A man walks into a bar; sees an attractive woman sitting alone and goes up and asks to buy her a drink. She agrees, and as they chat he asks her a hypothetical question. If he gave her a million dollars, would she have sex with him? She thinks about it a minute and says -- yes she would for a million dollars.
They go back to their small talk and after a while he asks if she would go back to his room and have sex? She slaps his face and says to him “What do you think I am? He says, “We’ve already established that, now we are just negotiating over the price.”
Recently, a similar hypothetical question was posed, if a loved one was on trial for their life, and you could lessen the chance they would be convicted would you lie and say you had abused them, causing them to act irrationally? Some answered in the affirmative, some in the negative. Fortunately, this is a choice most will never be faced with, but how you answer says a lot about the core values you hold.
If it is okay to lie to help a loved one in court fighting for his or her life, is it okay to save someone from a parking ticket? How about cheating on a spouse, or on a test? At what level do you sell yourself so someone else doesn’t have to be responsible for their actions?
In this example, the sad thing is it appears no one places faith in the jury being able to make the right decision. Right decisions apparently are only the ones people without all the facts can make on TV and the Internet. The most forthright answer I’ve heard on the recent trial here in Florida came from one of the jurors. “Being found innocent is not the same as saying she didn’t do it.” We have a legal system that demands the prosecution prove “beyond a reasonable doubt” someone is guilty. Would you want any less if it were you on trial?
2 comments:
My answer, a simple "no," didn't go into my reasoning. I felt that lying would cause more damage. I felt that resorting to lying showed a lack of faith (in God); trials and troubles will inevitably arise and it is right to trust him. Thirdly, I had reservations because of the point you mentioned, not trusting the jury. I wouldn't say that I would put trust in them, but I would entrust myself to them. This is really just a corollary to faith in God.
All of that said, I could imagine a situation where I would lie. For instance, where the people to be trusted were absolutely not to be trusted (Nazis, rapists, etc...) This obviously raises the question, "What about that faith thing you were just talking about?" I would rather be a liar that hand my daughter over to a rapist, for example.
So maybe that's what the others were getting at. They simply don't trust juries. Not sure. And you, would you ever lie?
To say I've never lied would be a lie, and to say I would never lie in the future would be equally untrue, the issue raised has, like most moral issues, a complexity my simple words can't do justice to.
When the Dutch hid Jews and lied to protect their whereabouts, was that wrong? At the time some would question it, but in retrospect we should all agree no, it was the morally right thing to do. There are also ways to protect others by offering no answer. Finally, if you are put under duress through torture and a lie would end the torture, I don't think I have a problem with that.
I don't know what justifies lying, but within the context of the original question, if we are asked to compound a felony then it becomes a choice of compromising yourself. If protecting a loved one, is THE primary concern, no matter the cost, then it's a simple issue for the individual.
What seemed implied in the original question was the assumption the individual on trial was guilty and the lie was to lessen the punishment or perhaps find him or her innocent, in that case I believe lying only compounds the problem, as you said.
p.s. I hope I didn't overstep my position in using this example.
Post a Comment