The Jackson standard. [volume] (Jackson C.H., Ohio) 1847-1888, 1874-06-11
LYing-That Sermon.
+ the Standard

| To the Editor Of the Standard:
In your critiQ,se on lying, you object to the
definition you gave the the term in my sermon,
because in your Judgment it allows the truth of
the old notion, that the end Justifies the means.
If this is true, my definition is wrong and can
not be condemned too soon; but let us see.
l assume that a lie is a deception with bad
motive, and that it has one or both of the fol-
lowing elements: either it Injuries the party de-
ceived, or iTlegitimately benefits the deceiver,
and that deception cannot be a lie when the
motive is pure. In short, that deception only
| is a lie which is prompted by some evil intent.
You object because believing all deception a
lie, and you present the supposed case of the
mother and child, to show that there may be
| a lie even when the motive is the purest. That
the mother in the example lies, there can be no
shadow of doubt; but you mistake the motive,
and for this reason your example fails You
holI that the mothers motive for deceiving the
child is to save its lfe and is one of the ''pur-
est,'' etc. Here is your fatal error: an error in
tue first place which overlooks the immediate
motive involved, and error in the second
place in giving wrong character to the sup
posed one. You might well have said tn @
| mothers motive was that her child should in
| herit the homestead, or marry rich, or be a
| fond mother looked. The motive for adminis-
tering the medicine may have been to pres srve
the child's life; but the deception is not in the
| act of administering the medicine, but in the
manner of doing IT, Any other way wou Id
| have met the requirement so far as the child's
| sickness was concerned provided it did not
irritate it, why then was this mode selected
| Simply a means of preventing the excite
ment the doctor feared; the motive therefore
for deceiving the child was to prevent its strug-
| Cling and becoming excited, and more remotely,
| TO preserve its life and great many other
things. This you call a good motive.
For the present let US determine what consti-
| tuteS a motive good one, All action and all
thought, as well as all desire and intent is good
| only within the limits prescribed by moral law.
| Many things are positively determined to be
| evil only; and from these, others are to be
is lying, of which it is said, the liar shall have
his part in the lake that burneth. TO desire
| even the preservation OF child's life save
within certain limits is wrong No physician
| or any one else has right TO ask parent to
| go beyond these limits. Now, suppose the
| motive is to save the child's life; all other
means have failed to get 1T to take the medi-
cine and it is absolutely certain that it will die
if irritated it is absolutely certain that to lie
to it in the manner you suppose will save its
motive to so desire the chld's life preserved as
to do that thing positively forbidden, or is this
! intention, desire, or motive, which you please,
| unauthorized and wrong? There can be but
| one answer: no man has a right even to desire
/ his child's life preserved beyond recognition
| of the divine claim, and here the divine claim
| is he shall not l1e. This is putting the case in
lutely certain death will follow disobeyal of
| the physicians command, when in no condi-
! tion can it be more than probable. You assume
the mothers motive was one of the purest, and
| claim there was no intention to wrong the one
deceived. 1t is true there was no wrong de-
| signed against The child but the motive which
| dictated the action oYeTStepped the moral law,
and for this reason was an impure one; II was
| at the expense of the divine requirement; just
| the same motive, and With much more show of
moral honesty, since he the OF prom
| ise. It is a motive which says, 1 will preserve
my child's life and let the moral law go; and
is for this reason only selfish; and the injury is
knowingly perpetrated against God: In such
| child would die if excited, and all means hay-
| ing failed to prevent this except deception the
| " a ms lie
be to let it die, or let the doctor assume the
moral responsibility @ by giving the prescription
without becoming party to the crime.
! But where is there such case? No physi-
| clan has any moral right to make perem ptory
requirement like the one supposed, and for my
part if it should ever be made of me, L should
knowing fall well that no physician can make
| such prophecy of death with any thing more
than a strong probability in his favor at the
God allows us to desire cherish and love,only
within certain limits, and any thing outside is
| selfish and ungodly, and no motives which
overlook these limits is good in any sense. So
far then from this case being an example of q
| lie with pure motive, it is the opposite, just
like every other lie, and one of the very worst
when character is not yet formed, and when it
will be as you say, very likely to form after the
| model here given. The practice of frightening
| children to gain an end is of the same piece,
especially when we tell them that hob-goblins,
bite them, etc, all of which is bare-taced lie.
! 1t would be wen for some of us o examine the
dusty records of the past, for the cause of the
| terrible practice of lying which now disgraces
| so many otherwise fair lives.
| Your definition offs lie, San attempt to make
| another believe what is not true" is most
perfect one, and far better than can be found
| In most lexicographers, nor does 1t conflict in
any sense with the one gave; but how about
| a deception to make another believe what is
| true? According to your own definition this
| Is not a lie, and yet you say in another place,
IAN deception is lying" This think is an
| other mistake. hold all deception is not lying;
| only that which is an attempt to make another
believe what is not true. There is untntentional
| deception which cannot be justly classed