The Ethics Of Lying To A Dying Person

Ethics
1

Here is a link to a Barbara Banden Story she posted at SoloHQ:

http://www.solohq.com/Articles/Branden/Mot…h_Dignity.shtml

To sum it up, she tells how after she was seperated from Nathaniel Branded, her mother was dying. Basically on her death bed, her mother whished that she and Nathaniel were together again. So she and Branden staged a visit to her mother where they pretended to be reconcilliated for the mother’s sake. She said she told Ayn Rand who supposedly said, “I would have done the same thing.”

What to make of this? In the comments section of the post, an Adam Reed makes the point that this is not an immoral lie because of the context of her mother’s illness. He then throws an insult at all those who think it would be immoral by calling them “intrinsicists”.

I would like to get a sense of what people here think of this. For me, it illustrates the ease with which Nathaniel Branden will deceive and his skill at lying. For my part, I can’t understand why Barbara Branden couldn’t just tell her mom the truth, but phrase it positively such as, “we are still seperated mom, but its for the best, because this way we will both be free to find much more fulfilling romantic relationships.”

Would that have been so hard?

2

Personally, I find the thought of lying to an old, dying woman to be perfectly disgusting, and that is not an intrinsicist position.

It is NOT proper to lie in order to gain a benefit, (satisfying your mother’s wish, in this case) but only to protect oneself from the irrational, specifically, those irrational individuals who are attempting to use your honesty to damage you.

The reason that honesty is a virtue is that a rational man understands that any benefits gained through lying are not actually benefits; they are potential THREATS to his future well-being, and doing it anyway because you are expecting the recipient of the lie to die before that might happen is downright despicable.

3

Given that she was going to die, I think their actions were correct. Morality is fundamentally a tool for living and achieving happyness, therefore these have to be the guiding principles behind any moral judgement. It is wrong to lie under normal circumstances, not because lying is an inherantly immoral act, but because the falsification of reality is likely to have negative long-term consequences (such as the person realising they have been deceived). However, it doesnt seem very probable that this would apply here - she is going to be dead very shortly, and it’s a straight choice between ‘should I make her happy, or not?’.

The reason that honesty is a virtue is that a rational man understands that any benefits gained through lying are not actually benefits; they are potential THREATS to his future well-being, and doing it anyway because you are expecting the recipient of the lie to die before that might happen is downright despicable.

Why? If lying is wrong because of the potential threats to someone’s future well being, then surely the fact that they dont actually HAVE any future well being prevents lying from being wrong?

4

Lying is wrong because of potential threats to one’s own personal well-being, not the well-being of the lie’s VICTIM; a “benefit” gained by lying is no benefit.

You cannot MAKE someone else happy, even in the short term, and surrendering to someone else’s wishes and whim-worship under ANY circumstances is a far greater violation of principle than dishonesty; it is an attempt to deny identity!

Respect for the dying can rightfully entail such things as not making accusations (it won’t accomplish anything), but the fact that someone is dying does not entitle them to have reality rearranged to satisfy their whims. What kind of respect for a human being is THAT?!

5

Lying is wrong because of potential threats to one’s own personal well-being

But where are the threats here? There are no obvious ones, and any speculation about what ‘could’ go wrong (such as a miraculous deathbed recovery) would be entirely arbitrary.

You cannot MAKE someone else happy, even in the short term

I find this confusing - are you using ‘happy’ in a specialised sense? In the example given, telling her that you are back together WOULD make her happy. Someone could make me happy in the short-term by giving me $1000.

6

The argument for lying to her seems to be that it will ease her suffering in the short run, and that’s all she has. So, since the morality of lying is contextual, this instance would not be immoral because it is not harming anyone and instead relieving another person’s pain. That’s the argument Hal and Adam Reed (from Solo’s forum) are putting forth. (Correct me if I’m wrong.)

I’m undecided on this. My emotional reaction matches JMegan’s. I don’t see how lying to her mom was neccessary and further, I don’t see why the “value” that the lie bought could not have been achieved in another way. Also, I think alot of this would depend on the type of person the mother was. If it were me on the death bed, I would not want to be lied to, for I would know that faking reality could not bring genuine happiness. But if Barabara’s mom was not that integrated of a person, then maybe the lie could be justified. Although I still don’t think that it was the ideal way to handle things.

But I still find it interesting that Nathaniel was so easily led into a situation where he not only lied, but put on a whole show. To me, this says so much about his character (or lack thereof). Betsy Speicher referred to him as a “snake oil salesman”. Now I know why.

7

That’s the argument Hal and Adam Reed (from Solo’s forum) are putting forth.

Yes

I’m undecided on this. My emotional reaction matches JMegan’s.

My immediate reaction was ‘no, this is wrong’, but then after a few minutes thought I reached the conclusion that I couldnt justify this.

I don’t see how lying to her mom was neccessary and further, I don’t see why the “value” that the lie bought could not have been achieved in another way.

Perhaps it could have, but the question is - what is wrong with THIS way?

Also, I think alot of this would depend on the type of person the mother was. If it were me on the death bed, I would not want to be lied to, for I would know that faking reality could not bring genuine happiness.

What is the difference between ‘genuine happyness’ and ‘ungeniune happyness’ here? You would feel the exact same after the lie as you would feel if they had actually got back together.

But I still find it interesting that Nathaniel was so easily led into a situation where he not only lied, but put on a whole show. To me, this says so much about his character (or lack thereof). Betsy Speicher referred to him as a “snake oil salesman”. Now I know why.

His conduct seemed strange. But, if he still cared about Barbara and her mother, perhaps he felt that the benefits to them justified taking time out of his life. If I was on good terms with an ex-girlfriend and harboured no pent-up resentment or romantic feelings towards her, I would probably do the same. I’d class it as helping out a friend.

8

Don’t know what Ms. Rand would have done.

Ten years ago, I would not have lied.

Today I would do so with clear conscience.

9

My emotional reaction matches JMegan’s.

It was not an emotional reaction. My initial response was along the lines of “huh?” Then I thought about it, and came to the reasoned conclusion that this kind of behavior was wrong. THEN I got furious.

Furious came last.

10

Here is a link to a Barbara Banden Story she posted at SoloHQ:

http://www.solohq.com/Articles/Branden/Mot…h_Dignity.shtml

To sum it up, she tells how after she was seperated from Nathaniel Branded, her mother was dying. Basically on her death bed, her mother whished that she and Nathaniel were together again. So she and Branden staged a visit to her mother where they pretended to be reconcilliated for the mother’s sake. She said she told Ayn Rand who supposedly said, “I would have done the same thing.”

What to make of this? In the comments section of the post, an Adam Reed makes the point that this is not an immoral lie because of the context of her mother’s illness. He then throws an insult at all those who think it would be immoral by calling them “intrinsicists”.

I would like to get a sense of what people here think of this. For me, it illustrates the ease with which Nathaniel Branden will deceive and his skill at lying. For my part, I can’t understand why Barbara Branden couldn’t just tell her mom the truth, but phrase it positively such as, “we are still seperated mom, but its for the best, because this way we will both be free to find much more fulfilling romantic relationships.”

Would that have been so hard?

A similiar scenario (and perhaps more compelling; more difficult for the don’t-ever-tell-a-lie camp):

******

You have a young a child who’s been diagnosed with a terminal illness. He will die soon, and knows this is going to happen to him. He is absolutely terrified, miserable, depressed and unhappy. He wants to know if he’ll go to heaven when he dies. What do you tell him?

******

I’ve been told that some psychologists (can’t vouch for the veracity of this but it makes sense) say that terminally ill children are helped considerably, if they are told they’ll go to heaven (and soon see their parents) when they die. If they are not told they’ll go to heaven and be with loved ones, they will be in utter fear and misery until their death.

Now we can debate whether in fact this lie would ease their fear (again, I would tend to think it would). Instead, I’d like to concentrate on the moral issue given the assumption that it would alleviate their fears. Should we or should we not tell them this myth?

As for me, without having given it a tremendous amount of thought, my "gut reaction " is: it would be simply monstrous to tell your dying child that he isn’t going to heaven and will simply “disappear” when he dies (or some other similiar “truth”). I can think of a few reasons why it would be moral and appropriate to take such a course, but I’ll open it up for comments from others before I dive in.

Any thoughts?

ps, I’ll just add that we should guard against being rationalistic in morally deducing the meaning, nature, and application of honesty. I fear that Objectivists can exhibit such tendencies quite frequently; especially when they are relatively new to the philosophy.

11

It was not an emotional reaction.  My initial response was along the lines of “huh?”  Then I thought about it, and came to the reasoned conclusion that this kind of behavior was wrong.  THEN I got furious.

Furious came last.

By “emotional” or “gut” reaction I meant the process you just described but done quickly. But your point is well taken.

12

As for me, without having given it a tremendous amount of thought, my "gut reaction " is: it would be simply monstrous to tell your dying child that he isn’t going to heaven and will simply “disappear” when he dies (or some other similiar “truth”).

I wouln’t disagee with you here, but there is a difference between a child and an adult. If the mother knew that the couple was irreconcilable then lying to her would seem to be disrespecting her. If she truly fealt the two of them “belonged together”, then at that point in her life I can see the reasoning that it would be too painful to tell her the truth and rob her of a possibility for one of the last pleasures she’s likely to receive.

I guess the moral of the story is that honesty is contextual.

13

I find this entire story bizarre. Why would it be so important to Barbara Branden’s mother to see her and Nathaniel back together that they would be willing to put on an act for her?

It appears that purpose of relating this story now is an attempt to sling some mud at Ayn Rand for allegedly saying “I would have done the same thing,” thus spurning debate among Objectivists, as shown in this thread.

If she already doing damage control over the upcoming release of this book, there must be some pretty damning things about the Brandens in there.

14

I find this entire story bizarre.  Why would it be so important to Barbara Branden’s mother to see her and Nathaniel back together that they would be willing to put on an act for her?

It appears that purpose of relating this story now is an attempt to sling some mud at Ayn Rand for allegedly saying “I would have done the same thing,”  thus spurning debate among Objectivists, as shown in this thread.

If she already doing damage control over the upcoming release of this book, there must be some pretty damning things about the Brandens in there.

This is actually what I was getting at with the post. I have actually come to agree with the decision to lie in this scenerio but B. Branden’s reason for telling the story is just as you suggested, to attack Valliant’s book and to portray N. Branden as compassionate and Ayn Rand as “less than perfect.” Even though I have come to agree with the arguments put forward excusing lies told to relieve suffering, my guess is that Barbara could have just as easily told her mother the truth and not caused her any great pain, but that this whole tale is a sob story to illicit compassion for Nathaniel and disdain for Rand, or at the least to show Rand was a “moralizing” hypocrite.

15

I’ve been told that some psychologists (can’t vouch for the veracity of this but it makes sense) say that terminally ill children are helped considerably, if they are told they’ll go to heaven (and soon see their parents) when they die. If they are not told they’ll go to heaven and be with loved ones, they will be in utter fear and misery until their death.

Do you have any kids of your own, Gabriel_S?

I’ve been told by psychologists that you shouldn’t tell young children what death is (or that they’re adopted, or where babies come from . . .) because they’re too young to deal with the “complexity” and it will only make them confused/afraid/be bad for them.

First, I continue to think it’s heniously wrong to lie to a child regarding even his or her own impending death. And, telling the truth will NOT necessarily produce this horrible fear reaction.

What WILL absolutely produce that reaction in a child is if the child’s parents are unable to control their own emotions. Children are MUCH more sensitive to the obvious EMOTIONAL signs of fear, nervousness, pain, etc. from their parents than ANYTHING else.

What you must do for your child in that situation is not present an easy lie (especially if you don’t believe it because your child will likely pick it up and that will only make things worse) but to control your emotions. I.e. you have to be an ADULT about it. If you don’t want your child to be afraid and miserable, don’t be frightened and miserable yourself. (It’s okay to say that you are, but don’t turn it into a threat . . . there’s a difference between helpless weeping and saying, "I’m sorry, honey, but I’m going to miss you, so I’m sorry if I seem sad today, but you don’t worry about me.) Focus on enjoying your remaining time together, on making it as happy as possible, on fighting the illness/injury with every ounce of your strength and inch of your determination.

THAT is the way to love one’s children.

As a little addendum, I would like to point out that I said “Personally” when I was explaining both my reaction and my reasons for it. I actually COULD imagine a situation where it COULD be moral to lie to one’s mother on her deathbed, however, personally, I wouldn’t do it because I’m incapable of lying with a straight face. So I know better than to imagine it would accomplish anything.

16

my guess is that Barbara could have just as easily told her mother the truth and not caused her any great pain, but that this whole tale is a sob story to illicit compassion for Nathaniel and disdain for Rand, or at the least to show Rand was a “moralizing” hypocrite.

Exactly, the fact that she is telling this story now says a lot more than the story itself.

17

I wouln’t disagee with you here, but there is a difference between a child and an adult. If the mother knew that the couple was irreconcilable then lying to her would seem to be disrespecting her. If she truly fealt the two of them “belonged together”, then at that point in her life I can see the reasoning that it would be too painful to tell her the truth and rob her of a possibility for one of the last pleasures she’s likely to receive.

I guess the moral of the story is that honesty is contextual.

I was mostly responding to the following sort of reaction as provided by JMeganSnow.

It is NOT proper to lie in order to gain a benefit, (satisfying your mother’s wish, in this case) but only to protect oneself from the irrational, specifically, those irrational individuals who are attempting to use your honesty to damage you.

The reason that honesty is a virtue is that a rational man understands that any benefits gained through lying are not actually benefits; they are potential THREATS to his future well-being, and doing it anyway because you are expecting the recipient of the lie to die before that might happen is downright despicable.

and

Lying is wrong because of potential threats to one’s own personal well-being, not the well-being of the lie’s VICTIM; a “benefit” gained by lying is no benefit.

You cannot MAKE someone else happy, even in the short term, and surrendering to someone else’s wishes and whim-worship under ANY circumstances is a far greater violation of principle than dishonesty; it is an attempt to deny identity!

Respect for the dying can rightfully entail such things as not making accusations (it won’t accomplish anything), but the fact that someone is dying does not entitle them to have reality rearranged to satisfy their whims. What kind of respect for a human being is THAT?!

And while it is true, as you say, that there’s a difference between a child and an adult, in these cases the difference is not (I think) the fundamental one. What is relevant here is that the person (of whatever age) is facing an impending and unavoidable death, and that a lie might ease suffering or actually make the dying person’s last days/moments happy (or as close to that as is possible). And, if that person’s happiness is of concern to you at all, then such a lie might be in the name of one of your highest values.

The categorical quotes I’ve included from JMeganSnow above, would apply equally to the case of the terminally ill child. If that reasoning is accepted, then I don’t see how it makes a difference whether we are dealing with a dying child or a dying adult.

18

And while it is true, as you say, that there’s a difference between a child and an adult, in these cases the difference is not (I think) the fundamental one. What is relevant here is that the person (of whatever age) is facing an impending and unavoidable death, and that a lie might ease suffering or actually make the dying person’s last days/moments happy (or as close to that as is possible). And, if that person’s happiness is of concern to you at all, then such a lie might be in the name of one of your highest values.

You’ve sold me on this. I would lie in both cases.

But the Brandens are still grandstanding.

19

You’ve sold me on this. I would lie in both cases.

But the Brandens are still grandstanding.

No doubt that BB is using this story for nefarious purposes. Despite the distasteful source, even a broken clock…

20

Do you have any kids of your own, Gabriel_S?

No, I don’t.