Oscar Schindler’s dilemma and

the search for a realistic ethics of lying

Par M. Ndomba Ngoma

i.- Oscar Schindler[1] dilemma and his option of lying

Before and during the Second World War, the Nazi regime tortured and killed the Jews in Germany and Poland. The whole Jewish community in these countries was threatened and facing imminent death. This is what is known as holocaust. Oscar Schindler, a German affluent industrialist, is among the witnesses of the sufferings of the Jewish community.  Deciding to become a protector of the Jews, he finds himself in a dilemma. He is torn between the determination to protect and save some Jewish lives on the one hand, and the powerful Nazi political system on the other hand. He faces a structural evil, that is, an evil organized by a corrupt system. Any individual success in opposing such a systemic evil is very unlikely.  Anyone who opposes the system is either put to death or imprisoned.

Schindler decides to use his factory as a means of protecting the Jews. However, he does not tell the Nazis the new purpose of the factory. This dissimulation is a deviation from truth. It is what is called lying. A lie is opposed to truth; it is “any intentionally deceptive message which is stated.”[2]  Schindler’s lies can be established at three levels. First, he lies through the recruitment of extra manpower (from the Jewish community) more than what the factory needs. The list of new employees he makes is a lie. Second, he lies in giving the impression that he is serving the system. Third, he lies in willfully producing defective military equipment.

            Through these lies, Schindler wants to solve the dilemma he is experiencing. He wants to find a way of getting out of his powerlessness before the evil system of the Nazis. Questions may be asked on alternatives to the option of lying. Did Schindler have any alternative to lying? Was lying the last resort? What is the best solution for protecting and saving some Jewish lives in this situation? For him, lying is the best solution. Actually through lying he saves many lives.  

ii. – Schindler’s option and Saint Augustine rejection of lying as a moral option

            However in Saint Augustine’s ethics, lying can never become a good moral option. For him, every lie is a sin, for every lie offends God who gave the speech to human beings so that they might make known their thoughts to one another.[3] Lying deviates from God-given purpose of the speech. Augustine believes that “God forbids all lies and that liars therefore endanger their immortal souls.”[4] The immortality of the soul is for him the greatest value which should be protected by all means. Since lying endangers this immortality, therefore it is unacceptable in any situation. Augustine does not see any circumstances which can outweigh the danger lies present to the immortality of the soul. Any sin for Augustine is dangerous, because the accumulation of many small sins has the impact of important sins. Thus both small and big sins are to be avoided.

Augustine does not put all lies at the same level. He admits that some lies are much more abhorrent than others.  The deception caused by some lies “should be pardoned without its being made an object of laudation”[5], he says.  He distinguishes eight types of lies.[6] The first type of lies is those uttered in the teaching of religion. The second category of lies injures somebody unjustly. The third is beneficial to one person while it harms another, although the harm does not produce physical defilement. The fourth type of lies is those told just for the pleasure of lying and deceiving. This is the real lie. The fifth type is the one which is told from a desire to please others in smooth discourse. The sixth type is the lie which harms no one and benefits some persons. This lie is a refusal to say the truth. The seventh type is harmful to no one and beneficial to some persons (in case of refusal to betray a person who risks a capital punishment). The last type of lies is those which are harmful to no one and beneficial to the extent that they protect someone from physical defilement.

Schindler’s lies enter in the eighth category of lies. They harm no one and are beneficial to the extent of protecting a great number of Jews who risked death. The worst lies for Augustine are those of the first category. Thus Schindler’s lies from the point of view of Augustine are not the worst of lies. Nevertheless in the eyes of Augustine, Schindler is not supposed to lie at all. In fact Augustine gives four reasons for not lying. First, if you start telling small lies, “little by little and bit by bit this evil will grow and by gradual accessions will slowly increase until it becomes such a mass of wicked lies that it will be utterly impossible to find any means of resisting such a plague grown to huge proportions through small additions”.[7] Second, if someone declares to teach the truth, it is a contradiction to say that we ought to lie, because this lie cannot be of the truth. Third, John the Apostle protests that no lie is of the truth. Therefore, it is not true that sometimes we ought to lie. The fourth and last reason is that “what is not true we should never try to persuade anyone to believe”.[8] From the Augustine’s treatment of lying therefore, Schindler was wrong in the solution he found in his dilemma. Augustine is categorical on not lying at all. Yet Schindler lied.

iii. - Searching for a realistic ethics of lying

            However the condemnation of Schindler by Augustine’s ethics of lying raises a number of questions. How is Schindler supposed to deal with the riddles of his context from the perspective of Augustine?  What will happen if Schindler tells the truth to the Nazis? It is most likely that the Nazis will close the factory and put Schindler in prison or even to death. The consequence of this can be that no Jewish life is saved by Schindler. Yet at the end of the movie “Schindler List”, it is said that Schindler is recognized as righteous. This means that his lies are recognized as praiseworthy. The dilemma of the situation Schindler finds himself in brings us to another dilemma, that of the assessment of the lies he uses as a means of saving human lives. If we consider that human life is such a high value that it has to be absolutely protected, then we have to admit that Augustine’s treatment of lying is inappropriate to Schindler in dealing with the many riddles of the context he found himself in. This inappropriateness leads us to rethink or search for a possible ethics of lying which is helpful in the moral commitment to doing good, avoiding evil, and protecting the highest value of human life.

The main purpose of this post is not to provide a realistic ethics of lying, but to raise questions about the importance of such an ethics.

---

[1] The content of this post was written after watching a movie called “Schindler’s list” directed by Steven Spielberg in 1993. Starring: Liam Neeson, Ralph Fiennes, Ben Kingsley, etc. Please, visit the website of the movie at: http://www.universalstudiosentertainment.com/schindlers-list/

[2] Sissela BOK, Lying: Moral choice in Public and Private Life (New York: Vintage Books, 1999), p.13.

[3] Cf. Augustine, quoted by Sissela Bok, Op. Cit., p.32.

[4] Ibid. p.33.

[5] Ibid.

[6] Ibid. pp.250-251

[7] Ibid. p. 254.

[8] Ibid. p. 255.