FREE BOOKS

Author's List




PREV.   NEXT  
|<   96   97   98   99   100   101   102   103   104   105   106   107   108   109   110   111   112   113   114   >>  
uttered. Dr. Dabney, who is far less clear and sound than Dr. Thornwell in his reasoning on this ethical question, says: "I presume that no man would feel himself guilty for deceiving a mad dog in order to destroy him;"[1] and he argues from this assumption that when a man, through insanity or malice, "is not a rational man, but a brute," he may fairly be deemed as outside of the pale of humanity, so far as the obligations of veracity, viewed only as a social virtue, are concerned. [Footnote 1: Dabney's _Theology_ (second edition), p. 425 f.] Dr. Newman Smyth expands this idea.[1] He says: "We may say that animals, strictly speaking, can have no immediate right to our words of truth, since they belong below the line of existence which marks the beginning of any functions of speech." He adds that animals "may have direct claims upon our humanity, and so indirectly put us under obligations to give them straightforward and fair treatment," and that "truthfulness to the domestic animal, to the horse or the dog, is to be included as a part of our general obligation of kindness to creatures that are entirely dependent upon our fidelity to them and their wants." But he cites the driving of horses with blinders,[2] and the fishing for trout with artificial flies, as evidence of the fact that man recognizes no sinfulness in the deceiving of the lower animals, and hence that the duty of veracity is not one of universal obligation. [Footnote 1: Smyth's _Christian Ethics_, p. 398.] [Footnote 2: Here is another illustration of Dr. Smyth's strange confusion of concealment with deception. It would seem as though a man must have blinders before his own eyes, to render him incapable of perceiving the difference between concealing a possible cause of fright from an animal, and intentionally deceiving that animal.] If, indeed, the duty of truthfulness were only a social obligation, there might be a force in this reasoning that is lacking when we see that falsehood and deceit are against the very nature of God, and are a violation of man's primal nature. A lie is a sin, whenever and however and to whomsoever spoken or acted. It is a sin against God when uttered in his sight. Man is given authority from God over all the lower animals;[1] and he is empowered to take their lives, if necessary for his protection or for his sustenance. In the exercise of this right, man is entitled to conceal from the animals he would kill or ca
PREV.   NEXT  
|<   96   97   98   99   100   101   102   103   104   105   106   107   108   109   110   111   112   113   114   >>  



Top keywords:

animals

 

Footnote

 

obligation

 

animal

 

deceiving

 

social

 

nature

 

truthfulness

 
humanity
 

veracity


uttered
 

Dabney

 

blinders

 
obligations
 

reasoning

 
deception
 
fishing
 

render

 

perceiving

 

difference


incapable

 

concealment

 
illustration
 

concealing

 
sinfulness
 

Ethics

 

universal

 

Christian

 
recognizes
 

strange


artificial

 

evidence

 

confusion

 

protection

 

whomsoever

 

primal

 

conceal

 

spoken

 
authority
 
exercise

entitled

 

violation

 

sustenance

 

intentionally

 

fright

 

deceit

 

empowered

 

falsehood

 

lacking

 

indirectly