Talk:Mental reservation

examples

Can you give any examples from the trials?--Shtove 12:21, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I guess mental reservation should be merged here, shouldn't it? Spirals31 (talk) 21:14, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Merged

Merged content from "Mental reservation". Will proceed to cleanup. Leushenko (talk) 16:46, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

So help me God

"So help me God" means what to those who believe there is no help to be had from God? --Pawyilee (talk) 04:25, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was move per request.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:42, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

---

Doctrine of mental reservation → Mental reservation – The current title is curiously descriptive. We have Evolution, not Theory of evolution. We have Gravitation, not Law of gravity. And we have Universalizability, not Concept of universalizability. I think this borders on a technical request; it seems to have resulted from a merge where Mental reservation was a more prudent destination. The only other topic with a similar name is Mental Reservation (album), which is easily dealt with through a hatnote (For the Scanner album, see...). The proposed title is also more concise. --BDD (talk) 23:39, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

• Support Based on search trends and book results for Doctrine of mental reservation vs Mental reservation. --RA (talk) 21:05, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Plagiarism

Compare the text in:

Mentalis restrictio in moral theology

The traditional teaching of moral theologians is that a lie is intrinsically evil, and therefore, never allowed. However, there are instances where one is also under an obligation to keep secrets faithfully, and sometimes the easiest way of fulfilling that duty is to say what is false, or to tell a lie. Writers of all creeds and of none, both ancient and modern, have frankly accepted this position. They admit the doctrine of the "lie of necessity", and maintain that when there is a conflict between justice and veracity it is justice that should prevail. The common Catholic teaching has formulated the theory of mental reservation as a means by which the claims of both justice and veracity can be satisfied.

To its source (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10195b.htm)

According to the common Catholic teaching it is never allowable to tell a lie, not even to save human life. A lie is something intrinsically evil, and as evil may not be done that good may come of it, we are never allowed to tell a lie. However, we are also under an obligation to keep secrets faithfully, and sometimes the easiest way of fulfilling that duty is to say what is false, or to tell a lie. Writers of all creeds and of none, both ancient and modern, have frankly accepted this position. They admit the doctrine of the lie of necessity, and maintain that when there is a conflict between justice and veracity it is justice that should prevail. The common Catholic teaching has formulated the theory of mental reservation as a means by which the claims of both justice and veracity can be satisfied.

This is plagiarism and should be dealt with immediately. The rest of the article's information should be compared with its corresponding sources.

Thanks,

Skzt (talk) 22:34, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Yeah I would guess this is just a copy of the Catholic Encyclopedia post, which accounts for the old-fashioned and Catholic-centric tone. But it strips the links so almost totally lacks citations. Needs a lot of work. 107.116.89.102 (talk) 16:00, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

Legacy: Kant section seems to contradict itself

The first sentence is "This type of untruth was condemned by Kant in On a supposed right to lie."

It seems reasonable to assume "This type of untruth" refers to any kind of half-truths like equivocation.

The last sentence of the section is "However, it was permissible to remain silent or say no more than needed (such as in the infamous example of a murderer asking to know where someone is)."

But is "saying no more than needed" not what this entire article is about? It makes this section completely unclear as to its point.

Did Kant, and 'On a supposed right to lie', condemn or permit equivocation? It's impossible to tell here. ~2026-37798-93 (talk) 19:49, 1 July 2026 (UTC)