A Lie Never Justifiable: A Study in Ethics E-Book

H. Clay Trumbull

• Herausgeber: Booksell-Verlag
• Kategorie: Geisteswissenschaft
• Sprache: Englisch

Veröffentlichungsjahr: 2019

Beschreibung

In "A Lie Never Justifiable: A Study in Ethics," H. Clay Trumbull delves deeply into the moral implications of deception, presenting a thought-provoking analysis grounded in philosophical inquiry and ethical reasoning. Trumbull employs a rigorous literary style, marked by clarity and precision, to dissect various contexts in which lying is often excused or rationalized. The book features a wealth of historical and contemporary examples, situating the discussion within a broader literary and ethical framework that encourages readers to critically assess the social and personal ramifications of dishonesty. H. Clay Trumbull, a prominent figure in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, was not only an author but also a respected clergyman and educator. His extensive background in moral philosophy and theology likely informed his deep investigation into the subject of truthfulness. Trumbull'Äôs commitment to ethical discourse reflects his belief in the transformative power of honesty as a foundation for personal integrity and societal trust, resonating with the moral crises faced in his time and relevance today. This rigorous exploration of ethics and honesty is imperative for readers seeking to navigate the complexities of moral decision-making in their lives. Trumbull's insightful arguments challenge readers to confront their own beliefs about truth and deception, making this book an essential read for anyone interested in ethics, philosophy, or the role of honesty in human interactions.

Leseprobe

H. Clay Trumbull

A Lie Never Justifiable: A Study in Ethics

Published by Good Press, 2022

[email protected]

EAN 4064066181093

Table of Contents

PREFACE.

I.

II.

III.

IV.

V.

VI.

VII.

TOPICAL INDEX.

SCRIPTURAL INDEX .

PREFACE.

Table of Contents

That there was need of a book on the subject of which this treats, will be evidenced to those who examine its contents. Whether this book meets the need, it is for those to decide who are its readers.

The circumstances of its writing are recited in its opening chapter. I was urged to the undertaking by valued friends. At every step in its progress I have been helped by those friends, and others. For much of that which is valuable in it, they deserve credit. For its imperfections and lack, I alone am at fault.

Although I make no claim to exhaustiveness of treatment in this work, I do claim to have attempted a treatment that is exceptionally comprehensive and thorough. My researches have included extensive and varied fields of fact and of thought, even though very much in those fields has been left ungathered. What is here presented is at least suggestive of the abundance and richness of the matter available in this line.

While not presuming to think that I have said the last word on this question of the ages, I do venture to hope that I have furnished fresh material for its more intelligent consideration. It may be that, in view of the data here presented, some will settle the question finally for themselves—by settling it right.

If the work tends to bring any considerable number to this practical issue, I shall be more than repaid for the labor expended on it; for I have a profound conviction that it is the question of questions in ethics, now as always.

H. CLAY TRUMBULL.

PHILADELPHIA,

August 14,1893

I.

A QUESTION OF THE AGES.

Is a Lie Ever Justifiable?—Two Proffered Answers.—Inducements and Temptations Influencing a Decision.—Incident in Army Prison Life.—Difference in Opinion.—Killing Enemy, or Lying to Him.—Killing, but not Lying, Possibility with God.—Beginning of this Discussion.—Its Continuance.—Origin of this Book.

II.

ETHNIC CONCEPTIONS.

Standards and Practices of Primitive Peoples.—Sayings and Doings of Hindoos.—Teachings of the Mahabharata.—Harischandra and Viswamitra, the Job and Satan of Hindoo Passion-Play.—Scandinavian Legends.—Fridthjof and Ingeborg.—Persian Ideals.—Zoroastrian Heaven and Hell.—"Home of Song," and "Home of the Lie."—Truth the Main Cardinal Virtue with Egyptians.—No Hope for the Liar.—Ptah, "Lord of Truth."—Truth Fundamental to Deity.—Relatively Low Standard of Greeks.—Incidental Testimony of Herodotus.—Truthfulness of Achilles.—Plato.—Aristotle.—Theognis.—Pindar.—Tragedy of Philoctetes.—Roman Standard.—Cicero.—Marcus Aurelius.—German Ideal.—Veracity a Primitive Conception.—Lie Abhorrent among Hill Tribes of India.—Khonds.—Sonthals.—Todas.—Bheels.—Sowrahs.— Tipperahs.—Arabs.—American Indians.—Patagonians.—Hottentots.— East Africans.—Mandingoes.—Dyaks of Borneo,—"Lying Heaps."—Veddahs of Ceylon.—Javanese.—Lying Incident of Civilization.—Influence of Spirit of Barter.—"Punic Faith."—False Philosophy of Morals.

III.

BIBLE TEACHINGS.

Principles, not Rules, the Bible Standard.—Two Pictures of Paradise.—Place of Liars.—God True, though Men Lie.—Hebrew Midwives.—Jacob and Esau.—Rahab the Lying Harlot.—Samuel at Bethlehem.—Micaiah before Jehoshaphat and Ahab.—Character and Conduct.—Abraham.—Isaac.—Jacob.—David.—Ananias and Sapphira.—Bible Injunctions and Warnings.

IV.

DEFINITIONS.

Importance of a Definition.—Lie Positive, and Lie Negative.—Speech and Act.—Element of Intention.—Concealment Justifiable, and Concealment Unjustifiable.—Witness in Court.—Concealment that is Right.—Concealment that is Sinful.—First Duty of Fallen Man.—Brutal Frankness.—Indecent Exposure of Personal Opinion.—Lie Never Tolerable as Means of Concealing.—False Leg or Eye.—Duty of Disclosure Conditioned on Relations to Others.—Deception Purposed, and Resultant Deception.—Limits of Responsibility for Results of Action.—Surgeon Refusing to Leave Patient.—Father with Drowning Child.—Mother and Wife Choosing.—Others Self-Deceived concerning Us.—Facial Expression.—"A Blind Patch."—Broken Vase.—Closed Shutters in Midsummer.—Opened Shutters.—Absent Man's Hat in Front Hall.—When Concealment is Proper.—When Concealment is Wrong.—Contagious Diseases.—Selling a Horse or Cow.—Covering Pit.—Wearing Wig.—God's Method with Man.—Delicate Distinction.— Truthful Statements Resulting in False Impressions.—Concealing Family Trouble.—Physician and Inquiring Patient.—Illustrations Explain Principle, not Define it.

V.

THE PLEA OF "NECESSITY."

Quaker and Dry-goods Salesman.—Supposed Profitableness of Lying.—Plea for "Lies of Necessity."—Lying not Justifiable between Enemies in War-time.—Rightfulness of Concealing Movements and Plans from Enemy.—Responsibility with Flag of Truce.—Difference between Scout and Spy.—Ethical Distinctions Recognized by Belligerents.—Illustration: Federal Prisoner Questioned by Confederate Captors.—Libby Prison Experiences.—Physicians and Patients.—Concealment not Necessarily Deception.—Loss of Reputation for Truthfulness by Lying Physicians.—Loss of Power Thereby.—Impolicy of Lying to Insane.—Dr. Kirkbride's Testimony.—Life not Worth Saving by Lie.—Concealing One's Condition from Robber in Bedroom.—Questions of Would-be Murderer.—"Do Right though the Heavens Fall."—Duty to God not to be Counted out of Problem.—Deserting God's Service by Lying.—Parting Prayer.

VI.

CENTURIES OF DISCUSSION.

Wide Differences of Opinion.—Views of Talmudists.—Hamburger's Testimony.—Strictness in Principle.—Exceptions in Practice.—Isaac Abohab's Testimony.—Christian Fathers not Agreed.—Martyrdom Price of Truthtelling.—Justin Martyr's Testimony.—Temptations of Early Christians.—Words of Shepherd of Hermas.—Tertullian's Estimate.—Origen on False Speaking.—Peter and Paul at Antioch.— Gregory of Nyssa and Basil the Great.—Deceit in Interests of Harmony.—Chrysostom's Deception of Basil.—Chrysostom's Defense of Deceit.—Augustine's Firmness of Position.—Condemnation of Lying.—Examination of Excuses.—Jerome's Weakness and Error.—Final Agreement with Augustine.—Repetition of Arguments of Augustine and Chrysostom.—Representative Disputants.—Thomas Aquinas.—Masterly Discussion.—Errors of Duns Scotus.—John Calvin.—Martin Luther.— Ignatius Loyola.—Position of Jesuits.—Protestants Defending Lying. —Jeremy Taylor.—Errors and Inconsistencies.—Wrong Definitions.— Misapplication of Scripture.—Richard Rothe.—Character, Ability, and Influence. in Definition of Lie.—Failure to Recognize.—Error Love to God as Only Basis of Love to Man.—Exceptions in Favor of Lying.—Nitzsch's Claim of Wiser and Nobler Methods than Lying in Love.—Rothe's Claim of Responsibility of Loving Guardianship—No Countenance of Deception in Example of Jesus.—Prime Error of Rothe. —Opinions of Contemporary Critics.—Isaac Augustus Dorner.— Character and Principles.—Keen Definitions.—High Standards.— Clearness and Consistency.—Hans Lassen Martensen.—Logic Swayed by Feeling.—Right Premises and Wavering Reasonings.—Lofty Ideals.— Story of Jeanie Deans.—Correct Conclusions.—Influence of Personal Peculiarities on Ethical Convictions.—Contrast of Charles Hodge and James H. Thornwell.—Dr. Hodge's Correct Premises and Amiable Inconsistencies.—Truth the Substratum of Deity.—Misconceptions of Bible Teachings.—Suggestion of Deception by Jesus Christ.—Error as to General Opinion of Christians.—Dr. Hodge's Conclusions Crushed by his Premises.—Dr. Thornwell's Thorough Treatment of Subject.— Right Basis.—Sound Argument.—Correct Definitions.—Firmness for Truth.—Newman Smyth's Manual.—Good Beginning and Bad Ending.— Confusion of Terms.—Inconsistencies in Argument.—Loose Reasoning. —Dangerous Teachings.—James Martineau.—Fine Moral Sense.—Conflict between Feeling and Conviction.—Safe Instincts.—Thomas Fowler.— Higher Expediency of Veracity.—Importance to General Good.—Leslie Stephen.—Duty of Veracity Result of Moral Progress.—Kant and Fichte.—Jacobi Misrepresented.—False Assumptions by Advocates of Lie of Necessity.—Enemies in Warfare not Justified in Lying.—Testimony of Cicero.—Macaulay on Lord Clive's Treachery.—Woolsey on International Law.—No Place for Lying in Medical Ethics.—Opinions and Experiences of Physicians.—Pliny's Story of Roman Matron.—Victor Hugo's Sister Simplice.—Words of Abbé Sicard.—Tact and Principle.—Legal Ethics.—Whewell's View.—Opinion of Chief-Justice Sharswood.—Mistakes of Dr. Hodge.—Lord Brougham's Claim.—False Charge against Charles Phillips.—Chancellor Kent on Moral Obligations in Law and in Equity.—Clerical Profession Chiefly Involved.—Clergymen for and against Lying.—Temptation to Lies of Love.—Supreme Importance of Sound Principle.—Duty of Veracity to Lower Animals.—Dr. Dabney's View.—Views of Dr. Newman Smyth.—Duty of Truthfulness an Obligation toward God.—Lower Animals not Exempt from Principle of Universal Application.—Fishing.—Hunting.—Catching Horse.—Professor Bowne's Psychological View.—No Place for Lying in God's Universe.—Small Improvement on Chrysostom's Argument for Lying.—Limits of Consistency in Logical Plea.—God, or Satan.

VII.

THE GIST OF THE MATTER.

One All-Dividing Line.—Primal and Eternal Difference.—Lie Inevitably Hostile to God.—Lying Separates from God.—Sin per se.—Perjury Justifiable if Lying be Justifiable.—Lying—Lying Defiles Liar, apart from Questions of Gain in Lying.—Social Evils Resultant from Lying.—Confidence Essential to Society.—Lying Destructive of Confidence.—Lie Never Harmless.

INDEXES.

TOPICAL INDEX. SCRIPTURAL INDEX.

I.

Table of Contents

A QUESTION OF THE AGES.

Whether a lie is ever justifiable, is a question that has been in discussion, not only in all the Christian centuries, but ever since questions concerning human conduct were first a possibility. On the one hand, it has been claimed that a lie is by its very nature irreconcilable with the eternal principles of justice and right; and, on the other hand, it has been asserted that great emergencies may necessitate a departure from all ordinary rules of human conduct, and that therefore there may be, in an emergency, such a thing as the "lie of necessity."

It is not so easy to consider fairly a question like this in the hour when vital personal interests pivot on the decision, as it is in a season of rest and safety; yet, if in a time of extremest peril the unvarying duty of truthfulness shines clearly through an atmosphere of sore temptation, that light may be accepted as diviner because of its very power to penetrate clouds and to dispel darkness. Being forced to consider, in an emergency, the possible justification of the so-called "lie of necessity," I was brought to a settlement of that question in my own mind, and have since been led to an honest endeavor to bring others to a like settlement of it. Hence this monograph.

In the summer of 1863 I was a prisoner of war in Columbia, South Carolina. The Federal prisoners were confined in the common jail, under military guard, and with no parole binding them not to attempt an escape. They were subject to the ordinary laws of war. Their captors were responsible for their detention in imprisonment, and it was their duty to escape from captivity, and to return to the army of the government to which they owed allegiance, if they could do so by any right means. No obligations were on them toward their captors, save those which are binding at all times, even when a state of war suspends such social duties as are merely conventional.

Only he who has been a prisoner of war in a Southern prison in midsummer, or in a Northern prison in the dead of winter, in time of active hostilities outside, can fully realize the heart-longings of a soldier prisoner to find release from his sufferings in confinement, and to be again at his post of duty at the front, or can understand how gladly such a man would find a way, consistent with the right, to escape, at any involved risk. But all can believe that plans of escape were in frequent discussion among the restless Federal prisoners in Columbia, of whom I was one.

A plan proposed to me by a fellow-officer seemed to offer peculiar chances of success, and I gladly joined in it. But as its fuller details were considered, I found that a probable contingency would involve the telling of a lie to an enemy, or a failure of the whole plan. At this my moral sense recoiled; and I expressed my unwillingness to tell a lie, even to regain my personal liberty or to advantage my government by a return to its army. This opened an earnest discussion of the question whether there is such a thing as a "lie of necessity," or a justifiable lie. My friend was a pure-minded man of principle, ready to die for his convictions; and he looked at this question with a sincere desire to know the right, and to conform to it. He argued that a condition of war suspended ordinary social relations between the combatants, and that the obligation of truth-speaking was one of the duties thus suspended. I, on the other hand, felt that a lie was necessarily a sin against God, and therefore was never justifiable.

My friend asked me whether I would hesitate to kill an enemy who was on guard over me, or whom I met outside, if it were essential to our escape. I replied that I would not hesitate to do so, any more than I would hesitate at it if we were over against each other in battle. In time of war the soldiers of both sides take the risks of a life-and-death struggle; and now that we were unparoled prisoners it was our duty to escape if we could do so, even at the risk of our lives or of the lives of our captors, and it was their duty to prevent our escape at a similar risk. My friend then asked me on what principle I could justify the taking of a man's life as an enemy, and yet not feel justified in telling him a lie in order to save his life and secure our liberty. How could it be claimed that it was more of a sin to tell a lie to a man who had forfeited his social rights, than to kill him. I confessed that I could not at that time see the reason for the distinction, which my moral sense assured me was a real one, and I asked time to think of it. Thus it was that I came first to face a question of the ages, Is a lie ever justifiable? under circumstances that involved more than life to me, and when I had a strong inducement to see the force of reasons in favor of a "lie of necessity."

In my careful study, at that time, of the principles involved in this question, I came upon what seemed to me the conclusion of the whole matter. God is the author of life. He who gives life has the right to take it again. What God can do by himself, God can authorize another to do. Human governments derive their just powers from God. The powers that be are ordained of God. A human government acts for God in the administering of justice, even to the extent of taking life. If a war waged by a human government be righteous, the officers of that government take life, in the prosecution of the war, as God's agents. In the case then in question, we who were in prison as Federal officers were representatives of our government, and would be justified in taking the lives of enemies of our government who hindered us as God's agents in the doing of our duty to God and to our government.

On the other hand, God, who can justly take life, cannot lie. A lie is contrary to the very nature of God. "It is impossible for God to lie."[1] And if God cannot lie, God cannot authorize another to lie. What is unjustifiable in God's sight, is without a possibility of justification in the universe. No personal or social emergency can justify a lie, whatever may be its apparent gain, or whatever harm may seem to be involved in a refusal to speak it. Therefore we who were Federal prisoners in war-time could not be justified in doing what was a sin per se, and what God was by his very nature debarred from authorizing or approving. I could see no way of evading this conclusion, and I determinedly refused to seek release from imprisonment at the cost of a sin against God.

[Footnote 1: Heb. 6: 18]