Is it morally wrong to Fake your own Death?

[Traditio]

If it is, wouldn't it also be morally wrong to enter the Federal Witness Protection Program?

Presumably, if faking one's own death is morally wrong, at least part of the reason for it's being wrong is that it's either a species of, or otherwise analogous to, lying.

It may also be tied to an intention to commit injustice (e.g., to avoid various obligations) or acts of the other vices.

I don't think that the federal witness thing is at all alike.

 

[Traditio]

Entering the Witness Protection Program is like faking your own death in that the former identity is abandoned and a new identity is adopted.

Yes; that's lying and it's morally wrong.

If I tell you "My name is Julian," I'm intentionally deceiving you by means of my speech. My name isn't "Julian."

Every lie constitutes a moral evil.

That said, simply relocating somebody is perfectly permissible.

 

[Rusha]

Yes; that's lying and it's morally wrong.

If I tell you "My name is Julian," I'm intentionally deceiving you. My name isn't "Julian."

Every lie constitutes a moral evil.

That said, simply relocating somebody is perfectly permissible.

I disagree. In rare instances (such as saving a life or self defense), lying is perfectly permissible.

My concern would be in the type of instance GO brought up.

 

[Traditio]

I disagree. In rare instances (such as saving a life or self defense), lying is perfectly permissible.

My concern would be in the type of instance GO brought up.

Whatever thought, word or deed (or failure thereof) is dissonant with right practical reason is a sin or a moral offense. Whatever thought, word or deed (or failure thereof) which has, in its very notion, a defect is dissonant with right practical reason.

Because every lie, as such, involves an intrinsic moral defect, every lie is morally forbidden and constitutes an offense against the moral law.

Every lie involves the use of language, which has a natural ordering to expressing what is on one's mind, i.e., to express "practical truth," so to speak, to subvert the very natural ordering or purpose of linguistic expression.

Both Kant and St. Thomas Aquinas (and also St. Augustine) unequivocally condemn all lying, as does Jesus (Satan is, after all, the father of lies; whereas Jesus is Truth Itself).

 

[Rusha]

Whatever thought, word or deed (or failure thereof) is dissonant with right practical reason is a sin or a moral offense. Whatever thought, word or deed (or failure thereof) which has, in its very notion, a defect is dissonant with right practical reason.

Because every lie, as such, involves an intrinsic moral defect, every lie is morally forbidden and constitutes an offense against the moral law.

Every lie involves the use of language, which has a natural ordering to expressing what is on one's mind, i.e., to express "practical truth," so to speak, to subvert the very natural ordering or purpose of linguistic expression.

Both Kant and St. Thomas Aquinas (and also St. Augustine) unequivocally condemn all lying, as does Jesus (Satan is, after all, the father of lies; whereas Jesus is Truth Itself).

Well, in that case (according to your standards), since every lie is a moral offense, IF someone breaks into a home and asks the parents if there is anyone else in the house, they should say "yes" and give them directions to the children's rooms.

lain:

 

[Traditio]

Well, in that case (according to your standards), since every lie is a moral offense, IF someone breaks into a home and asks the parents if there is anyone else in the house, they should say "yes" and give them directions to the children's rooms.

lain:

When you speak, you are always obliged to tell the truth. Nonetheless, it usually is not necessary to speak and tell the truth. It is perfectly fine to remain silent and withhold information. It's also perfectly fine to say true, though unhelpful or otherwise ambiguous things.

"The children could be at their friends' homes" is a true proposition even if the parents are fully aware that the children are at home and in their rooms.

 

[Rusha]

When you speak, you are always obliged to tell the truth. Nonetheless, it usually is not necessary to speak and tell the truth. It is perfectly fine to remain silent and withhold information. It's also perfectly fine to say true, though unhelpful or otherwise ambiguous things.

"The children could be at their friends' homes" is a true proposition even if the parents are fully aware that the children are at home and in their rooms.

"The children could be at their friends' homes" means "we don't know" ... which would lead to the threat looking for themselves.

 

[Traditio]

"The children could be at their friends' homes" means "we don't know"

That's how the trespassers would take it. In point of fact, "The children could be at their friends' homes" actually means: "It is not logically impossible that they are there. Their being there does not involve a contradiction of terms." I just as easily could say, at high noon, "The sun could have been extinguished and perpetual night have prevailed."

 

[Rusha]

That's how the trespassers would take it. In point of fact, "The children could be at their friends' homes" actually means: "It is not logically impossible that they are there. Their being there does not involve a contradiction of terms." I just as easily could say, at high noon, "The sun could have been extinguished and perpetual night have prevailed."

As a parent, my first concern would be doing WHATEVER it takes to keep the children safe from the immediate threat. IF you would be worried about lying to the type of individuals who you know are there to cause harm, that is your issue.

 

[Traditio]

As a parent, my first concern would be doing WHATEVER it takes to keep the children safe from the immediate threat.

With all due respect, your personal pathology/predispositions are utterly irrelevant to the question.

 

[OCTOBER23]

DO NOT BEAR FALSE WITNESS WHICH IS DECEIT
-------------------------------------------------------
The act or practice of deceiving; concealment or distortion of the truth

for the purpose of misleading; duplicity; fraud; cheating:
------------------------------------------------------------
Zep 1:9 In the same day also will I punish all those that leap on the threshold,

which fill their masters’ houses with violence and deceit.

1Co 3:17 If any man defile the temple of God, him shall God destroy;

or the temple of God is holy, which temple ye are.

 

[genuineoriginal]

When you speak, you are always obliged to tell the truth. Nonetheless, it usually is not necessary to speak and tell the truth. It is perfectly fine to remain silent and withhold information. It's also perfectly fine to say true, though unhelpful or otherwise ambiguous things.

"The children could be at their friends' homes" is a true proposition even if the parents are fully aware that the children are at home and in their rooms.

I see you are saying it is morally wrong to lie out of one side of your mouth, while teaching people how to lie effectively out of the other side.

I believe the technical term is hypocrisy.

 

[Rusha]

With all due respect,

With all due respect ... not every situation is the same. The question implied is it ALWAYS wrong. In the rare circumstances I supplied, it isn't. Though ... feel free to keep doing what you always do ... arguing for the sake of arguing.

 

[Traditio]

I see you are saying it is morally wrong to lie out of one side of your mouth, while teaching people how to lie effectively out of the other side.

I believe the technical term is hypocrisy.

A lie is defined as deliberately speaking an untruth (relative to the knowledge of the speaker) in order to deceive.

What I've asserted is permissible is not a lie. In order for x to be a lie, x must be false (insofar as the speaker is aware). "The children could be at the homes of their friends" is a true proposition.

There's a difference between lying and withholding information.

 

[Traditio]

With all due respect ... not every situation is the same. The question implied is it ALWAYS wrong. In the rare circumstances I supplied, it isn't. Though ... feel free to keep doing what you always do ... arguing for the sake of arguing.

So say you. What's your argument aside from your own personal feelings and attitudes?

 

[Rusha]

So say you. What's your argument aside from your own personal feelings and attitudes?

Protecting innocent life trumps the right for unsavory people to demand the truth.

 

[Traditio]

Protecting innocent life trumps the right for unsavory people to demand the truth.

I fully grant that the trespassers have no right to demand the truth of what they are asking; it is for this reason that the parents in question have no obligation to tell them where their children actually are.

That said, "they don't have a right to know" is not logically equivalent to "the parents have a right to lie."

Even if I grant what you are saying, all that I need admit is that the parents have a right to withhold information. This is not the same thing as lying.

 

[Arthur Brain]

With all due respect ... not every situation is the same. The question implied is it ALWAYS wrong. In the rare circumstances I supplied, it isn't. Though ... feel free to keep doing what you always do ... arguing for the sake of arguing.

Well said ma'am.

:thumb:

Btw, I've got some good news. Andrea's supposed to be re-appearing in 'The Walking Dead', as a tent...

 

[Rusha]

Well said ma'am.

:thumb:

Btw, I've got some good news. Andrea's supposed to be re-appearing in 'The Walking Dead', as a tent...

:shocked: :mmph:

 

[Rusha]

Even if I grant what you are saying, all that I need admit is that the parents have a right to withhold information. This is not the same thing as lying.

Whatever grants the children greater protection from the threat is the superior method.