In this post I'd like to consider the ethics of lying from two different angles:
i) One objection to lying is pragmatic: If you know someone lied to you, how can you trust them? I've discussed that before in relation to friendship, where one friend covers for another if his friend got into trouble even though his friend did nothing wrong.
But let's consider the opposite case. Suppose you're a high school student. There's a classmate who hates your guts. And he makes his animus evident at every available opportunity. He's your enemy. Needless to say, you're not very fond of him either.
One day he uses a "homophobic" or "transphobic" slur when talking to an LGBT student. He does it in your presence. The LGBT student reports this offense to the Vice Principal. It violate the student handbook. Students guilty of "homophobic/transphobic" slurs face suspension, "sensitivity training," or expulsion.
Next day the three of you are called into the Vice Principal's office. The LGBT student accuses your enemy of using the slur. Your enemy denies it. The LGBT student calls you as a witness. Since you overheard what was said, you're the tiebreaker.
Your enemy expects you to back up the allegation. Here's your chance to get even with him. But instead, you cover for him. You deny hearing him use the forbidden slur. Your enemy is surprised. Indeed, he's pleasantly shocked. Later, that gives you an opening to share the gospel with him. He respects you for standing up for him when you had every reason to be vindictive.
ii) Now it might be objected that even if this had a good result in the case of your erstwhile enemy, it hardened the LGBT student against you. And that may be true. Sometimes we have to make choices. What benefits one person will offend another.
iii) The illustration doesn't show that lying is sometimes justified. That wasn't the purpose of the illustration. It was simply countering a pragmatic objection with a pragmatic justification. Lying could still be (inherently) wrong for other reasons.
iv) But here's another dimension to the hypothetical. In this case, it's not merely a question of whether or not to lie. Rather, it's a question of being pressed into the service of someone else's agenda. In this situation, if you rat out your classmate, you are allowing yourself to become a tool of the LGBT agenda. A weapon for an unjust cause.
So there's more than one moral issue in play. On the one hand there's the ethics of lying. Is it always wrong? If not, what are the exceptions? On the other hand, there's the duty not to let yourself be coerced or commandeered into facilitating an ungodly movement.
None of this proves that lying is ever justified. But it introduces some moral complications that are often overlooked by the absolutists.
It's not as if giving in to the LGBTMNOPQ agenda does you any good. I was in Germany and they showed a picture of the interior of a nice looking older church on the bulletin board outside of it. It had a gay flag draped in front of the pulpit. I highly doubt the pews are filled with homosexuals or their supporters.
ReplyDeleteSeems to me that if we go down this path, anything can be morally justified. It is after all hypothetically possible that everything ultimately leads to sharing the gospel with someone. Furthermore it assumes that sharing the gospel with someone is worth lying. But is it? that too seems like an arbitrary value judgement.
ReplyDeleteSo maybe there is a reason to overlook this kind of reasoning. In a situation like this, perhaps the best option is to refuse to answer and accept the consequences, if one does not want to be a tool of the LGBT agenda.
See point iii
DeleteI was thinking of the last paragraph about the complications. If they are there then absolutism cannot be right
ReplyDeleteThe question is what to do in a situation with competing duties. Which duty takes precedence: the prima facie duty not to lie or the duty not to be a pawn of an evil agenda? And silence is often moral cowardice. Refusing to get involved.
DeleteStrictly speaking there is no duty not to be part of an evil agenda (thank God, otherwise we would be guilty just from sheer negligence) so the dilemma seems false IMO
ReplyDeleteNeither does there appear to be any duty to get involved so biblically speaking the case should be clear, no? Silence or the truth are both viable options
In the context of the hypothetical, truth would make the witness aid and abet an ungodly movement.
DeleteChristoffer Skuthalla
Delete“Strictly speaking there is no duty not to be part of an evil agenda (thank God, otherwise we would be guilty just from sheer negligence) so the dilemma seems false IMO Neither does there appear to be any duty to get involved so biblically speaking the case should be clear, no? Silence or the truth are both viable options”
First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a socialist.
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.
Aiding and abetting an ungodly movement is no sin that the Bible recognizes (in fact the Bible seems individualistic on this point, very far removed from todays habit of collective guilt)
ReplyDeleteIf the Bible doesn't call it out as sin neither should we
It's precisely individual responsibility that's germane to the point. Christians have a standing duty to resist evil where reasonably feasible.
DeleteAiding and abetting Stalinism is no sin that the Bible recognizes.
DeleteAiding and abetting Nazism is no sin that the Bible recognizes.
Aiding and abetting the LGBTQ movement is no sin that the Bible recognizes.
Aiding and abetting the pro-abortion movement is no sin that the Bible recognizes.
And so on.
Take the Hebrew midwives, who refused to cooperate with Pharaoh's genocidal, infanticidal policy. Indeed, they prevaricated to thwart his agenda.
DeleteWhich leads to other examples of outright lying in the aid of God's people, e.g. Rahab hiding the spies and fibbing to their pursuers.
Delete"It's precisely individual responsibility that's germane to the point. Christians have a standing duty to resist evil where reasonably feasible."
ReplyDeleteBut there is no such duty mentioned in the Bible.
In the hypothetical, the person is asked to tell the truth. The hebrew midwives were told to kill so the situations aren't analogical IMO
The Bible needn't provide an exhaustive list of duties. A general duty to resist evil where that's reasonably feasible covers specific cases.
DeleteBut no such general duty is mentioned. Even if it were, "reasonably feasible" would still be open to interpretation.
DeleteOne can always tell the authorities that one refuses to answer the questions and take the consequences of that, leaving the others to go free
Christoffer Skuthälla, are you a pacifist?
DeleteNeither pacifist nor hawk. I believe Jesus set an example when he put himself between the woman and the pharisees about to stone her. He did not attack the pharisees nor accuse the woman, but rather offered himself as a substute which is the Biblical approach imo
Delete*substitute
Delete"Neither pacifist nor hawk. I believe Jesus set an example when he put himself between the woman and the pharisees about to stone her. He did not attack the pharisees nor accuse the woman, but rather offered himself as a substute which is the Biblical approach imo"
DeleteIt's possible (not sure how probable) the section about the woman caught in adultery (John 7:53-8:11) represents a genuine tradition, but my understanding is most early manucripts do not contain this section. Most NT scholars seem to argue it's a scribal interpolation.
"One can always tell the authorities that one refuses to answer the questions and take the consequences of that, leaving the others to go free"
DeleteIf one says they "refuse" to answer questions, then it's possible they'll simply be executed along with their families. That's what happened in many cases across many places.
"But no such general duty is mentioned."
Deletei) There's no general duty not to collaborate with evil (where it's feasible to resist it)? Really? For instance, there's no obligation to refuse to cooperate with Stalin's planned famines–even if you're in a position to oppose it or opt out?
ii) Scripture forbids murder, but it doesn't explicitly or specifically forbid matricide, patricide, fratricide, infanticide, suicide, uxoricide, filicide, &c., so it's up to the reader to figure out what kinds of killing are forbidden by that general prohibition.
Conversely, we can sometimes infer a general principle from specific examples.
"One can always tell the authorities that one refuses to answer the questions and take the consequences of that, leaving the others to go free"
i) The only reason to resort to silence is if you assume that lying is intrinsically wrong. But that's the very issue under consideration.
ii) Silence isn't neutral. Silence can just as well be an implicit or functional answer. Silence means you're hiding something. The interrogator will draw an inference from your silence. So silence can be equivalent to a direct answer.
iii) But there are situations where you fail to protect the innocent if you retreat into silence.
iv) By refusing to answer the question, you retain a bogus sense of moral purity at the expense of the innocent person you sacrifice by your sanctimonious silence.
I) I am not aware of any such general duty in the Bible
DeleteIi) yes
I) even if lying is no sin in the absolute sense that would not in itself invalidate silence
As for ii) - iv): I am not aware of any biblical duties to prevent false inferences, protecting the innocent (here I could be wrong though) or percieving myself in a certain way so I don't see how this invalidates the option to remain silent
You seem to endorse Quisling ethics.
Delete"I am not aware of any such general duty [to resist evil] in the Bible"
Delete1. You keep repeating this refrain, but you never explain what you mean despite several attempts to get you to sound off.
2. The Bible is replete with positive moral exhortations and examples in resisting evil. For starters, see Prov 24:11-12: "Rescue those being led away to death; hold back those staggering toward slaughter. If you say, 'But we knew nothing about this,' does not he who weighs the heart perceive it? Does not he who guards your life know it? Will he not repay everyone according to what they have done?"
Similarly, look at passages like Exod 1:15-20, Josh 2, Dan 3, Dan 6, Acts 4, Acts 5, etc.
3. What's more, God created us with reason and the ability to use our reason. So even if (arguendo) the Bible was silent on the issue, but not against it, we can use our reason to argue for cases when it might be morally permissible.
Epistle of Dude - you are right
ReplyDeleteAssuming the hypothetical student is Christian since he shares the gospel in the account, then he should make his aim to emulate Christ in all he does under the admonition of 1 Cor. 10:31, among other Scriptural commands.
ReplyDeleteIt's difficult to see how in the situation presented his lie redounds to the glory of God. The hypothetical also seems to present two distinct enemies, the antagonistic other student and the LGBTQ agenda.
It's difficult to see how the Christian student is loving either enemy properly by lying in favor of, or against either. It's probably better for the Christian to obey Scripture, tell the truth, and let the chips fall where they may according to the Divine plan.
"Assuming the hypothetical student is Christian since he shares the gospel in the account, then he should make his aim to emulate Christ in all he does"
Deletei) If Christians should emulate Christ in all we do, then all Christians should remain childless spinsters or bachelors. All Christians should perform miracles. All Christians should know the future. All Christians should refuse to practice self-defense. All Christians should provoke the authorities to kill them. And so on and so forth.
ii) Conversely, since there are biblical examples of God deceiving unbelievers, Christians should deceive unbelievers.
"under the admonition of 1 Cor. 10:31, among other Scriptural commands. It's difficult to see how in the situation presented his lie redounds to the glory of God."
Unless you take the position that lying is intrinsically wrong, an altruistic lie can redound to the glory of God.
"It's difficult to see how the Christian student is loving either enemy properly by lying in favor of"
There's nothing difficult about seeing that, given the fact that I provided an argument for why that's the case. So other than your tendentious denial, do you have a reason to justify your claim?
"It's probably better for the Christian to obey Scripture…"
Obey Scripture in what respect?
"and let the chips fall where they may"
Sometimes that's the best course of action, but sometimes we have a duty to influence how the chips fall. Did the Hebrew midwives just let the chips fall where they may, or did they take matters into their own hands?
"according to the Divine plan."
If the student lied, that would also be according to the Divine plan, unless you think human lies fall outside the scope of God's plan or derail God's plan.