MVP asks...
If you are harbouring Jews and the SS appear at your door do you lie to save their lives or do you tell the truth and give them up to death?
Not all questions deserve an answer. It is not immoral to withhold information from someone that does not have a right to an answer.
As an example, my neighbor's son may ask "How much money do you make?" He does not have a right to an answer.
Or, my coworker may ask, "What did the boss say to you in that confidential conversation, where he asked you not to tell anyone else what you discussed?" Again, I am not obligated to provide an answer.
In the case of the SS officers at the doorstep, inquiring if any Jews are hidden inside the house, I may determine that the questioners do not have a right to an answer to their question.
If I know, beyond a reasonable doubt, that that providing an answer to their question will result in the untimely deaths of human beings, then I am not obligated to provide an answer.
The problem I face is that if I choose to remain silent, and to not provide an answer to their question, I am (in effect) answering their question.
As MVP illustrates, not all "lies" are equally immoral.
Some "lies", such as bearing false witness against someone else, saying untrue things about what someone else has said or done are more egregiously immoral than other "lies", such as telling someone, "Thank you so much for the gift, I love it."
Bearing false witness against someone else is the more immoral lie because it is like stealing. Spreading misinformation about someone is taking away someone's reputation, it's taking something that doesn't belong to you.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Cool. So you agree that "Thou shalt not lie" is a ridicluous command as it has both moral and immoral implications.
ReplyDeleteIt looks like we have some neutral ground there...though I don't know how this affects your theology. It looks like reason has outweighed God in this case. No?
(Am I the first person ever to comment on your blog?)
@MVP
ReplyDeleteNo, I don't agree that that ninth commandment is ridiculous.
"Thou shalt not bear false witness against your neighbor." (KJV)
"You shall not give false testimony against your neighbor." (NIV)
The moral imperative seems to be a prohibition against saying things that are untrue about someone else.
I am forbidden to speak falsely about the words and actions of another.
Such an action is somewhat equivalent to stealing. By saying things that are untrue about someone, I am in effect "stealing" their reputation, which does not belong to me.
I don't see here, in the ninth commandment, a prohibition against normal social lubrication, the small untruths by which decent human society operates.
When I receive a gift, I am more apt to say "I love it", even if it isn't entirely my preference. (I appreciate the gift, and the thought that went into it, though I might not entirely appreciate everything else about the gift.)
I could choose to speak more truthfully, and say something like "Thank you so much for the gift. The color is awful." But saying that would be inappropriate, and would brand me (socially) as a class-A butthead.
So I don't see the ninth commandment as ridiculous at all.
What I find ridiculous is the notion that you suggest: that the ninth commandment prohibits the little social untruths which lubricate social interactions. That idea is unwarranted.