Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae

Objection 1: It seems that lies are not sufficiently divided into "officious," "jocose" and "mischievous" lies. For a division should be made according to that which pertains to a thing by reason of its nature, as the Philosopher states (Metaph. vii, text. 43; De Part. Animal i, 3). But seemingly the intention of the effect resulting from a moral act is something beside and accidental to the species of that act, so that an indefinite number of effects can result from one act. Now this division is made according to the intention of the effect: for a "jocose" lie is told in order to make fun, an "officious" lie for some useful purpose, and a "mischievous" lie in order to injure someone. Therefore lies are unfittingly divided in this way.

Objection 2: Further, Augustine (Contra Mendac. xiv) gives eight kinds of lies. The first is "in religious doctrine"; the second is "a lie that profits no one and injures someone"; the third "profits one party so as to injure another"; the fourth is "told out of mere lust of lying and deceiving"; the fifth is "told out of the desire to please"; the sixth "injures no one, and profits /someone in saving his money"; the seventh "injures no one and profits someone in saving him from death"; the eighth "injures no one, and profits someone in saving him from defilement of the body." Therefore it seems that the first division of lies is insufficient.

Objection 3: Further, the Philosopher (Ethic. iv, 7) divides lying into "boasting," which exceeds the truth in speech, and "irony," which falls short of the truth by saying something less: and these two are not contained under any one of the kinds mentioned above. Therefore it seems that the aforesaid division of lies is inadequate.

On the contrary, A gloss on Ps. 5:7, "Thou wilt destroy all that speak a lie," says "that there are three kinds of lies; for some are told for the wellbeing and convenience of someone; and there is another kind of lie that is told in fun; but the third kind of lie is told out of malice." The first of these is called an officious lie, the second a jocose lie, the third a mischievous lie. Therefore lies are divided into these three kinds.

I answer that, Lies may be divided in three ways. First, with respect to their nature as lies: and this is the proper and essential division of lying. In this way, according to the Philosopher (Ethic. iv, 7), lies are of two kinds, namely, the lie which goes beyond the truth, and this belongs to "boasting," and the lie which stops short of the truth, and this belongs to "irony." This division is an essential division of lying itself, because lying as such is opposed to truth, as stated in the preceding Article: and truth is a kind of equality, to which more and less are in essential opposition.

Secondly, lies may be divided with respect to their nature as sins, and with regard to those things that aggravate or diminish the sin of lying, on the part of the end intended. Now the sin of lying is aggravated, if by lying a person intends to injure another, and this is called a "mischievous" lie, while the sin of lying is diminished if it be directed to some good---either of pleasure and then it is a "jocose" lie, or of usefulness, and then we have the "officious" lie, whereby it is intended to help another person, or to save him from being injured. In this way lies are divided into the three kinds aforesaid.

Thirdly, lies are divided in a more general way, with respect to their relation to some end, whether or not this increase or diminish their gravity: and in this way the division comprises eight kinds, as stated in the Second Objection. Here the first three kinds are contained under "mischievous" lies, which are either against God, and then we have the lie "in religious doctrine," or against man, and this either with the sole intention of injuring him, and then it is the second kind of lie, which "profits no one, and injures someone"; or with the intention of injuring one and at the same time profiting another, and this is the third kind of lie, "which profits one, and injures another." Of these the first is the most grievous, because sins against God are always more grievous, as stated above (1.2, Question 73, Article 3): and the second is more grievous than the third, since the latter's gravity is diminished by the intention of profiting another.

After these three, which aggravate the sin of lying, we have a fourth, which has its own measure of gravity without addition or diminution; and this is the lie which is told "out of mere lust of lying and deceiving." This proceeds from a habit, wherefore the Philosopher says (Ethic. iv, 7) that "the liar, when he lies from habit, delights in lying."

The four kinds that follow lessen the gravity of the sin of lying. For the fifth kind is the jocose lie, which is told "with a desire to please": and the remaining three are comprised under the officious lie, wherein something useful to another person is intended. This usefulness regards either external things, and then we have the sixth kind of lie, which "profits someone in saving his money"; or his body, and this is the seventh kind, which "saves a man from death"; or the morality of his virtue, and this is the eighth kind, which "saves him from unlawful defilement of his body."

Now it is evident that the greater the good intended, the more is the sin of lying diminished in gravity. Wherefore a careful consideration of the matter will show that these various kinds of lies are enumerated in their order of gravity: since the useful good is better than the pleasurable good, and life of the body than money, and virtue than the life of the body.

This suffices for the Replies to the Objections.

Articulus 2

Argumentum 1

Ad secundum sic proceditur. Videtur quod insufficienter mendacium dividatur per mendacium officiosum, iocosum et perniciosum. Divisio enim est danda secundum ea quae per se conveniunt rei, ut patet per philosophum, in VII metaphys..

Sed intentio effectus est praeter speciem actus moralis, et per accidens se habet ad illum, ut videtur, unde et infiniti effectus possunt consequi ex uno actu. Haec autem divisio datur secundum intentionem effectus, nam mendacium iocosum est quod fit causa ludi; mendacium autem officiosum, quod fit causa utilitatis; mendacium autem perniciosum, quod fit causa nocumenti.

Ergo inconvenienter hoc modo dividitur mendacium.

Argumentum 2

Praeterea, Augustinus, in libro contra mendacium, dividit mendacium in octo partes. Quorum primum est in doctrina religionis; secundum est ut nulli prosit et obsit alicui; tertium est quod prodest uni ita ut alteri obsit; quartum est quod fit sola mentiendi fallendique libidine; quintum est quod fit placendi cupiditate; sextum est quod nulli obest, et prodest alicui ad conservandam pecuniam; septimum est quod nulli obest, et prodest alicui ad vitandum mortem; octavum quod nulli obest, et prodest alicui ad vitandum immunditiam corporalem.

Ergo videtur quod prima divisio mendacii sit insufficiens.

Argumentum 3

Praeterea, philosophus, in IV ethic., dividit mendacium in iactantiam, quae verum excedit in dicendo, et ironiam, quae deficit a vero in minus.

Quae duo sub nullo praedictorum membrorum continentur.

Ergo videtur quod praedicta divisio mendacii sit incompetens.

Sed Contra

Sed contra est quod super illud psalm., perdes omnes qui loquuntur mendacium, dicit Glossa quod sunt tria genera mendaciorum. Quaedam enim sunt pro salute et commodo alicuius; est etiam aliud genus mendacii, quod fit ioco; tertium vero mendacii genus est quod fit ex malignitate.

Primum autem horum dicitur officiosum; secundum, iocosum; tertium, perniciosum. Ergo mendacium in tria praedicta dividitur.

Corpus

Respondeo dicendum quod mendacium tripliciter dividi potest.

Uno modo, secundum ipsam mendacii rationem, quae est propria et per se mendacii divisio. Et secundum hoc, mendacium in duo dividitur, scilicet in mendacium quod transcendit veritatem in maius, quod pertinet ad iactantiam; et in mendacium quod deficit a veritate in minus, quod pertinet ad ironiam; ut patet per philosophum, in IV ethic..

Haec autem divisio ideo per se est ipsius mendacii, quia mendacium, inquantum huiusmodi, opponitur veritati, ut dictum est, veritas autem aequalitas quaedam est, cui per se opponitur maius et minus.

Alio modo potest dividi mendacium inquantum habet rationem culpae, secundum ea quae aggravant vel diminuunt culpam mendacii ex parte finis intenti. Aggravat autem culpam mendacii si aliquis per mendacium intendat alterius nocumentum, quod vocatur mendacium perniciosum. Diminuitur autem culpa mendacii si ordinetur ad aliquod bonum, vel delectabile et sic est mendacium iocosum; vel, utile, et sic est mendacium officiosum, sive quo intenditur iuvamentum alterius vel remotio nocumenti. Et secundum hoc, dividitur mendacium in tria praedicta.

Tertio modo dividitur mendacium universalius secundum ordinem ad finem, sive ex hoc addatur vel diminuatur ad culpam mendacii, sive non. Et secundum hoc, est divisio octo membrorum quae dicta est.

In qua quidem tria prima membra continentur sub mendacio pernicioso. Quod quidem fit vel contra deum, et ad hoc pertinet primum mendacium, quod est in doctrina religionis.

Vel est contra hominem, sive sola intentione nocendi alicui, et sic est secundum mendacium, quod scilicet nulli prodest et obest alicui; sive etiam intendatur in nocumento unius utilitas alterius, et hoc est tertium mendacium, quod uni prodest et alteri obest. Inter quae tria primum est gravissimum, quia semper peccata contra deum sunt graviora, ut supra dictum est.

Secundum autem est gravius tertio, quod diminuitur ex intentione utilitatis alterius. Post haec autem tria quae superaddunt ad gravitatem culpae mendacii, ponitur quartum, quod habet propriam quantitatem sine additione vel diminutione. Et hoc est mendacium quod fit ex sola mentiendi libidine, quod procedit ex habitu, unde et philosophus dicit, in IV ethic., quod mendax, eo quod talis est secundum habitum, ipso mendacio gaudet.

Quatuor vero subsequentes modi diminuunt de culpa mendacii. Nam quintum est mendacium iocosum, quod fit placendi cupiditate. Alia vero tria continentur sub mendacio officioso. In quo intenditur quod est alteri utile vel quantum ad res exteriores, et sic est sextum mendacium, quod prodest alicui ad pecuniam conservandam; vel est utile corpori, et hoc est septimum mendacium, quo impeditur mors hominis; vel est utile etiam ad honestatem virtutis, et hoc est octavum mendacium, in quo impeditur illicita pollutio corporalis.

Patet autem quod quanto bonum intentum est melius, tanto magis minuitur culpa mendacii. Et ideo, si quis diligenter consideret, secundum ordinem praedictae enumerationis est ordo gravitatis culpae in istis mendaciis, nam bonum utile praefertur delectabili; et vita corporalis praefertur pecuniae; honestas autem etiam ipsi corporali vitae.

Et per hoc patet responsio ad obiecta.