Monday, September 26, 2011
No lying, ever: Redux
We had a lively discussion (as did others) a few months ago about Chris Tollefsen's (and others') argument that "lying" is never morally permissible. In this post, at First Things, Tollefsen (and Alexander Pruss) return to the conversation, with their "Case Against False Assertions." Tollefsen and Pruss are responding, in particular, to Janet Smith, who took a different view here.
I replied to Tollefsen's earlier argument here. I continue to think that the position "it is always wrong to intentionally deceive another" is not plausible, and I don't think the position is made much more plausible with qualfications that distinguish, say, strategic (deceptive) feints on the battlefield from "assertions." To think this is not to think (I think!) that it is permissible to "do evil that good might result"; it is to think that to deceive is not necessarily to "do evil."
https://mirrorofjustice.blogs.com/mirrorofjustice/2011/09/no-lying-ever-redux.html
Comments
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the
comment feed
for this post.
Bravo. Jesus made a point of saying that he did not pray to his father that his followers be taken out of this world.
May I suggest a similar point, which complies fully with the Magisterium but not always with modern moralists. In regard to social justice we arre called upon to put aside our comfort in order to help those in need. What we are not called up to do is to do foolish or counterproductive things, on the thesis that they are also disagreeable and therefore seemingly virtuous. It is not suffering that makes our tasks virtuous. It is the outcomes that they accomplish that constitues virtue. However, we are commanded to sacrifice our own convenience when that is necessary to achive a greater end.