The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1902-11-23
THE MAN WHO LIED.
Is n Man Ever Justified I'm Telling an
Untruthf

Philadelphia Ledger.
The story is told in the Sunday Public
Ledger of capable man who lost his po-
sition at the age of forty-seven by the dis
solution of the firm by whom he had been
employed. He had a family dependent upon
him for support, and immediate employ
ment was necessary. He made every effort
to obtain employment. but wherever he ap-
piled for work he met with a refusal be-
cause he was too DID," no one caring TO
engage new man at the age or forty
seven.
In his desperation he resorted TO artifics.
He shaved off his beard, had his hair dyed,
and clad in more youthful-looking attire
than he had been accustomed to wearing.
he sailed forth once more to find work.
He soon secured a temporary position. his
employer assuming from his natty appear
ance that he was only a mature young
man. He said his age was thirty-four. The
employment became permanent, and after
successive promotions and four years serv-
ice the satisfactory employe was summoned
before his employer to discuss the propo-
sition of partnership, and during the con-
versation the employe was asked how old
he was. If ne was thirty-four when his
employment began he was then thirty
eight. In fact, he was fifty-one-
ITO tell the truth" the story runs,
would reveal the deception he had prac-
ticed. His thinking had to be done quickly
and his decision reached without the ap-
pearance of hesitation. He gave the an
swer which seemed best to him at the mo-
ment and has had no subsequent occasion
to regret it,
The query is then asked: Having told
lie at the outset, was the man justified in
taking advantage of the opportunity OF
promotion to q confidential business rela-
ton without first making an honest con-
fession as to his age, and what answer
should he have made TO his employer wnen
ne was thus Unexpectedly asked to tell his
age? Was this man justified in misstating
his age to secure employment, however
much he might need IL?
The question presents no difficulty in
morals. A lie cannot be excused TO obtain
employment and support family; or theft,
to allay the pangs OF hunger. Inc vast
majority of men, we imagine. would steal
loaf of bread, IL opportunity offered, 10
save themselves from starvation; but In
rigid system of morals the theft would not
be justified. The question in all such hard
alternatives is not what men would prob
ably do, but what they ought TO do To
admit as sound the doctrine that the end
justifes the means would involve US IN
a maze of difficulty.
ployment as in the quoted story. raises the
old question, whether in any case the
worthiness of the end sought tustifies any
means of reaching that end. Morality
answers no. In practice. men may steal
the loaf TO themselves from starving.
and they will sometimes practice decep-
ton to secure employment 10 save them-
selves and families from want
Few of us are capable OF martyrdom for
the sake of the moral law; but the moral
code teaches that lying and stealing are
never justified. This is the moral law, and
to this test one must bring the hard case
of the man who lied TO obtain employ
ment. There are persons who would die
rather than steal or lie. These are the
elect of the earth. Thou shalt not lie.
There are qualifications to the tnjunc-
ton. Whether the man OF the story would
have been justified in telling another lie
to secure advancement to the partnership
must be answered in the same way. He
would not be justified Ii is said In the mar
rative that on the second occasion he gave
the answer which seemed best at the mo-
ment, and that he had no subsequent oc-
casion TO regret his answer. Obviously he
told the truth on this last occasion, for
IL he had lied twice on the same subject
TO his confiding employer he would have
had very much TO regret.