FREE BOOKS

Author's List




PREV.   NEXT  
|<   98   99   100   101   102   103   104   105   106   107   108   109   110   111   112   113   114   >>  
truthful. The horse that is caught once by false pretenses will not be long in finding out the trick. The physician also who dissembles, quickly comes to lose the confidence of his patient, and has thereafter no way of getting himself believed."[1] [Footnote 1: Bowne's _Principles of Ethics_, p. 224.] The main question is not whether it is fair toward an animal for a man to lie to him, but whether it is fair toward a man's self, or toward God the maker of animals and of men, for a man to lie to an animal. A lie has no place, even theoretically, in the universe, unless it be in some sphere where God has no cognizance and man has no individuality. * * * * * It were useless to follow farther the ever-varying changes of the never-varying reasonings for the justification of the unjustifiable "lie of necessity" in the course of the passing centuries. It is evident that the specious arguments put forth by young Chrysostom, in defense of his inexcusable lie of love fifteen centuries ago, have neither been added to nor improved on by any subsequent apologist of lying and deception. The action of Chrysostom is declared by his biographers to be "utterly at variance with the principles of truth and honor," one which "every sound Christian conscience must condemn;" yet those modern ethical writers who find force and reasonableness in his now venerable though often-refuted fallacies, are sure that the moral sense of the race is with Chrysostom. Every man who recognizes the binding force of intuitions of a primal law of truthfulness, and who gives weight to _a priori_ arguments for the unchanging opposition of truth and falsehood, either admits, in his discussion of this question, that a lie is never justifiable, or he is obviously illogical and inconsistent in his processes of reasoning, and in his conclusions. Even those who deny any _a priori_ argument for the superiority of truthfulness over falsehood, and whose philosophy rests on the experimental evidence of the good or evil of a given course, are generally inclined to condemn any departure from strict truthfulness as in its tendencies detrimental to the interests of society, aside from any question of its sinfulness. The only men who are thoroughly consistent in their arguments in favor of occasional lying, are those who start with the false premise that there is no higher law of ethics than that of such a love for one's neighbor as will
PREV.   NEXT  
|<   98   99   100   101   102   103   104   105   106   107   108   109   110   111   112   113   114   >>  



Top keywords:

truthfulness

 

question

 
Chrysostom
 

arguments

 

animal

 

falsehood

 
varying
 
priori
 

centuries

 
condemn

admits

 
weight
 

modern

 

fallacies

 

unchanging

 

ethical

 

opposition

 
primal
 

recognizes

 
venerable

reasonableness

 

intuitions

 

writers

 

binding

 

refuted

 

philosophy

 

sinfulness

 

society

 

interests

 
departure

strict
 

tendencies

 

detrimental

 

consistent

 

ethics

 
neighbor
 

higher

 

occasional

 
premise
 
inclined

generally

 

processes

 

reasoning

 

conclusions

 

inconsistent

 

illogical

 

justifiable

 

argument

 

evidence

 

experimental