human
and make, _e. g._, a great distinction between a simple lie and a lie sworn to. And yet the whole chapter of the oath coincides with that of the lie, since an oath, everybody knows, is only a strongly assured statement. You consider yourselves entitled to lie, if only you do not swear to it besides? One who is particular about it must judge and condemn a lie as sharply as a false oath. But now there has been kept up in morality an ancient point of controversy, which is customarily treated of under the name of the
gpt
No one who dares plead for this can consistently put from him an
human
If I justify my lie as a lie of necessity, I should not be so pusillanimous as to rob the justified lie of the strongest corroboration. Whatever I do, why should I not do it entirely and without reservation (_reservatio mentalis_)? If I once lie, why then not lie completely, with entire consciousness and all my might? As a spy I should have to swear to each of my false statements at the enemy's demand; determined to lie to him, should I suddenly become cowardly and undecided in face of an oath? Then I should have been ruined in advance for a liar and spy; for, you see, I should be voluntarily putting into the enemy's hands a means to catch me.--The State too fears the oath of necessity, and for this reason does not give the accused a chance to swear. But you do not justify the State's fear; you lie, but do not swear falsely. If, _e. g._, you show some one a kindness, and he is not to know it, but he guesses it and tells you so to your face, you deny; if he insists, you say
gpt
If it came to swearing, then you would refuse; for, from fear of the sacred, you always stop half way. _Against_ the sacred you have no _will of your own_. You lie in--moderation, as you are free
human
religious
gpt
(the clergy are not to
human
; over this point the most vapid of controversies is now being carried on, on the part of the university against the church), monarchically disposed