Among the false assumptions that are made by many of the advocates of the “lie of necessity” is the claim that in war, in medical practice, and in the legal profession, the propriety of falsehood and deceit, in certain cases, is recognized and admitted on all sides.  While the baselessness of this claim has been pointed out, incidentally, in the progress of the foregoing discussion,[1] it would seem desirable to give particular attention to the matter in a fuller treatment of it, before closing this record of centuries of discussion.

[Footnote 1:  See pp. 71-75, supra.]

It is not true that in civilized warfare there is an entire abrogation, or suspension, of the duty of truthfulness toward an enemy.  There is no material difference between war and peace in this respect.  Enemies, on both sides, understand that in warfare they are to kill each other if they can, by the use of means that are allowable as means; but this does not give them the privilege of doing what is utterly inconsistent with true manhood.

Enemies are not bound to disclose their plans to each other.  They have a duty of concealing those plans from each other.  Hence, as Dorner has suggested, they proffer to each other’s sight only appearances, not assurances; and it is for each to guess out, if he can, the real purpose of the other, below the appearance.  An enemy can protect his borders by pitfalls, or torpedoes, or ambushes, carefully concealed from sight, in order to guard the life of his own people by destroying the life of his opponents, or may make demonstrations, before the enemy, of possible movements, in order to conceal his purposed movements; but in doing this he does only what is allowable, in effect, in time of peace.[1]

[Footnote 1:  Several of the illustrations of Oriental warfare in the Bible record are to be explained in accordance with this principle.  Thus with the ambush set by Joshua before Ai (Josh. 8:  1-26):  the Canaanites did not read aright the riddle of the Israelitish commander, and they suffered accordingly.  Yet Dr. Dabney (Theology, p. 424) cites this as an instance of an intentional deception which was innocent in God’s sight.  And again, in the case recorded at 2 Kings 7:  6, where the Lord “made the host of the Syrians to hear a noise of chariots, and a noise of horses, even the noise of a great host,... and they arose and ... fled for their life,” thinking that Hittite and Egyptian forces were approaching, it is evident that God simply caused the Syrians, who were contending with his people, to feel that they were fighting hopelessly against God’s cause.  The impression God made on their minds was a correct one.  He could bring chariots and horses as a great host against them.  They did well to realize this fact.  But the Syrians’ explanation of this impression was incorrect in its details.]

A similar method of mystifying his opponent is adopted by the base-ball pitcher in his demonstrations with the ball before letting it drive at the batsman.  The batsman holds himself responsible for reading the riddle of the pitcher’s motions.  Yet the pitcher is forbidden to deceive the batsman by a feint of delivering the ball without delivering it.