Morals Blog: Truth & Lies

Liars & Truth tellers – Part 2

At least by kindergarten we have gained a working knowledge of truth and lies. We have heard, if not been a player in conversations along the lines of: “You took my toy.” “Did not.” “Did too, I saw you!” “Liar!”.

We quickly develop a keen sense of wrong (at least when we are the wronged party) at both false accusation and untruthful responses to true accusation. I suspect this is more than “mere” socialisation and that it is something necessary, perhaps basic to humans living together in groups.

We do in fact have a good grasp of common lying and truth telling. We should not allow the sort of moral philosopher who delights in posing extreme hypothetical cases to unnerve our confidence. As with the Commandment “You shall not murder” we may find that the rule requires 'absolute' obedience in situations where it applies, but that it does not apply in every conceivable situation. So we will start with the common situations which we already understand.

In this discussion I will use “true” and “false” in the mathematical sense so that for instance the statement “1 + 1 = 1” is false and “1 + 1 = 2” is true. Yes I do know that there are philosophies that wish to define these terms in various different ways but at this stage I just want to talk about the common-or-garden variety truth and falsehood.

So for instance, when our third grade teacher noted the absence of our homework book and said: “You haven't handed in your homework”. We knew that was a true statement. When she asked why we hadn't, things got interesting. We knew the true reason, whatever it may have been. Perhaps it was that we chose to play games until bed-time instead of doing dull old homework. We also knew that saying this would earn us a detention. So we faced a temptation to tell a lie. Perhaps to reply: “I did do my homework but the dog ate it” We knew it was a lie.

At that age we were not very practised liars so we may have given ourselves away by blushing. If we repeatedly found that lying allowed us to escape unpleasant consequences or to gain material advantage over truth tellers we may have become habitual liars. In time we certainly became much more practised and convincing at telling lies. We may have become so habitually untruthful that we ceased to even think of them as 'lies', but way back there was still a time when we did know that we were lying.

In third grade we may not have realised that our teacher had already heard all the lies that little boys and girls think are so clever and inventive. With age and practice we became much better at it. We may eventually even have come to convince ourselves with our inventions. But there was a time when we knew we were concocting a lie.

We all from time to time find ourselves in situations where we are tempted to lie. Maybe “we have done those things which we aught not to have done” or “we have left undone those things which we aught to have done” as the old Prayer Book confession put it. When we are questioned about our acts of commission or omission, we instantly realise that the truth is not what we really want to say.

We have probably all met people who in such a circumstance still tell the truth. Sometimes humbly, sometimes prudently. Someone famous once said: “When in a difficult situation always tell the truth: it will astound you friends and confound your enemies.” Either way, we know what a truthful person is.

We have undoubtedly met habitual liars, so we know what they look like.

Ordinary people tend to fall in the middle. They agree that lying is bad and truth telling is good – especially for other people. They probably tell the truth themselves whenever they may conveniently do so. But at least occasionally either as a barely though out response or as a calculated evasion, they tell a lie.

So having established common ground, how can we explore this topic further? In this series of blogs I have been trying to establish a groundwork of morals based on the moral character of God. At the beginning I argued that if there is no God then there is actually no grounds on which to discuss morals.

I know we do in fact discuss morals and that humans throughout history have so. But then I also know that there is a God.

My point is that if there were no God then there could be no basis for discussing morals. All there could be is some variation this theme: the ubermensch make whatever rules they feel like and the slaves are taught to obey them.

Alternatively, if God exists, then God's moral character, so far as it may be known, provides the ultimate and only valid standard for judging right and wrong.

So for this topic I am not going to look at the social utility of truth telling against the social or even personal harm of lying, real though these aspects may be. Instead, now that we have reviewed what we commonly understand by both telling the truth and lying, I want to look at what we know of God's moral character in relation to them.

As they used to say on the radio: “tune in same station same time next week for the next exciting episode!”

Morals Blogs: Capital Punishment: Let the Punishment fit the Crime

Let the Punishment fit the Crime

The Greentree brothers, from one of whom I am descended, came to Australia in the early 1800's. They were at the time just teenagers. Arrested I their native England for stealing a sheep they had originally been sentenced to hang. On the day of their execution the sentence was, because of their extreme youth, commuted to “transportation for life” to Australia. Here like so many convicts they were initially slaves in the new colony but once freed became model citizens. I suspect that ironically the life chances for a convict sent to the new colonies was often much better than they faced free in England at that time.

The Greentree brothers, as it turned out, were fortunate. However many went to the gallows for crimes which would attract only a short custodial sentence today and many more were flogged mercilessly for petty offences.

It is easy to dismiss the past with comments such as “those were brutal times” and the like. Easy but wrong. Those who made and administered those draconian laws were human beings just like us.

Those in, for instance, England were at that time professing Christians who had every opportunity to study and apply the Bible to their situation. Bible reading their native language was mandatory in church – which most attended – and by all accounts daily Bible reading was common in the home. In fact since many educated people read ancient Greek, and some Hebrew as well they were possibly in a better position than most in our day to study the scriptures in their original languages.

Yet for all that they had laws, and particularly use or abuse of capital punishment which we now condemn and look at with moral disgust.

.

So If we enjoy less brutal times it is only because enlightened people have laboured to make it so. Like all the freedoms we enjoy it has been hard won and could easily be lost. If things we now abhor happened in a society which claimed to be Christian and studied the scriptures, what is to stop our society – particularly if all pretence at a Biblical underpinning for morals is swept aside – becoming even worse.

I have already pointed out the merciless persecution in social media of people who transgress the new “political correctness”. It is a very slippery slope from this to the witch hunt and the lynch mob. We humans are, as the old Prayer Book used to remind us “miserable sinners”. Truth, justice and above all mercy are very fragile virtues which need to be zealously protected and nurtured.

I have in these blogs built a case for re-introducing capital punishment. Some crimes are indeed so vile and so great that for the reasons deduced from the Bible a society should  execute the criminal. However the dangers of capital punishment being abused must not be underrated. In this final post on capital punishment the danger I raise is of society killing people whose crime does not warrant this extreme punishment. Be sure the punishment fits the crime and forget not mercy!

Morals Blogs: Capital Punishment 5: Historic Abuses

Historic Abuses of Capital Punishment

One reason our generation – right around the Western world – has turned against the very idea of capital punishment is the awful historic abuses of it. We are now only just climbing out of some dark days of draconian punishment.

Because of this I wish to emphasis that I am in no way advocating turning the clock back to those dark days!.

I think that the abuses of capital punishment broadly fall into two classes:

1. Condemning the innocent and 2. Punishment that outweighs the crime.

1. Condemning the innocent.

This is a thing which throughout the Bible is said with great emphasis to be both abhorrent to God and totally contrary to his moral nature. He will never condemn the innocent. He will not leave unpunished humans who condemn the innocent. It is, unfortunately a very common sin committed by humans. It is always evil when intentional. It demands reform of our system of justice when it is accidental. Let us quickly survey its various faces:

a) Judicial murder.

This one is near the top of the list for individual scale human evil. When the very system intended to produce justice is perverted to perform murder it is a whole degree of magnitude more evil than straight out murder.

In the Old Testament one classic instance is depicted in the story of Naboth's Vineyard.

Nearly three thousand years ago the king of Israel wanted the family vineyard of a citizen named Naboth for a palace veggie garden. Naboth wouldn't sell. The King's wife, a foreign lady called Jezebel, told her husband that in her culture kings don't take “No” for an answer. She sent a letter under King Ahab's seal to the leaders of Naboth's town. They were ordered to falsely charge Naboth with blasphemy and sedition, fake the necessary evidence, then try, convict and execute him.

God's anger at this abuse of the justice system should scare even the most ruthless tyrant. The prophet Elijah was sent to tell Ahab that (among other things): “Where the dogs licked up Naboth's blood they will lick up yours!” Years later when Ahab's army commanders saw the blood from Ahab's fatal wound being washed from his chariot and dogs licking it up they recall those words, and realise that this is indeed the very place where Naboth was executed. God could hardly have made his feelings any clearer!

Jesus' crucifixion is the great example of a judicial murder in the New Testament and the unequalled instance of human evil.

Throughout history people in authority have resorted to murdering people who got in their way by perverting justice to condemn the innocent. It indeed is a very great evil and we must fight it wherever it rears its ugly head.

b) Mob Hysteria

Another perversion of justice is where mob hysteria rules. It is like, but different to judicial murder.

Classic cases are the infamous witchcraft trials. Mob hysteria fuelled the hunting down, baseless accusation, phony trial and execution of totally innocent people.

We should indeed be revolted by these. But transferring our revulsion on to “capital punishment” is not the right response. It also happens in jurisdictions where there is no capital punishment. True the victims are not executed, but the harm inflicted on them may be almost as great!

My point again is that these historic abuses are indeed great evils. They are wrongly used as popular considerations against capital punishment. They are abuses – deal with them as such.

c) Failure of Due Process

In the Old Testament the rule was laid down “do not convict anyone on the evidence of only one witness.” and as a strong deterrent to false witnesses: “anyone who gives false testimony in a trial must suffer the punishment that the wrongly accused person would have suffered.”

of Daniel devising a way to show that two scoundrels who accused a woman of adultery were lying. In the story the lying witnesses are then stoned to death and the innocent woman exonerated.

The Old Testament was, even in civil cases, very strong on the ideal of a fair trial. With commands like “Do not side with the mob” : “Do no favour the poor, or toady to the rich in their court case” “Judge fairly and do not accept a bribe”

Outside the Bible, even one Roman Emperor persecuting Christians instructed one of his provincial governors: “Do not entertain an anonymous charge against any person”

In the English judicial tradition there has over many centuries grown up rules of fair trial – often termed “due process”. Things like the presumption of innocence and the right to remain silent are well known. Others like rules of evidence are more of a puzzle to the general public. They have grown over the centuries from practical experience that on the whole they give the best chance of avoiding a wrong verdict.

Together these things add up to a “fair trial”.

In jurisdictions where due process is not guaranteed we rightly feel motivated to oppose capital punishment.

d) Mistakes Happen.

Even where there is a tradition of a fair trial, mistakes happen. Guilty people walk free because they have a good lawyer; sometimes innocent people are wrongly convicted.

One way jurists have tried to balance the need to have a justice system that does function with the need to minimise miscarriages of justice is to change the burden of proof with the harm that would be caused by a wrong verdict.

In popular terms, we don't make a federal case” out of something trivial. In court civil cases are often decided on “the balance of probabilities” while criminal trials require the case to be proved “beyond all reasonable doubt”.

For capital crimes the bar should be set even higher. One Judge Blackwell famously said: “I would rather release ten guilty murderers than hang one innocent man.” However, historically, capital cases have not uniformly required a greater degree of certainty than that for imprisonment.

Nothing in human affairs is perfect, nothing is certain. Opponents of capital punishment are quite right to point to the numerous cases where even after a fair trial, an innocent person has been convicted. An innocent person imprisoned can be released, and some compensation for the harm done to them can be made but wrongful executions cannot be remedied in this world.

My conclusion is: when capital punishment is re-introduced it should require strong safeguards against all these abuses. Including for instance a higher standard of certainty even than required in the best jurisdictions at present for 'life' imprisonment.

That this must be achieved is a matter we ordinary citizens can decide.

How this can best be achieved is however a matter for experts in jurisprudence and drafting laws to consider.

Next Post: Does the punishment fit the Crime?

Morals Blogs: Capital Punishment: Deterrence

Capital Punishment Pt. 3

2. Deterrence

At the mere mention of capital punishment as 'deterrence' a swag of intellectuals and their acolytes will sagely nod their heads and chime: “But we all know that deterrence doesn't work!.” Do we know this? We know it is loudly claimed by social progressives. But do we know it is true? I think not. However that is a debate I will in main leave to others.

In this blog I am looking, like Kant, more at a metaphysics of the groundwork of morals.

So far I have established that the only valid foundation for moral theory is God's moral character. As to insight into God's character: I have established that the Bible is the best thing we have going for us.

For turning insight into answers to modern problems:

a) I have rejected the fraught method of debate called “proof text”-ing. This is a method whereby opponents who are usually equally flawed specimens of humanity scour the Bible to find convenient verses which seem to support their case. They have already decided that their case is “right” with little or no reference to God's moral character. And they hurl these texts like javelins at each other to try to score points.

b) In its place I suggest that we need all the resources of the “expert in the field” - be it jurisprudence, medicine, business or whatever field of human endeavour we have under the microscope, combined with the workings of a fully formed moral character. Such a character, or conscience, can only be formed by long exposure to and habitual shaping into the character of God as revealed in the person of Christ and the record of the Bible. In old fashioned words: a god-fearing person.

My search in this post is simply this: Does the Bible have anything to say about “deterrence” as a reason for capital punishment.

I found the answer in some passages dealing with ancient Israel. Their situation was different to ours, and so the prescription God gave for them does not apply to us. That is important to remember! However the reasons given do have a life of their own.

The book of Deuteronomy is set as Moses' farewell speech. Part of it deals with the very real danger to the life of their theocratic nation of turning away from God to the pagan religions of the land they are to enter.

In 13:1ff the case of the false prophet is dealt with. Verse 5 instructs: “that prophet or dreamer must be put to death … You must purge the evil from among you”

In 13:6 ff the issue of loved ones suggesting worshipping other gods is raised. “If your very own brother or your son or daughter or the wife you love or your closest friend entices you saying 'let us go and worship other gods' … Show him no pity, do not spare him or shield him. You must certainly put him to death. … Then all Israel will hear and be afraid, and no one among you will do such an evil thing again.”

Again in Chapter 21 a command to execute a class of criminal is backed up by the reason (v.21) “You must purge this evil from among you. All Israel will hear of it and be afraid.”

No, these prescriptions do not apply to us, but, and this is the point I am making: clearly God is saying that one valid reason for capital punishment is its deterrence value.

My conclusion is that where a crime is so evil and depraved that all people cannot help but say: “such a thing must not happen in our land!” then one reason for making it a capital crime is that it will deter others from committing it.

Next post: Purging communal guilt

Capital Punishment : Is it ever right?

This post I am considering one question only: Is capital punishment ever right.

This may seem a 'no-brainer' given the Biblical texts I have previously cited. However since in Australia and many other Western countries capital punishment is not allowed, regardless of the magnitude or depravity of the crime it cannot be taken for granted. Also the anti capital punishment lobby generally puts the case that it is never justified. For instance from time to time the media reports some comment to the effect: “No community which executes criminals can be called civilised” and similar ideas. So the question does need to be asked and answered.

There is another reason I want to look first at whether execution is ever right: If capital punishment can never be justified then there is nothing more to discuss. One can only say: “Capital punishment is antiquated and barbaric and thankfully human civilisation has grown past it”. If, on the other hand there is conceivably some, no matter how rare, situation in which it would be justified, then a great deal remains to be explored and said.  For instance one can ask: Just how terrible a crime does warrant killing the criminal? What legal safeguards would be required over and above those for imprisonment? and so forth.

We might find that our current distaste for capital punishment is actually rooted in a true feeling that it has often involved failures of “fair trial” and even murder dressed up as lawful execution. These then become important issues in their own right.

We might find that there are other considerations which would make actually executing a criminal exceedingly rare. However all these questions are irrelevant unless we can conceive of a circumstance where executing a criminal would be right.

I have previously quoted from Genesis 9 “ … Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed for in the image of God has God made man.”

So immediately we have one circumstance – murder – where for society to execute the murderer is specifically allowed by God.

However I will not at this point say “case proved” because it is not quite as simple as that!

Opponents to capital punishment have generally cited reasons: “retribution is wrong”, “violence begets violence”, “deterrence doesn't work” and so forth. The merits of these do need to be considered. Also the Bible does give reasons for capital punishment. These reasons need to be teased out and considered – something I think has been too much neglected!

Let's look first at some of the reasons the Bible gives for the death sentence in extreme cases.

1. Retribution.

Yes, I did say that bad word: retribution. Current social philosophy and tissue-box Christianity have combined to ridicule this notion almost to extinction. They are wrong, quite wrong!

Retribution is valid: But retribution belongs to God.

So true, we as individuals must turn the other cheek when we feel slighted. We must not seek vengeance for personal wrongs. We must not even begin to think that we can be forgiven our sins by God if we refuse to forgive those who sin against us.

God, on the other hand does not have to forgive! He has the perfect moral right, and the moral prerogative as judge of all the world to exact vengeance. (Yes, and he also has the unquestionable moral right to forgive – because Jesus Christ, God the Son, died for our sins and rose again from the dead)

So, some scripture to back this up:

Genesis 50: 15ff especially v.19: Joseph's brothers are afraid he will avenge himself on them for the terrible wrong they did to him many years earlier, he answers: “Am I in the place of God?” and assures them he will treat them kindly

Read almost any book of the Old Testament and you will come across mention of God punishing nations and individuals.

Before you even think of saying “Oh, but Jesus was different” - No! On the contrary Jesus spoke more about judgement that anyone else! Call to mind his typically blunt warnings such as:

“What does it profit a man to gain the whole world, yet forfeit his soul?”

“If anyone causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to be thrown into the sea with a large millstone tied around his neck.”

“It is better to enter the kingdom of God with one eye than to have two eyes and be thrown into hell.”

The parable of the tenants end with a shocking “He (meaning God) will come and kill those tenants (meaning the religious leaders of Jesus day ...)”

The parable of the unforgiving servant ends: “In anger his master turned him over to the jailers until he should pay back all he owed. This is how my heavenly Father will treat you unless you forgive your brother from your heart.” Which neatly ties together the reason we must forgive after experiencing the enormous magnitude of God's forgiveness towards us; and God's freedom to forgive or to condemn.

The parable of the ten minas ends: “But those enemies of mine who did not want me to be a king over them – bring them here and kill them in front of me.” In an obvious reference to those who opposed Jesus then, and presumably also those who oppose him now.

Jesus said of the people who claim to serve him but do not act in accordance with his commandments: “There will be weeping and gnashing of teeth when you see … in the kingdom of God but you yourselves are thrown out.”

That is just a smattering, skim through the Gospels and you will find plenty more. The point is that Jesus did not trivialise the reality of God's judgement, rather he gave it full strength to give full contrast to the superabundant mercy of God in providing a way of forgiveness through his Son.

Just two of the many passages in this vein in the New Testament letters;

2 Thessalonians 1: 5ff “God is just: He will pay back trouble to those who trouble you … He will punish … they will be punished with everlasting destruction ...”

Hebrews 10: 30ff “For we know him who said: 'It is mine to avenge; I will repay' … it is a dreadful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.”

So: Retribution is just a fact – but – retribution belongs to God.

“proper authorities” govern – whether they acknowledge it or not – as God's agents. No! Not in the propaganda sense of “the divine right of kings” or any nonsense like that; but in the model of shepherds who are there to protect and feed a flock and to work to enable that flock to flourish. That is the Biblical model! (and a story for another day)

“proper authorities” have a delegated function to exercise a little of God's prerogative of administering retributive justice.

So while as individuals we must forgive, as legislators, judges, police and other functionaries of a lawful justice system we have a small role in meting out some of God's judgement on evildoers.

This is a hard concept – well no – it should be blindingly obvious! But we have been blinded by current philosophies to the extent where the obvious has become invisible! Just one quote to set us on the path to recovering a right perspective on this:

Romans 13: “ … the authorities that exist have been established by God … the one in authority … is God's servant to do you good, but if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God's servant, an agent of wrath bringing punishment on the wrongdoer.”

So there exist instances where the proper authorities acting in their official capacity need to mete out retributive justice as agents and servants of God. Mostly God's judgement is reserved for the Day of Judgement, but as – Luther I think it was – pointed out, he gives little bits of judgement in advance.

I have also previously quoted from Exodus 21. Here I will put in a larger section, verses 12 – 14.

“Anyone who strikes a man and kills him shall surely be put to death. However if he does not do it intentionally, but God lets it happen, he is to flee to a place I will designate. But If a man schemes and kills another man deliberately, take him away from my altar and put him to death.”

Perhaps us moderns do not realise quite how shocking this provision was in the eyes of the ancients. For a person to cling to the altar of a deity was to claim that deity's protection: few would dare touch them for fear of being guilty of sacrilege. But for murderers, God decrees that there is no divine protection that can be claimed: even the most sacred space cannot harbour them from execution.

So one reason why there can be a death penalty is so that the proper authorities can exercise a role God has given them by having the ultimate sanction (death) as retributive punishment for the worst crimes.

NEXT POST: Deterrence