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 21, 2011 at 6:33 pm
Anon, you keep accusing me of using a pseudonym. That seems to indicate that, again, you don't understand the argument people like Mark Shea are making. Lies don't include falsehoods told in conformity with certain social conventions. Using a pseudonym as a screen name, bluffing during a game of poker, playing "two truths and a lie," are not really meant to deceive. They are falsehoods accepted (and frequently expected) by social convention. Therefore, they are not falsehoods with the intent to deceive (i.e. lies), since the person telling the falsehood has no reasonable expectation that the other parties will expect it to be a truth. So I'm not a Pharisee or a hypocrite…well, in this instance, anyway.
Patrick, I also think you fail to understand the same distinction. Ed didn't tell a lie. He made a joke. He also has no reasonable expectation that you would think he's being truthful.
The short argument is this: I love Kreeft. I think he's brilliant. However, I also think he's wrong. I thought I was quite clear that it was his arguments I found lacking, not his person, yet in response, some people have found flaws with my person and attacked me. Anyway, that is another matter. The fact is that Kreeft says at the outset that he's not trying to make a logical argument, then he goes on to call good, honest, moral, and intelligent people like Mark Shea, "morally stupid." He bases his argument off emotion and conscience, but we know from our faith that emotions can be misleading and that consciences (particularly those of college students at Boston College) need to be educated, specifically by Divine Revelation. So when my emotions and conscience say I can lie, but Divine Revelation and the teachings of the Church say that lying is intrinsically wrong and never justifiable, I know that my emotions and conscience are wrong. The fact is that I am morally stupid, but God and Church are not.
As for Lila Rose, I have nothing against her and I assume that she either didn't know better or that something else got in the way of her moral reasoning. Goodness knows it happens to me often enough. One principle of spirituality is to assume the best about the intentions of others. I hope people do it for me (many thanks to Paladin for that). Lastly, although I believe the means to have been immoral, I am very glad about the results of Lila Rose's work. Nevertheless, we should not let Lying dor Jesus happen again.
February 21, 2011 at 6:38 pm
Anon, as for your war example, no, faking someone out is not necessarily a lie. A lie is a falsehood told with intent to deceive. Telling a truth (especially one with ambiguous meaning) with the intent to deceive isn't lying. It's mental reservation or "moral evasion." It is morally licit because you didn't lie. If the deception takes place because the other party infers something, rather than your explicitly saying it, it's not a lie because the deception is due to their misunderstanding what you mean, even if you intended for them to misunderstand. Now, in your scenario, you didn't even say anything, you just used suggestive body language. The opponent inferred (wrongly) your next move.
February 21, 2011 at 6:49 pm
Ummm, he didn't make any argument with any of that smarty pants stuff. He just gave an intuitive answer without explaining how it is justified. The "awww, have a heart" argument can be used to justify a lot of things which cannot be actually condoned.
I'm not saying there isn't an argument that supports his position (my intuition sides with him too), but I would like to have seen Kreeft logically justify it. He's usually good at that kind of thing. This was just fluff though.
February 21, 2011 at 6:57 pm
Tobias,
As far as Judie Brown and the other theologians are concerned, Live Action film representatives are acting, do you get that? THEY ARE ACTING! HUGE DIFFERENCE. Also, they are investigative reporters who have identified real life victims and are presenting their stories in order to gain documented evidence on Planned Parenthood's hidden agenda.
Therefore, what they are doing is not sinful, it's a tactic. See the critical difference?
February 21, 2011 at 7:37 pm
This comment has been removed by the author.
February 21, 2011 at 7:43 pm
Mysterious,
There's a key problem with the analogy (of "acting") that you offer: in a "normal" case of acting, the audience is well aware of the fact that acting is going on. Unless the PP employees were somehow briefed on the "acting troupe" that was about to come in (which is a ridiculous idea), then your analogy doesn't hold. Jimmy Stewart, while playing George Bailey, never intended to convince the movie-goers that he was, in fact, George Bailey (and not Jimmy Stewart). There was no deception, in other words… but there certainly was, in the PP "sting".
February 21, 2011 at 7:47 pm
the mysterious,
Lying as a tactic is still lying. Mark Shea has already satisfactorily responded to your argument. In acting, all parties are aware that it is an act, and so the actors have no reason to reasonably expect the audience to think they are telling a truth. This was not acting, at least not in a moral sense.
As for Judie Brown and "other theologians," I have as many (or more) theologians agreeing with me. I also have a degree in theology, but that doesn't mean I'm always right. In fact, throughout my education, I ran into a number of theologians (actual and self-styled) who openly believed and taught outright heresy. I'm not calling Judie Brown et al. heretics, but the title of "theologian" is thrown around way too much in debate without any critical thought about how insignificant or unauthoritative the term really is.
February 21, 2011 at 8:16 pm
The war examples were meant to illustrate the many lies that do take place in cause of tactical deception. The examples were not good enough, but the point remains. There are MANY, many lies told – that are outright efforts to deceive the enemy with the purpose of gaining tactical (or strategic advantage.) If you are doing your job right you can use lies instead of gun fire to win a victory. Is that evil?
Again – I emphasize that these are real world examples – taking place every day.
It is common place in PSYOPS, for instance, to use lies and deceit to gain battlefield advantage. Actually, the truth is often more effective, but there are times when outright lies get the job done. For example: I could start a completely false rumor within the enemy camp that certain ammunition is defective and may explode when used. (We could support the rumor by booby-trapping a few rounds, but we don't have to.)
Point is: I use actual flat out deceit and lies – to save the lives of my troops, speed the end to a war or battle (maybe this also includes using the deceit to kill the enemy as well.) There are a million examples.
So it isn't just a matter of someone inferring what they will from a body movement. Lying in warfare is as old as warfare.
In the context of a just war – is it evil? Again – I think it is, but a lesser evil, and perhaps a necessary one.
If I use deadly force to preserve my own life is it evil? The act may actually be just – but perhaps the act is still also an evil. Certainly its too bad, right? If it's too "bad" then it isn't good.
But if the ends didn't justify it – then it wasn't evil….
Anyone else confused – or does EVERYONE else posting here have the right answer? 🙂
February 21, 2011 at 8:19 pm
Anonymous @1:49 wrote:
I'm not saying there isn't an argument that supports his position (my intuition sides with him too), but I would like to have seen Kreeft logically justify it. He's usually good at that kind of thing. This was just fluff though.
I agree wholeheartedly! I was actually *very* disappointed and let down by his article; I was hoping that someone would give the "magic key" to let me stop worrying about the ethics of the "LiveAction Sting", once and for all… and Dr. Kreeft seemed to be just the person to do it (I have almost all of his "Socrates Meets ___" books!). I can't tell you how my heart leaped at the news that he'd written on this topic; so the let-down was pretty hard.
Dr. Kreeft, could you PLEASE write your actual logical case? Please don't put it on the back-burner for the "2015 A.D. to-do-list"!
February 21, 2011 at 8:23 pm
Anonymous @3:16:
(Is that time-stamp a coincidence? "For God so loved the world… 🙂 )
War is an "evil", in the general sense of being against the perfect Will of God (like the eruption of Vesuvius, or the outbreak of the Black Plague, were both "evil"), but the PRACTICE of war is not intrinsically evil–i.e. there are times when it is justified, and even good (in the non=sentimental sense of the word). Lying, on the other hand, is expressly forbidden by Scripture, Tradition, and the Magisterium of the Church as an intrinsic evil (i.e. evil, regardless of the circumstances).
February 21, 2011 at 8:51 pm
@ Paladin:
You wrote: "War is an "evil", in the general sense of being against the perfect Will of God … but the PRACTICE of war is not intrinsically evil…Lying, on the other hand, is expressly forbidden … as an intrinsic evil (i.e. evil, regardless of the circumstances)."
…but… my example was lying… IN… war. You, then, must be saying that lying is an "intrinsic evil regardless of the circumstance" – unless that circumstance is a just war?! See why I am confused?
If so, I also, then, have to wonder whether or not the Church might at some point also say that Lila Rose's actions constitutes a kind of a war.
In other words – wasn't Patrick on to something (if not merely on something 😉 when he said that maybe we need a "Just War" theory for the "war against abortion"? I'm not saying that it is up to US to decide that, but…wouldn't it be – nice?
Hmmm… seems like I am hoping the Church will let us lie to expose the Truth. Something seems wrong with tat. Maybe it's not so nice after all. What will we want next?
Meanwhile I guess it is just plain wrong to do what she did in the manner in which she did it – no matter that there was a good outcome.
I suspect there will always be temptations to take a "shortcut" to good by taking the "slightly" evil path. But God always wants us to be good. Yes?
Perhaps this shortcut is due to our laziness in prayer. Can we end abortion through prayer? Yup. I do believe "we" can. (That God would grant it due to our Faith – in His Mercy)
But in our human weakness we want to make up for our lacking prayers, fasting and conversion of others by just taking some evil little short cuts. So then what next in the name of a shortcut to goodness?
So – do I get it yet?
February 21, 2011 at 8:55 pm
"In the context of a just war – is it evil? Again – I think it is, but a lesser evil, and perhaps a necessary one."
James 1:13 says that God does not tempt. We always have the option of siding with God and doing the moral thing. Therefore, there is no such thing as a "necessary evil." Beware people who tell you to commit a "necessary evil," because it always means "necessary for my will" and never "necessary for God's will."
February 21, 2011 at 9:13 pm
Tobias, how was that not acting? Did you actually watch it? Seems to me that your an apologist for Planned Parenthood.
February 21, 2011 at 11:37 pm
Lying as a tactic is still lying. Mark Shea has already satisfactorily responded to your argument.
Just yesterday Tobias was complaining about us blindly following Peter Kreeft, and now he's citing as authoritative someone who isn't even 1/5 the writer and thinker that Kreeft is.
And I love "tobias'" mental contortions about justifying using a pseudonym. You see, lying is always wrong – except, err those times when social convention says it's okay. Then lying is okay. Gotcha.
February 22, 2011 at 12:32 am
Paul:
FWIW, it is very generous of you to say that I am 1/5 of anything Peter Kreeft is (I would say more like (1/1000), but that is not germane to the question of whether my remarks actually refute Dr. Kreeft or not. If Einstein gets his sums wrong and a halfwit gets them right, the halfwit is still right and Einstein is still wrong. Until you actually interact with my critique of Dr. Kreeft's argument instead of giving your opinion on where we each rank in the temple of your personal regard, you haven't said anything substantial but have merely acted as a cheerleader for a personal hero (who is one of my personal heroes too).
February 22, 2011 at 1:38 am
the mysterious,
I pointed out that in acting, all parties are aware that what is being said is fiction and therefore the actors can expect the audience not to think that what is being said is true. That is not the case in the Lila Rose videos. Ergo, at least in a moral sense, it was not the same thing as acting. As for being an apologist for Planned Parenthood – really? You are so convinced of your own view and believe its accuracy must be so obvious that anyone who disagrees must have some nefarious purpose? Give me a break.
Paul, I never said Shea was the same quality of writer as Kreeft, but the argument he makes speaks for itself, and I thought it would be easier to refer you to him than to repeat it again (that is, I wasn't making a claim from authority, just citing an already existing argument). However, I'm glad to see you proving my point about taking Kreeft as an authority worth more weight than others. Here's the deal, the magisterium has authority here, neither Shea or Kreeft do. Look at the arguments, not the people behind them, unless the people represent the Magisterium.
As for my mental contortions, that is often the nature of theology, especially moral theology. It can get complicated, especially when we silly humans have so many varieties of sin. Nevertheless, if you look in the Catechism, you will find that a lie is defined as a falsehood told with intent to deceive. Both the falsehood and the intent to deceive must be present. It's really a simple principle, a simple definition. So if you tell a falsehood without the intent to deceive (acting, joking, using a pseudonym as a screen name), then it is not a lie. Why don't I have the intent to deceive by using a pseudonym for a screen name? Because I don't expect people to assume that a screen name reflects a person's actual identity. That seems reasonable, what since most screen names are something like "catwoman71087" or similar. When I tell a joke about blondes, everyone knows the genre. No one expects it to be true, and so I can tell it with a clear conscience because it's not a lie – I have no intent to deceive. The same is true with acting (authentic acting, in which all the performers and the audience know it is an act).
So no, lying isn't okay when social convention says so, but sometimes, social convention will keep give us reason to tell a falsehood without the intent to deceive. If it weren't for the social convention that screen names not necessarily reflect a person's real name, then my screen name might morally have to be my real name, but the social convention is that pseudonyms are allowed, and so I may use one without any intent to deceive. A falsehood told without the intent to deceive is not a lie.
February 22, 2011 at 2:12 pm
MarkC says,
It is not necessary to invoke "just war" to understand the deception. The mere fact of "self defense" against an unjust aggessor will suffice. Think of the nuns in Sound of Music who stole the starter from the Nazi truck to prevent the troops from pursuing the family von Trapp.
February 22, 2011 at 5:41 pm
Anonymous @ 3:51 PM (2-21-11) wrote: "…but… my example was lying… IN… war. You, then, must be saying that lying is an "intrinsic evil regardless of the circumstance" – unless that circumstance is a just war?! See why I am confused?"–The two things are still distinct. A war can be just, but it must still use only just means (e.g. shooting an enemy soldier who's attacking you, rather than targeting a civilian deliberately). Lying doesn't become "all right" simply because it's in the middle of a war, or any other reason. Either we come up with some way to prove that deceptions of thus-and-so type are not actual lies (which are apparently condemned unconditionally), or we abandon lying (whether in wartime, or not).
February 22, 2011 at 6:53 pm
Now I see why the New Liturgical Movement quoted that article about comboxes…
My objection to Dr. Kreeft's article can be summed up quite simply: I do not want common sense moral theology. If I did, I would head right out to the ECUSA. I want the decidedly *un*common sense of Catholic moral theology.