Saving Yourself or Saving Others

With all the talk about whether it is moral to lie to save others. I wonder how many people would refuse to lie to save themselves. If somebody pointed a gun at you and told you to tell a lie would you do it? Catholic theology says we should be willing to die rather than commit one sin. But how many of us would make that choice? How many people would criticize somebody for not choosing martyrdom over a lie. Certainly in the case of rape it would be unthinkable to argue that the morally correct choice was for the woman to choose death rather than cooperate with the rape. That kind of heroic virtue does happen and we rarely find out about it but we don't expect it. We don't put somebody up for public ridicule when they don't make that choice.

So what is the difference? We understand moral compromise to save ourselves. We don't understand it near as well when the goal is to save others. You balance your respect for the truth against your love of your own life and normally your love of your life wins. But when somebody balances respect for the truth against their love of another person's life then we can't understand how they can make such a choice. We go on and on and on about how immoral they are. Maybe it is not because we are so much better lovers of truth. Maybe it is because they are better lovers of the unborn or Jews or whoever else is in the scenario.

I remember reading the Hiding Place. Corrie Ten Boom did lie to help the dutch underground against the Germans. But she refused to do anything that involved killing. That seemed strange to me. Why was lying justified by the circumstances and killing was not? Principles are hard to find.

We do have something in Catholic morality called the just war doctrine. War is certainly immoral but sometimes it can be justified. Can resisting evil be more generally justified? When the gravity of the evil being fought outweighs the gravity of the evil being committed and the possibility of success is high? If Live Action had told a more serious lie then it would not be OK. If they told a pregnant woman that an abortion would cost her $1000 when, in fact, it would be free. That would be immoral even if the expected result was to save the child. Why? Because giving false information is worse than creating a staged situation.

I am open to the idea that Live Action might have crossed a line. I am not open to the idea that there is no line. If I was in Elizabethan England and a priest was hiding in my home. He tells me not to lie to save him. I would still lie. It would be a cowardly not to. Could I watch him be tortured to death and feel like I did the right thing? Not a chance. I would feel like I did the selfish thing. It is good for him to tell me not to lie. He should not expect it of me. But I should do it, Especially if I had good reason to expect them to believe me and move on. If I knew they would search anyway that would be different.

I understand people feel that allowing any prudence into the picture opens the door to abuse. The just war doctrine allows people to justify pretty much any war. They just stretch the criteria and they can convince themselves they did the right thing. This is open to abuse too. But absolute rules have their problem too. If it is possible to punish a child to much then people run to the position that no child should ever be punished. Proportionate response requires an honest assessment of the situation. We tend to become Calvinists and assume everyone is totally depraved and incapable of right reason. But we need right reason to be moral. Absolute rules will not do.