The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1902-12-14
ABOUT THE MAN WHO LIED.
Was He Justified I'm Misstating His
Age Under the Circumstancess

Philadelphia Ledger.
The story is told in the Sunday Ledger
Of capable man who lost his position at
the age of forty-seven by the dissolution
Of the firm by whom he had been en-
ployed. He had a family dependent upon
him for support, and immediate employ
ment was necessary. He made every eff
fort to obtain employment, but wherever
he applied for work he was met with
refusal because he was ''too DID," no one
caring to engage a new man at the age
Of forty-seven.
In his desperation he resorted to arti-
fee. He shaved off his beard, had his
hair dyed. ard clad in more youthful look
ing 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 appearance that he was only a ma
ture young man. He said his age was thir-
ty-four. The employment became perma-
nent, and after successive promotions and
four years service the satisfactory en-
ploye was summoned before his employer
to discuss tie proposition of partnership,
and during the conversation the employee
was asked how old he was. If he 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
the appearance of hesitation. He gave
the answer which seemed best to him at
the moment. and has had no subsequent
occasion to regret it,
lie at the outset, was the man justified in
taking advantage Of the opportunity of
promotion to a confidential business rela-
ton without first making an honest con-
fesson as to his age. and what answer
should he have made to his employer
when he was thus Unexpectedly asked to
tell his s,n age he Was this man justified in
however much he might need it?
The question presents no difficulty in
morals. lie cannot be excused to obtain
employment and support family; or
theft, TO allay the pangs of hunger. The
vast majority of men, we imagine. would
steal a loaf of bread. If opportunity af-
forded, to save themselves from starva-
ton, but in a rigid system of morals the
theft would not be Justified The ques-
ton in all such hard alternatives is not
they ought to do. To admit as sound the
doctrine that the need justifies the means
would involve us in maze of difficulty.
The dilemma of the man seeking en-
ployment, as in the quoted story, raises
the old question, whether i'm any case the
worthiness OF the end sought justifies any
means of reaching that end. Morality an
swers no. In practice, men may steal the
loaf to save themselves from starving and
they will sometimes practice deception to
secure employment TO save themselves and
families from want.
Few of US 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 employment
There are persons who would die rather
than steal or lie. These are the elect Of
the earth. Thou shalt not lie. There are
no qualifications to the injunction.
Whether the man OF the story would have
been justified in telling another lie to Sc
cure advancement TO the partnership must
be answered in the same way He would
not be justified. IL Is said in the narrative
that on the second occasion he gave the
answer which seemed best at the moment,
and that he had no subsequent occasion to
regret the answer. Obviously he told the
truth on this last occasion. for IL he had
lied twice on the same subject to his con-
fiding employer he would have had very
much to regret.