+
JMJ
I had recourse to Jone's Moral Theology to augment the other resource.
A mental reservation is essentially that a "speaker puts a meaning into words which is different from that which the words taken into themselves have in ordinary conversation".
- Strict Mental Reservation:
- Forbidden
- Used when the actual meaning of the utterance can in no way be inferred from the external circumstances.
- e.g. I have not stolen - adds mentally - with the left hand but with the right.
- Broad Mental Reservation:
- Permissible sometimes with sufficient reason
- If the meaning of the expression can be inferred either from the circumstances of the question of the answer, of from customary usage, even if, as a matter of fact, such inference is not actually made; such as the conventional polite phrases,
- e.g. The mistress is not at home, meaning, not at home to receive visitors.
From my reading I have concluded that the use of mental reservations or ambiguities are governed by the following key "tests:
- Answer NO to the following questions:
- Does the questioner have a right to an unambiguous answer? ✅
- Would the use of a mental reservation injure the rights of another? ✅
- Is there no other lawful means available (ie. evasion or silence)? ✅
- Answer YES to the following questions:
- Is it necessary to secure some good or avoid an evil of a magnitude that compensates for the deception that may be caused? ✅
- Are you bound to keep the truth from the questioner?✅
Answer accordingly to all these questions and you can employ a mental reservation.
Questions to which I would like to have answers are:
- Who has a right to an unambiguous answer?
- What rights could be injured?
- When are you bound to keep the truth from a questioner?
P^3
Comments
Post a Comment