The Individual Posted October 16, 2009 Report Share Posted October 16, 2009 (edited) I watched Letters from Iwo Jima couple days ago. There was a scene in the movie where two soldiers - call them X and Y - were digging trenches in the ground. Soldier X said some unpatriotic things to Y which were overheard by captain Z. Z rushed over immediately and furiously confronted X demanding he admit to his saying of unpatriotic things. X denied. Z then questions Y about X. At this point, Y, conscious of what X had done, intentionally lied to captain Z so that he could save his friend X from punishment. Are such forms of lying immoral? Edited October 16, 2009 by The Individual Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
themadkat Posted October 16, 2009 Report Share Posted October 16, 2009 I watched Letters from Iwo Jima couple days ago. There was a scene in the movie where two soldiers - call them X and Y - were digging trenches in the ground. Soldier X said some unpatriotic things to Y which were overheard by captain Z. Z rushed over immediately and furiously confronted X demanding he admit to his saying of unpatriotic things. X denied. Z then questions Y about X. At this point, Y, conscious of what X had done, intentionally lied to captain Z so that he could save his friend X from punishment. Are such forms of lying immoral? Absolutely not. You are never obligated to tell the Nazis where your Jews are hiding. When telling the truth will enable someone else to commit a rights violation they have not earned the truth from you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SapereAude Posted October 16, 2009 Report Share Posted October 16, 2009 Absolutely not. You are never obligated to tell the Nazis where your Jews are hiding. When telling the truth will enable someone else to commit a rights violation they have not earned the truth from you. While I generally believe that to be true "rights" are different in the military than they are for civilians. Out of necessity, soldiers give up many of the freedoms that the people they protect enjoy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DavidOdden Posted October 16, 2009 Report Share Posted October 16, 2009 The crucial question, I would say, is whether improper force was used. Generally speaking, it is immoral to lie and if you do not want to admit the truth you should refuse to answer the question. Obviously, you have the choice of speaking versus not speaking, and you don't have to speak (and if you do, the moral choice is to speak the truth). However if someone forces you to speak, then you do not have that initial choice, and thus you cannot morally condemn a person for lying when there is improper force. Under the circumstances that you describe, I would say that the captain used improper force (against Y), though possible legal force. Equally, when you have good reason to believe that the person asking intends to use your answer in aid of the initiation of force (against X), you have no obligation to answer truthfully. Change the scenario from "saying unpatriotic things" to "passing secrets to the enemy" and everything changes. Saying unpatriotic things is not the initiation of force, whereas passing secrets to the enemy is. It would be proper for the captain to use force against such an initiation of force by X (had the situation been different). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Individual Posted October 16, 2009 Author Report Share Posted October 16, 2009 The crucial question, I would say, is whether improper force was used. Generally speaking, it is immoral to lie and if you do not want to admit the truth you should refuse to answer the question. Obviously, you have the choice of speaking versus not speaking, and you don't have to speak (and if you do, the moral choice is to speak the truth). However if someone forces you to speak, then you do not have that initial choice, and thus you cannot morally condemn a person for lying when there is improper force. Under the circumstances that you describe, I would say that the captain used improper force (against Y), though possible legal force. Equally, when you have good reason to believe that the person asking intends to use your answer in aid of the initiation of force (against X), you have no obligation to answer truthfully. Change the scenario from "saying unpatriotic things" to "passing secrets to the enemy" and everything changes. Saying unpatriotic things is not the initiation of force, whereas passing secrets to the enemy is. It would be proper for the captain to use force against such an initiation of force by X (had the situation been different). I see. Okay, I get it. Thanks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SapereAude Posted October 16, 2009 Report Share Posted October 16, 2009 The crucial question, I would say, is whether improper force was used. Generally speaking, it is immoral to lie and if you do not want to admit the truth you should refuse to answer the question. Obviously, you have the choice of speaking versus not speaking, and you don't have to speak (and if you do, the moral choice is to speak the truth). However if someone forces you to speak, then you do not have that initial choice, and thus you cannot morally condemn a person for lying when there is improper force. Under the circumstances that you describe, I would say that the captain used improper force (against Y), though possible legal force. Equally, when you have good reason to believe that the person asking intends to use your answer in aid of the initiation of force (against X), you have no obligation to answer truthfully. Change the scenario from "saying unpatriotic things" to "passing secrets to the enemy" and everything changes. Saying unpatriotic things is not the initiation of force, whereas passing secrets to the enemy is. It would be proper for the captain to use force against such an initiation of force by X (had the situation been different). I understand what you're saying but soldiers do not enjoy they same freedom of speech especially in warzones. I loved the movie and vaguely recall the scene but can't remember exactly what was said and what the punishment was to be. A commander could rightly take issue with a soldier making statements that hurt morale.. so I suppose it would be a matter of proportion- if the commander was a poor one, or cruel, or insane enough to say, shoot the man over saying unpatriotic things then the moral duty would be to protect your fellow from unjust punishment. If it were some form of dressing down or other reasonable punishment I don't see how it would be a violation of rights. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Castle Posted October 16, 2009 Report Share Posted October 16, 2009 This would hinge on the context. The principle that you do not have a duty to tell the truth within certain contexts has been established. The Nazi example being the most extreme, but not singular example. Within the context and information given I think the lie wasn't immoral. First, there is the issue of conscription. Self & group censoring certain opinions is valid within the context of a voluntary organization as a contractual stipulation, but a man isn't obligated to assist a compulsory organization in further violations by reporting all disallowed behavior. There is also the issue of the unpatriotic talker's intent and probable effects of his actions. I haven't seen the movie, but knowing the genre I suspect the relationship between the two soldiers was mutually supportive. Buddies watching each others back. If the guy is just blowing off steam his partner isn't morally obligated to diminish his survival chances and cut his own emotional lifeline on a technical violation. Now if he's deliberately destroying morale in the unit, which will likely end in a failure cascade at the worst possible time with the effect of increasing casualties, that's a different situation. He would be making the situation more dangerous for you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DavidOdden Posted October 16, 2009 Report Share Posted October 16, 2009 I understand what you're saying but soldiers do not enjoy they same freedom of speech especially in warzones.True, but I'm focusing on morality and not legality. The facts of the movie might actually make it clear that the captain's actions were proper, but based just on a general description and the question about "such forms" of lying, we have to abstract away from the concrete facts of the particular scene. So yes, we could add context to justify the action. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
L-C Posted October 16, 2009 Report Share Posted October 16, 2009 The lie is in the evasion, irrationality and force employed, not the "lie" that was told to protect against them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scottd Posted October 29, 2009 Report Share Posted October 29, 2009 Are such forms of lying immoral? Lying is wrong. Killing is wrong. Lying in self defense is no more wrong than killing in self defense. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jake Posted October 29, 2009 Report Share Posted October 29, 2009 Lying is wrong. Killing is wrong. Lying in self defense is no more wrong than killing in self defense. The logic in this sentence is the equivalent of stating, "All sheep are white. This sheep is black." Killing is not wrong in all contexts. Killing is only wrong if it is an initiation of force, or if it is an unnecessarily strong retaliation against the initiation of force. Wrongful killing is called murder. Murder is wrong. Killing in self defense is not murder (because it is not wrong). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
themadkat Posted October 29, 2009 Report Share Posted October 29, 2009 The logic in this sentence is the equivalent of stating, "All sheep are white. This sheep is black." Killing is not wrong in all contexts. Killing is only wrong if it is an initiation of force, or if it is an unnecessarily strong retaliation against the initiation of force. Wrongful killing is called murder. Murder is wrong. Killing in self defense is not murder (because it is not wrong). I think you missed his point. It sounded like he was saying neither lying nor killing in self defense is wrong. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BRG253 Posted October 29, 2009 Report Share Posted October 29, 2009 To claim that lying is universally immoral is to declare that others have the right to demand whatever information they want from you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DavidOdden Posted October 29, 2009 Report Share Posted October 29, 2009 To claim that lying is universally immoral is to declare that others have the right to demand whatever information they want from you.No, that implies that you also have an obligation to respond when questioned. You have the moral right to simply not answer if you don't want to tell the truth. The nonabsoluteness of the immorality of lying derives from adding initiation of force into the picture. In the context that force is not initiated, then it is a principle -- an absolute -- that lying is immoral. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scottd Posted October 30, 2009 Report Share Posted October 30, 2009 The logic in this sentence is the equivalent of stating, "All sheep are white. This sheep is black." Killing is not wrong in all contexts. Killing is only wrong if it is an initiation of force, or if it is an unnecessarily strong retaliation against the initiation of force. Wrongful killing is called murder. Murder is wrong. Killing in self defense is not murder (because it is not wrong). Context is everything, indeed. Killing is wrong in any context that it is not in self defense. So is lying. Yes? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scottd Posted October 30, 2009 Report Share Posted October 30, 2009 No, that implies that you also have an obligation to respond when questioned. You have the moral right to simply not answer if you don't want to tell the truth. The nonabsoluteness of the immorality of lying derives from adding initiation of force into the picture. In the context that force is not initiated, then it is a principle -- an absolute -- that lying is immoral. I agree, but not answering is not lying, right? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scottd Posted October 30, 2009 Report Share Posted October 30, 2009 I think you missed his point. It sounded like he was saying neither lying nor killing in self defense is wrong. I was indeed... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DavidOdden Posted October 30, 2009 Report Share Posted October 30, 2009 I agree, but not answering is not lying, right?Right. Silence is the moral alternative to lying. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whYNOT Posted October 30, 2009 Report Share Posted October 30, 2009 And when is silence immoral ? I believe that a lie can be of commision, or of omission. Both fit the criteria of evasion, and falsifying reality. Huge injustices have been done by not speaking up, at the appropriate time. So there are times when not speaking up is as big a cop-out as lying. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jake_Ellison Posted October 30, 2009 Report Share Posted October 30, 2009 And when is silence immoral ? When it's not in your best interest to keep the information to yourself. I believe that a lie can be of commision, or of omission. Both fit the criteria of evasion, and falsifying reality. Huge injustices have been done by not speaking up, at the appropriate time. So there are times when not speaking up is as big a cop-out as lying. A lie of omission is when you lead a person to believe that you gave them a full answer, but the partial information you gave them, while true, is deliberately misleading. Simply not speaking up is not a lie of omission, and it can be perfectly moral in circumstances where there is no threat of force. Lying, on the other hand, is never moral in those circumstances. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DavidOdden Posted October 30, 2009 Report Share Posted October 30, 2009 I believe that a lie can be of commision, or of omission. Both fit the criteria of evasion, and falsifying reality.Start by showing us examples of when not answering a question is immoral. You appear to assume that you have a moral duty to provide information demanded by others. I couldn't imagine anything vaguely like that being true. So you'll have to help me out with some real examples. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whYNOT Posted October 30, 2009 Report Share Posted October 30, 2009 When it's not in your best interest to keep the information to yourself. A lie of omission is when you lead a person to believe that you gave them a full answer, but the partial information you gave them, while true, is deliberately misleading. Simply not speaking up is not a lie of omission, and it can be perfectly moral in circumstances where there is no threat of force. Lying, on the other hand, is never moral in those circumstances. I don't agree; a lie of omission must be vastly unjust when you know something that could absolve another person from punishment or vilification - force, or no force (on you). Without going to the dictionary here, I am taking a lie to be ANY falsification of the truth, semi-concealment, or full concealment -- when someone's life, freedom, or reputation, is at stake. To remain silent, with vital information, would be immoral. In fact, I just thought, it would be doubly immoral : in terms of evasion of reality + sanctioning injustice. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jake Posted October 30, 2009 Report Share Posted October 30, 2009 I think you missed his point. It sounded like he was saying neither lying nor killing in self defense is wrong. I was indeed... This is what I thought upon first reading the post, but then I couldn't figure out why you would include the first two sentences. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scottd Posted October 30, 2009 Report Share Posted October 30, 2009 This is what I thought upon first reading the post, but then I couldn't figure out why you would include the first two sentences. Good point! I should not have. Thanks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whYNOT Posted October 30, 2009 Report Share Posted October 30, 2009 Start by showing us examples of when not answering a question is immoral. You appear to assume that you have a moral duty to provide information demanded by others. I couldn't imagine anything vaguely like that being true. So you'll have to help me out with some real examples. David, I refer you to my post above. I am thinking in this case of providing (or not) salient information WITHOUT being asked or interrogated, when someone else's future rests upon it. Morality is not just dependent on what one does, but by what one doesn't do (or says). Which is why a lie can be active or passive; by commission, or by omission, imo. That the dictionary definition might not cover this, is immaterial I believe, as we are surely viewing this from a broader, philosophical base ? Bottom line, both types deal in the untruth. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.