One last thing on this topic, and I promise I am done with it for a while.
Just in case you have not seen it, Dr. Peter Kreeft tackles this subject over at CatholicVote.org.
Dr. Kreeft agrees with me, but he is able to use all the smarty-pants stuff at his disposal of which I am bereft. That said, I think I got the philosophy right, but Dr. Kreeft explains why.
Please go read the entire article, but for those who will not. Here is a little take-away.
Similarly, when we discuss Kant and the issue of lying, most of my students, even the moral absolutists, are quite certain that the Dutchmen were not wrong to deliberately deceive the Nazis about the locations of the Jews they had promised to hide. They do not know whether this is an example of lying or not. But they know that if it is, than lying is not always wrong, and if lying is always wrong, then this is not lying. Because they know, without any ifs or ands or buts, that such Dutch deception is good, not evil. If anyone is more certain of his philosophical principles than he is that this deception is good, I say he is not functioning as a human being but as a computer, an angel, a Gnostic, or a Kantian. He is a Laputan, like Swift’s absent-minded professors who live on an island in the sky in Gulliver’s Travels, and who make eye contact with abstractions but not with human beings.
But can’t we solve the problem of the Dutchmen and the Nazis by saying that all lying is wrong but the Dutchmen don’t have to lie to save the Jews because they could deceive the Nazis without lying by a clever verbal ploy? No, because effective deception by clever verbal ploys cannot usually be done by ordinary people, especially by clumsy Dutchmen. I know; I’m one of them. Our moral obligations depend on abilities that are common, not abilities that are rare
Besides, the Nazis are not fools. They would suspect clever prevarications and sniff out duplicitous ploys. They could be reliably deceived and deterred from searching every inch of the house only by an answer like “Jews? Those rats? None of them in my house, I hope. Please come in, and if you find any, please give them rat poison. I hate those vermin as much as you do.”
You promised the Jews to hide them from their murderers. To keep that promise, you have to deceive the Nazis. Physical hiding and verbal hiding are two sides of the same coin, whether you call it lying, or deception, or whatever you call it. What it is, is much more obvious than what it is to be called. It’s a good thing to do. If you don’t know that, you’re morally stupid, and moral stupidity comes in two opposite forms: relativism and legalism. Relativism sees no principles, only people; legalism sees no people, only principles.
Yeah, what he said.
February 20, 2011 at 2:24 pm
This sounds right.
I haven't been comfortable with the folks who insist that it's wrong and should never be done, knowing that it's someone else– someone I'm required to defend– who will pay the price for my "morality."
February 20, 2011 at 2:40 pm
Nice words, but no logic.
A person trying to save lives without violating the truth sees both people and principles. He is trying to save lives, but he knows there are certain things he may not do in pursuit of it.
In fact, to say that a lie is acceptable in certain circumstances is relativistic ("morality is relative to circumstances"), so Kreeft can call Shea and others morally stupid legalists, but if so, he'd have to call himself a morally stupid relativist.
Using Kreeft's logic, by the way, it is morally stupid to be against abortion in cases of the health of the mother. Why? Because all sorts of "reasonable people" have a sense that it is acceptable, and yet, it's not. It's morally relativistic. The principle of double effect, however, might be utilized in such a case. The PDE first requires that objective moral concerns do not stand in the way of the act (removing the inflamed, about-to-rupture fallopian tube is not the same as removing the child from the fallopian tube, etc.), then allows for relative considerations (is the death of the child as immediate as the saving od the mother's life, etc.).
There is some moral wiggle room in which you can deceive via ambiguous truth, but you can't violate a basic moral principle in the process. The first consideration is whether your act will be intrinsically immoral, only then can relative things be considered. Our faith tells us that lying is intrinsically immoral.
Lastly, Dr. Kreeft should know better than to call his opponents "morally stupid." That's nothing short of a brilliant doctor who could have made a better argument just using an ad hominem against his opponent in the hopes that people who want to agree with the someone as illustrious as Peter Kreeft (and I think he is brilliant, mind you) will say, "well, gosh, if he thinks I'm being stupid, I'll just agree with him. He's the doctor, he must be right…and I don't want to be stupid!"
February 20, 2011 at 2:46 pm
*sigh* And the same response, again, ignoring that there are other times when we are morally required to do that which is otherwise forbidden, and even faulting the argument for lacking what it expressly says it will not be having.
I think this is going down the exact same lane as the "torture" debate.
February 20, 2011 at 2:47 pm
Peter Kreeft is a genius.
February 20, 2011 at 3:53 pm
Nice words, but no logic.
Yeah, that Peter Kreeft sure doesn't know logic.
I'm with Foxfier. Frankly I'm tired of the debate and the puritanical Pharisees. Babies are being slaughtered by the millions, and we're arguing the moral righteousness of a sting operation that exposes the doings of the greatest purveyor of evil in this country.
February 20, 2011 at 4:22 pm
Foxfier, we often have the obligation to do things that are otherwise forbidden, but tell me when one of those things is intrinsically immoral. Lying is intrnsically immoral. That is a belief of our faith. Nothing excuses doing something intrinsically immoral.
Paul, if you read the article, Kreeft specifically says that he's not trying to make an argument from logic, so I have in no way implied tha he lacks logic, but have simply reasserted that this argument is not one based in logic (which he himself said). I refuse to believe that feelings, sensibilities, or sixth sense is a proper way to determine a moral course of action, but that is precisely the kind of argument he made.
Further, it is illogical to assert that because Dr. Kreeft says it's okay to lie sometimes, that makes it so. He's a brilliant guy, but that doesn't mean he's always right. In fact, this demonstrates my point about his calling his opponents morally stupid. Because a very brilliant professor says that, people agree with him because they don't want to be "stupid." Well, Dr. Kreeft should know that philosophical debates are wn on logical arguments, not on appeals to emotion or ad hominem attacks. When Kreeft makes an argument based on logic and sound reasoning, then we'll talk.
February 20, 2011 at 5:03 pm
Another contribution from THE CATHOLIC THING (Francis Beckwith):
http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2011/live-action-and-telling-falsehoods.html
Best,
Pedro Erik
February 20, 2011 at 5:07 pm
Really Tobias? Ask yourself why you use a pen name to deceive us? Pharisaical hypocrite.
-John Church
February 20, 2011 at 5:12 pm
Foxfier, we often have the obligation to do things that are otherwise forbidden, but tell me when one of those things is intrinsically immoral.
Killing an innocent– your own child.
ALWAYS wrong.
Sad side-effect of removing a tubal pregnancy.
If you can't see the alignment there, you've blinded yourself. Of course, I already think you've blinded yourself, since you can't bring yourself to respond to the argument actually offered.
Accusing him of emotional appeals and ad hominem attacks, ironically, becomes those things in you when you can't seem to respond to the points actually offered.
February 20, 2011 at 5:23 pm
ANY LAW CAN BE BROKEN TO SAVE A LIFE. Life is the ultimate gift from God especially one's neighbor's life. The risk that the person protecting the Jews could be mistaken for an enemy, as was Shindler, would expiate any fear, wrong or sin involved, like doing expiation, or saying "Please excuse me, or forgive me but…". Some call it mental reserve.
I know of a woman who had two illegitimate grandsons and raised them. When her parents came and asked who these beautiful, blond haired, blue eyed children came from she said she was babysitting and for two years her parents never knew their grandsons until it was time to let them know…and all lived happily ever after.
February 20, 2011 at 5:41 pm
@foxfire In the matter of therapeutic abortion as opposed to procured abortion on demand. Justice is predicated on intent. Therapeutic abortion intends to save both the life of the mother and the child. Procured abortion on demand intends only to kill the life of the sovereign person in the womb. Justice is predicated on intent. Therapeutic abortion is settled law. Roe v. Wade is miscarriage of Justice and fetal homicide. Therapeutic abortion is a miscarriage that requires surgery to save the life of the mother and the child. In the matter of semantics or language to express what needs to be said: A SPONTANEOUS ABORTION is a MISCARRIAGE in the natural order of LIFE. A SPONTANEOUS ABORTION or MISCARRIAGE acknowledges the other human being involved, the two human beings who are involved in the medical or natural procedure. “Removal of the fallopian tube” is a medical procedure but it does not acknowledge the human being in the tube, who has had the misfortune to implant incorrectly. The word therapeutic ABORTION acknowledges that there is the life of another human being in the case, and this life is being aborted in the correct sense of the word “abort”: to correct the errors of natural conception or assist a miscarriage in process. You know my stand on the word “pregnancy” as it means pre-life and does not address the human life in the womb. It may be said that every man’s death is a termination of pregnancy, termination of human life, or just plain termination…as opposed to “the fullness of time.”
The sovereign person. The government does not give life. God, OUR CREATOR, gives life, the government gives liberty, that is, protects life and all other civil rights for the citizens. The newly begotten soul is instilled with sovereign personhood, intellect, conscience, Life by God. The pursuit of Happiness is the journey of the newly begotten sovereign person, human being, body and soul, into his inheritance of his human body through growth. The innocent human being taking possession of the body that is being created for him in time…pursuit of Happiness.
February 20, 2011 at 5:46 pm
Peter Kreeft is a gift from God. "Morally stupid" is not a condemnation but a challenge.
February 20, 2011 at 6:11 pm
If it's not wrong to kill a Nazi to defend the people you're hiding, I think it's okay to weaponize lying, cheating and stealing against them. But only in strict pursuit of your goal, of course. You can't steal their candy for yourself just because they're Nazis hunting for your hidden people.
And of course, you'll still be responsible for the way you weaponize. Killing a Nazi being okay doesn't make skinning and eating him okay.
February 20, 2011 at 6:13 pm
Do the least damage possible to do what morally MUST be done– way back when this first started, I a parallel between lying to stop someone who wants to murder and killing to stop someone who wants to murder.
February 20, 2011 at 6:22 pm
I refuse to believe that feelings, sensibilities, or sixth sense is a proper way to determine a moral course of action, but that is precisely the kind of argument he made.
Only robots disregard intuitive feelings. It boggles the mind that we've completely abandoned common sense in our discourse.
Further, it is illogical to assert that because Dr. Kreeft says it's okay to lie sometimes, that makes it so.
Since you're so keen on logic, then I suppose you are familiar with the concept of a straw man argument. Nowhere did I suggest that we blindly accept what Peter Kreeft had to say, only that his argument is persuasive and correct.
February 20, 2011 at 6:23 pm
Lila Rose and Live Action are correct in that both Lila and her mission is to seek out the truth. The truth will set us free. Lila Rose acts on the behalf of all good people, two of whom are Jesus and the Blessed Virgin Mary. Let the Holy Innocents judge her…and torture for the sake of causing pain is a sin. Torture to save a life is necessary and stops when the information to save a life is divulged. Torture is also punishment for any who would premeditate taking innocent human life. Torture may save the soul of the miscreant.
February 20, 2011 at 6:31 pm
@Paul Zummo. Intuitiveness coalesces (sp) into a gut-reaction. A person KNOWS by the Holy Spirit and is guided by the Holy Spirit when he acts to sustain another innocent person's life. As for the rest of us sinners, we must be willing to fight and die for what is correct and right.
Also, a person's name is the best thing and the worst thing that can be said about him. "You will know them by what they do"
February 20, 2011 at 6:42 pm
@SuburbanBanshee: Anything one does to deactivate a murderer is good, including taking his candy, if it slows him down. I am speaking of active war. Skinning him and eating him if necessary to keep oneself alive again the principle to save life, even your own life, too, is acceptable but repugnant. One would hope and pray that cannibalism does not ever become necessary to save life. Cannibalism for the sake of cannibalism is a crime.
February 20, 2011 at 7:44 pm
Yes, I agree with you. Rahab lied and she was given honor because of it.
February 20, 2011 at 8:32 pm
Quote:
"Yes, I agree with you. Rahab lied and she was given honor because of it."
I think we have a winner.
Regarding some who have said Lila Rose and her companions are sinning by leading others into an occasion of sin: I spent some time in Southern Baptist churches back in Oklahoma, and I once heard a preacher in Stillwater say a person should be judged not so much by what they do but what they would do if they could get away with it. I've watched most of the videos in question, and I don't think anyone was being led. The actors pose a scenario and the PP workers respond. If I ask someone how he would respond to a given situation and his response involves a sinful course of action, have I led him into that sin? I do not think so.