Is it ever okay to lie?
We’re not the first to ask this question, and it’s still subject to heavy debate.
Answer “no,” and you’re countered with arguments like, “What about Rahab in the Bible? What about a German citizen hiding Jews in his attic?”
Answer “yes,” and you have to confront the question, “Who or what makes you the arbiter of truth? Who are you to judge who is privy to the real and who is not?”
Though not the subject of this article, my own conviction on the matter is that it’s impermissible, in any circumstance, to lie. I believe that God’s command, “Thou shalt not lie,” is absolutus. It might be that telling the truth incurs severe tribulation, but I believe that by withholding certain truths from some men on the premise of altruism, we conjure a more fearful demon than any consequence truth demands.
Truth is a description of reality as it actually is. Of course, that requires a standard to objectively judge what reality is. That standard cannot be you or me because we are part of, and not separated from, this reality. We have an obligation to communicate what is real, not because we are naturally benevolent, but because we are made in the image of God, and God does not lie, nor does he tolerate lies.
But for the moment, let us set aside the objection that it’s acceptable to lie to mortal enemies. Let us pretend we are only speaking about lying to the ones we care about (as government claims to care for the citizenry)…in what instance has lying ever proven to be for the benefit of the people we care about? When is the husband or wife happy and overflowing with gratitude when their spouse exclaims, “I lied to you because I cared about you and wanted what was in your best interest.”?
That’s contradictory. When achieving our interests, we are constrained by reality—my interest might be to flap my arms and fly, but if I try to do so off the tip of a tower, I’ll die. I must first possess the truth to know what’s real and then construct my pursuit of happiness (my communion with God) within it. Without the truth, we’ll attempt to do what we cannot and suffer.
But that doesn’t stop compassionate ideologues from lying to advance their agenda. Look at this quote from Stephen Schneider back in 1996:
"On the one hand, as scientists, we are ethically bound to the scientific method, in effect, promising to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but—which means that we must include all the doubts, the caveats.,the ifs, ands, and buts. On the other hand, we are not just scientists, but human beings as well. And like most people, we’d like to see the world a better place, which, in this context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climate change. To do that, we need to get some broad-based support to capture the public’s imagination. That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements and make little mention of any doubts we might have. This double ethical blind we frequently find ourselves in cannot be solved by any formula. Each of us has to decide what is the right balance is between being effective and being honest. I hope that means being both."*
That's exactly what AHS is doing right now. But it's not an "ethical blind" in any sense. Is it right to deliberately mislead us “for the collective good?” Not at all! But for the radical left, the state is the alpha, not man. They are ready and willing to sacrifice the individual's dignity to salute with pride the banner of their ideology. In their eyes, we exist to serve the state and not the contrary. Dr. Deena Hinshaw’s recent scandal (along with AHS' numerous mistruths and scandals) reaffirms this.**
What Dr. Hinshaw did was wrong. Such deception warrants her legal removal from office. If the narrative is so weak that lies must be profaned to uphold it, is it worth upholding at all? If the narrative is true, why lie? If the narrative isn’t true, why prop it up on life support? Let the narrative crash. Let it burn, let it die! If it's false, it doesn’t deserve to succeed. It doesn’t deserve to live. It doesn't even deserve the dignity of being debated in Parliament because it's not real.
*Epstein, Alex. The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels. Portfolio, 2020.
Thank you for reading! If you’d like to stay informed about the Christian's perspective of current events, or if you’d like to join our growing community of members who love truth, subscribe here for free!
If you'd like to support our site and the work we do, click here! Thank you so much for your kind generosity!