Does a Killer Deserve the Truth?

The Gospels tell us that Jesus was asked which commandment was greatest (Matthew 26:36-40). For him to give an answer implies there is a hierarchy of commands (and he did answer the question).

Just as not all commandments are on equal footing, not all sin should be treated as equal.* A hierarchy of commands implies a hierarchy of sin.

Slapping you is wrong but killing you is worse and deserves more condemnation. Thus, hitting falls below murder on our list of “top sins”. We recognize this in our legal system by giving harsher sentences to some murders (planned) over others (spontaneous and unplanned).

This comes into play when absolutes conflict. What do we do our options are either, for instance, lying or murder? Some people will tell you to choice the “lesser of two evils”. But is choosing evil ever acceptable? Are there situations where we have no choice but to sin?

Let’s put it in more concrete terms.

Perhaps you’ve been presented this dilemma. Let’s say you are sitting in the library, minding your own business, reading a book. Suddenly, a panting, red-faced young man runs past you. He hides behind a bookcase. Before you have time to take in the scene, another man comes charging inside the library. He looks like he’s been running as well. This second man holds a knife in his hand. You recognized his face. He’s an escaped killer who’s apparently ready to take another life. He looks you in the eye and says, “Where is he? Where is John?”

What do you say?

You should always tell the truth, right? But if you do and point out the victim’s hiding place, you would be guilty of helping the lunatic commit murder.

Would you say, “I don’t know” or “He’s not here”? Either statement is a lie. How would you justify it?

If you say nothing, wouldn’t you be guilty of withholding the truth? Wouldn’t that be wrong as well? Your silence may convey to the madman that John was indeed close and he may start looking for his victim. Wouldn’t that make you accountable as well?

The question really is, when there are moral dilemmas, that is, two absolutes that conflict (in this case, the charge not to lie comes against the charge to not murder), are these dilemmas real? And if so, what is the proper action?

If we accept there are “graded absolutes” then the choice is not the “lesser evil” but the “greater good”.

When a small child hands us a crude crayon drawing, we are not obligated in the name of truth to call it “a poor excuse for art”. There are greater “rules” that apply here. Just like when your wife asks if she looks overweight in a new dress. The brute facts may say one thing but the love in your heart will speak a “greater truth” into the situation.

(*this is not to say that all sin is equal in its consequences for any evil will separate us from our creator).

Stephen Goforth