This is very refreshing. It is like a breath of fresh air. Thanks for posting it. When one intentionally does not tell the truth, one is invalidating the other person, and one clearly manipulates in order to control. It is not always easy to detect in oneself. Thanks again
In essence, Reality is to be honored, and discovered, as a Mystery that unveils in front of us: βTo lie, then, is to treat reality as a thing you can twist to your own ends. And this reveals not just a lack of charity towards others and a misunderstanding of the purpose of language, but also a fundamental refusal to allow reality to form you.β
Amen. Great piece. When we lie, we dull our sensitivity to sin. Walk in the light and reject the temptation to lie. Even in a court of law we have the right to remain silent.
βWell, consider this. If a teacher asks a boy in front of the whole class if his father came home drunk again the night before, is the boy obliged to answer βyesβ? No. Exactly, the teacher is abusing his power in asking the boy that question. The honest answer is for the boy to lie, defending his father. And lie for all heβs worth.β β Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Bonhoeffer: Agent of Grace (2000).
I would accept a lie only to deceive a would-be criminal. Like, a stranger knocking at your door, and you answering something like, "My husband is resting, I won't disturb him!" No husband in real life.
When a person with a knife cuts into a child, is it always the wrong thing to do? Hildebrand's ideology would tell us so, because "He [the person with the knife] assumes a lordly position over being, [sic] he deals with it as he pleases and treats it as if it were a chimera, a plaything of his arbitrary pleasure. He denies recognition and response to the value that inheres in being as such, to the dignity that being possesses by its opposition to nothingness. The [person with the knife] does not fulfill the fundamental obligation to recognize everything that exists in its reality, not to interpret black as white, and not to deny a fact."
Now consider that the person with the knife is a surgeon, and he's removing the ruptured appendix of the child, who will certainly die if this surgery isn't performed. It all depends on the circumstances and intent, doesn't it?
I'm not advocating for moral relativism, but the moral judgment being made here by Hildebrand can be misused for evil. The Nazis, knocking on the door of a person who is hiding Jews in WWII, are bent on killing them. The person at the door has the power of their lives in his hands. If he lies to the Nazis, the innocents live. If he tells the truth, they die, and he is now somehow morally superior to the one who would protect the lives of innocent image-bearers? Are you kidding me? There is an incorrect assumption here, namely that everyone deserves to know the full truth. People who are doing evil have no right or claim to the full truth. Anything people can do to stop them is in bounds, with the caveat that it must be within the boundaries of concepts like just war theory.
A crazy leftist can't just assassinate Charlie Kirk because they believe he's doing evil for proclaiming biblical realities about sex, gender, and marriage, and a pro-life person can't go around killing abortion doctors in their homes to prevent the "greater evil" of abortion. The "evils" being espoused in the first case are theoretical. In the second, there is already a remedy available, namely to change the laws surrounding abortion, and change hearts by declaring everywhere that human life begins at conception. But for the person who can do something that immediately affects the lives of others who are in imminent danger, lying to the ones who would perpetrate evil on them is not just permissible, but required. Note that this isn't necessarily the case when trying to protect one's own life, but for sure it is when protecting others, with Jesus teaching that there is no greater love than to lay one's life down for one's friends. (John 15:13)
There's an important disanalogy to your surgery example. In the case of surgery, you aren't mangling the body to your own devices, you are helping it function better according to its own nature.
In lying, you aren't assisting reality in an analogous way; you are simply denying its nature. It is far more like painting over a wound without treating it.
For one thing, they have already assented to the murder, so the damage to their soul is done.
Second, you can't harm your own soul to help another person's. Your primary responsibility is your own relationship to God. To harm that to stop someone else from sinning is still a sin, and ought not be done.
Liars are entitled to as much moral complexity as those cutting into a child's flesh.
"The king of Egypt told the Hebrew midwives, one of whom was called Shiphrah and the other Puah, βWhen you act as midwives for the Hebrew women, look on the birthstool: if it is a boy, kill him; but if it is a girl, she may live.β The midwives, however, feared God; they did not do as the king of Egypt had ordered them, but let the boys live. So the king of Egypt summoned the midwives and asked them, βWhy have you done this, allowing the boys to live?β The midwives answered Pharaoh, βThe Hebrew women are not like the Egyptian women. They are robust and give birth before the midwife arrives.β Therefore God dealt well with the midwives; and the people multiplied and grew very numerous. And because the midwives feared God, God built up families for them."
Thereβs something heavy in the idea that truth isnβt just information, but something that makes a claim on you.
Not as a rule imposed from outside, but as a kind of gravity. You can try to ignore it, bend it, reshape itβbut over time, the distortion starts to affect you more than the thing itself.
Itβs like walking through a landscape and insisting the ground is flat when it isnβt. You can say it, even believe it, but your steps start to falter because your map no longer matches the terrain.
And the cost isnβt immediate. It builds slowly, in small misalignments, until eventually youβre not just misreading the worldβyouβre misreading yourself within it.
Beautifully put β there's something profound about how the answer shifts depending on whether we're protecting someone we love or protecting ourselves. Philosophy at its most human.
Allow me to register qualified dissent. Hildebrand seems like a fine fellow, but he never worked on Capitol Hill. Itβs a no-go zone for Diogenes and anyone searching for the truth. I was on the Hill for 25 years and reality is forever in flux.
I personally discovered at a young age that people rarely ask you questions in order to help you. It is usually a means to collect negative information or gain some advantage. Persons demanding truth rarely hold themselves to the same standard. As my father, a former Christian Brother, said: βJust because someone is out to kill you doesnβt mean you have to commit suicide.β
This is very refreshing. It is like a breath of fresh air. Thanks for posting it. When one intentionally does not tell the truth, one is invalidating the other person, and one clearly manipulates in order to control. It is not always easy to detect in oneself. Thanks again
In essence, Reality is to be honored, and discovered, as a Mystery that unveils in front of us: βTo lie, then, is to treat reality as a thing you can twist to your own ends. And this reveals not just a lack of charity towards others and a misunderstanding of the purpose of language, but also a fundamental refusal to allow reality to form you.β
Fantastic piece! Thank you for writing it.
Hildebrand is just the best. Absolute genius, and he had a unique way of getting right to the heart of the issue.
Amen. Great piece. When we lie, we dull our sensitivity to sin. Walk in the light and reject the temptation to lie. Even in a court of law we have the right to remain silent.
I agree with this. We should take the command to not bear false witness seriously.
βWell, consider this. If a teacher asks a boy in front of the whole class if his father came home drunk again the night before, is the boy obliged to answer βyesβ? No. Exactly, the teacher is abusing his power in asking the boy that question. The honest answer is for the boy to lie, defending his father. And lie for all heβs worth.β β Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Bonhoeffer: Agent of Grace (2000).
If truth telling is a value, it may be subordinated for another value when in conflict, and that other value in our psyche takes precedent.
I think there is a better way to address the Nazi situation.
Here is the scenario. You are hiding Jewish children and a Nazi soldier, asks if there are any Jews in your house.
Are you justified in lying to him?
Let me ask you another question.
He has found the hiding place, and is about to arrest them.
Are you justified in killing him to prevent that?
I would argue yes.
Would it be a moral thing to kill him to prevent him from causing the death of those children?
Yes.
Even though human life is a good?
Yes.
Because of his actions in that situation, he has forfeited his access to life to prevent the great evil he was about to do.
Would you really argue, that it is justified to kill the Nazi, but not to lie to him?
If you are justified in removing his access to life permanently, why would you not be justified in removing his access to truth temporarily?
I would accept a lie only to deceive a would-be criminal. Like, a stranger knocking at your door, and you answering something like, "My husband is resting, I won't disturb him!" No husband in real life.
"Am I going to live?"
"Hell no bro, you gonna die!"
"Damnit, you could've lied and said yes."
When a person with a knife cuts into a child, is it always the wrong thing to do? Hildebrand's ideology would tell us so, because "He [the person with the knife] assumes a lordly position over being, [sic] he deals with it as he pleases and treats it as if it were a chimera, a plaything of his arbitrary pleasure. He denies recognition and response to the value that inheres in being as such, to the dignity that being possesses by its opposition to nothingness. The [person with the knife] does not fulfill the fundamental obligation to recognize everything that exists in its reality, not to interpret black as white, and not to deny a fact."
Now consider that the person with the knife is a surgeon, and he's removing the ruptured appendix of the child, who will certainly die if this surgery isn't performed. It all depends on the circumstances and intent, doesn't it?
I'm not advocating for moral relativism, but the moral judgment being made here by Hildebrand can be misused for evil. The Nazis, knocking on the door of a person who is hiding Jews in WWII, are bent on killing them. The person at the door has the power of their lives in his hands. If he lies to the Nazis, the innocents live. If he tells the truth, they die, and he is now somehow morally superior to the one who would protect the lives of innocent image-bearers? Are you kidding me? There is an incorrect assumption here, namely that everyone deserves to know the full truth. People who are doing evil have no right or claim to the full truth. Anything people can do to stop them is in bounds, with the caveat that it must be within the boundaries of concepts like just war theory.
A crazy leftist can't just assassinate Charlie Kirk because they believe he's doing evil for proclaiming biblical realities about sex, gender, and marriage, and a pro-life person can't go around killing abortion doctors in their homes to prevent the "greater evil" of abortion. The "evils" being espoused in the first case are theoretical. In the second, there is already a remedy available, namely to change the laws surrounding abortion, and change hearts by declaring everywhere that human life begins at conception. But for the person who can do something that immediately affects the lives of others who are in imminent danger, lying to the ones who would perpetrate evil on them is not just permissible, but required. Note that this isn't necessarily the case when trying to protect one's own life, but for sure it is when protecting others, with Jesus teaching that there is no greater love than to lay one's life down for one's friends. (John 15:13)
There's an important disanalogy to your surgery example. In the case of surgery, you aren't mangling the body to your own devices, you are helping it function better according to its own nature.
In lying, you aren't assisting reality in an analogous way; you are simply denying its nature. It is far more like painting over a wound without treating it.
If you lie to stop someone from becoming a murderer, aren't you helping them and their immortal soul?
For one thing, they have already assented to the murder, so the damage to their soul is done.
Second, you can't harm your own soul to help another person's. Your primary responsibility is your own relationship to God. To harm that to stop someone else from sinning is still a sin, and ought not be done.
Liars are entitled to as much moral complexity as those cutting into a child's flesh.
"The king of Egypt told the Hebrew midwives, one of whom was called Shiphrah and the other Puah, βWhen you act as midwives for the Hebrew women, look on the birthstool: if it is a boy, kill him; but if it is a girl, she may live.β The midwives, however, feared God; they did not do as the king of Egypt had ordered them, but let the boys live. So the king of Egypt summoned the midwives and asked them, βWhy have you done this, allowing the boys to live?β The midwives answered Pharaoh, βThe Hebrew women are not like the Egyptian women. They are robust and give birth before the midwife arrives.β Therefore God dealt well with the midwives; and the people multiplied and grew very numerous. And because the midwives feared God, God built up families for them."
Thought provoking
This is quite interesting!
Thereβs something heavy in the idea that truth isnβt just information, but something that makes a claim on you.
Not as a rule imposed from outside, but as a kind of gravity. You can try to ignore it, bend it, reshape itβbut over time, the distortion starts to affect you more than the thing itself.
Itβs like walking through a landscape and insisting the ground is flat when it isnβt. You can say it, even believe it, but your steps start to falter because your map no longer matches the terrain.
And the cost isnβt immediate. It builds slowly, in small misalignments, until eventually youβre not just misreading the worldβyouβre misreading yourself within it.
Beautifully put β there's something profound about how the answer shifts depending on whether we're protecting someone we love or protecting ourselves. Philosophy at its most human.
Allow me to register qualified dissent. Hildebrand seems like a fine fellow, but he never worked on Capitol Hill. Itβs a no-go zone for Diogenes and anyone searching for the truth. I was on the Hill for 25 years and reality is forever in flux.
I personally discovered at a young age that people rarely ask you questions in order to help you. It is usually a means to collect negative information or gain some advantage. Persons demanding truth rarely hold themselves to the same standard. As my father, a former Christian Brother, said: βJust because someone is out to kill you doesnβt mean you have to commit suicide.β