The Hebrew midwives lied to save the baby boys Pharaoh had commanded them to kill (Exod. 1:19). Rahab lied to save the lives of the Jewish spies in Jericho (Josh. 2).
(1) Lying is neither right nor wrong: There are no laws. Antinomianism[sup]9[/sup] claims that lying to save lives is neither right nor wrong. It insists that there are no objective moral principles by which the issue can be judged right or wrong. The issue must be decided on subjective, personal, or pragmatic grounds, but not on any objective moral grounds. We are without any moral laws whatsoever to guide us in our decision on this or any other moral issue(2) Lying is generally wrong: There are no universal laws. Generalism[sup]10[/sup] claims that lying is generally wrong. In specific cases, however, this general rule can be broken. Since there are no universal moral laws, whether a given lie is right will depend on the results. If the results are good, then the lie is right. Most generalists believe that lying to save a life is right because in this case the end justifies the means.(3) Lying is sometimes right: There is only one universal law. Situationism,[sup]11[/sup] such as that held by Joseph Fletcher, claims there is only one absolute moral law — and it is not truth-telling.[sup]12[/sup] Love is the only absolute, and lying may be the loving thing to do. In fact, lying to save a life is the loving thing to do. Hence, lying is sometimes right. Any moral rule except love can and at times should be broken for love’s sake. Everything else is relative.(4) Lying is always wrong: There are many nonconflicting laws. Unqualified absolutism,[sup]13[/sup] such as was taught by St. Augustine, claims there are many absolute moral laws, and none of them should ever be broken.[sup]14[/sup] Truth is such a law. Therefore, one must always tell the truth, even if someone dies as a result of it. Truth is absolute, and absolutes cannot be broken. Therefore, there are no exceptions to telling the truth. Results are never used to break rules, even if the results are very desirable.(5) Lying is forgivable: There are many conflicting laws. Conflicting absolutism[sup]15[/sup] recognizes that we live in an evil world where absolute moral laws sometimes run into inevitable conflict. The German theologian Helmut Thielicke espoused this view.[sup]16[/sup] The conflicting absolutist insists that in unavoidable conflicts it is our moral duty to do the lesser evil. That is, we must break the lesser law and plead mercy. For instance, we should lie to save a life and then ask for forgiveness for breaking God’s absolute moral law. Our moral dilemmas are sometimes unavoidable, but we are culpable anyway. God cannot change His absolute moral prescriptions because of our moral predicaments.(6) Lying is sometimes right: There are higher laws. Graded absolutism,[sup]17[/sup] such as this author holds, insists there are many moral absolutes and they sometimes conflict. However, some laws are higher than others, so when there is an unavoidable conflict it is our duty to follow the higher moral law. God does not blame us for what we could not avoid. Thus He exempts us from responsibility to follow the lower law in view of the overriding obligation to obey the higher law.
(1) Lying is neither right nor wrong: There are no laws. Antinomianism[sup]9[/sup] claims that lying to save lives is neither right nor wrong. It insists that there are no objective moral principles by which the issue can be judged right or wrong. The issue must be decided on subjective, personal, or pragmatic grounds, but not on any objective moral grounds. We are without any moral laws whatsoever to guide us in our decision on this or any other moral issue(2) Lying is generally wrong: There are no universal laws. Generalism[sup]10[/sup] claims that lying is generally wrong. In specific cases, however, this general rule can be broken. Since there are no universal moral laws, whether a given lie is right will depend on the results. If the results are good, then the lie is right. Most generalists believe that lying to save a life is right because in this case the end justifies the means.(3) Lying is sometimes right: There is only one universal law. Situationism,[sup]11[/sup] such as that held by Joseph Fletcher, claims there is only one absolute moral law — and it is not truth-telling.[sup]12[/sup] Love is the only absolute, and lying may be the loving thing to do. In fact, lying to save a life is the loving thing to do. Hence, lying is sometimes right. Any moral rule except love can and at times should be broken for love’s sake. Everything else is relative.(4) Lying is always wrong: There are many nonconflicting laws. Unqualified absolutism,[sup]13[/sup] such as was taught by St. Augustine, claims there are many absolute moral laws, and none of them should ever be broken.[sup]14[/sup] Truth is such a law. Therefore, one must always tell the truth, even if someone dies as a result of it. Truth is absolute, and absolutes cannot be broken. Therefore, there are no exceptions to telling the truth. Results are never used to break rules, even if the results are very desirable.(5) Lying is forgivable: There are many conflicting laws. Conflicting absolutism[sup]15[/sup] recognizes that we live in an evil world where absolute moral laws sometimes run into inevitable conflict. The German theologian Helmut Thielicke espoused this view.[sup]16[/sup] The conflicting absolutist insists that in unavoidable conflicts it is our moral duty to do the lesser evil. That is, we must break the lesser law and plead mercy. For instance, we should lie to save a life and then ask for forgiveness for breaking God’s absolute moral law. Our moral dilemmas are sometimes unavoidable, but we are culpable anyway. God cannot change His absolute moral prescriptions because of our moral predicaments.(6) Lying is sometimes right: There are higher laws. Graded absolutism,[sup]17[/sup] such as this author holds, insists there are many moral absolutes and they sometimes conflict. However, some laws are higher than others, so when there is an unavoidable conflict it is our duty to follow the higher moral law. God does not blame us for what we could not avoid. Thus He exempts us from responsibility to follow the lower law in view of the overriding obligation to obey the higher law.