciation of your faith, then someone else's words under coercion should be able to constitute genuine acceptance of faith. You cannot reasonably say that words are binding even under coercion; and then turn around and argue that coerced words uttered on judgment day cannot make a difference.