TRUTH
Part 1
When asked to come up with words that have to do with
truth, the first thing that came to my mind was the
word integrity. I believe that integrity is the
foundation for all other truths. The Webster’s
dictionary defines integrity as uprightness, soundness
of character, moral wholeness. I think of integrity as
a firm adherence to a code of moral virtues.
I believe it is important to be committed to a code of
virtues in life in order to maintain a centered, happy
mind and body. Living is such a difficult task, it is
easy to get depressed, manipulated, or sidetracked. We
are bombarded through the media and other sources with
ideas that material items make people happy. It is hard
sometimes, not to believe what is told to us over and
over again. It is essential then, to have something in
which you strongly believe in which is true and good
for yourself. Something, which can keep a person out of
reach from the despair surrounding them.
I want to be wary of being too critical in my judgement
of others integrity though. For example, If it were
known that a certain store employs a sweatshop to make
their merchandise then I would naturally believe that a
person of integrity wouldn’t shop there anymore. But
many people still do, and I am hesitant to claim they
have absolutely no integrity because they choose to do
this. The problem with people is they tend to ignore
what is taking place before their eyes in order to
remain happy, to stay out of reach of the despair I was
talking about. This is wrong. But it happens all the
time by people I know and interact with often. So is it
right for me to judge them when they are just trying to
be happy?
This directly correlates with the phrase, "you can’t
handle the truth." As people, we seem to follow this
one too much. In schools we are only told half-truths
about things, because at certain ages it isn’t deemed a
reasonable time to be learning something. This also
happens in the case of parent-child relationships. But
these half-truths seem to be acceptable. Our government
also tells us half-truths, because if we know too much
about certain things then it could cause danger to
ourselves or to the safety of our country. But I want
to know where do we draw the line, and how is it
decided? There comes a point when lies and half-truths
just are not acceptable anymore. When the time for
making up excuses for organizations or peoples
dishonest behavior should end.
As human beings it is important to at least always
remain honest to ourselves. Because if we cannot even
be honest with ourselves then what are we living for? I
am very glad of this assignment because even though I
have definite ideas of what right and wrong are, I am
unsure of what the bigger picture of truth is about. I
do not know if it is okay for me to push my ideas of
truth on other people because what if they have
different ideas about truth. It is an interesting
subject and I am looking forward to learning about some
philosophic views on truth and ethics and to answer the
questions I have about it.
Here are a few of the questions that I would like to
try and answer throughout this project.
What is truth really? How can we distinguish the truth
from lies? How can we maintain truth in a society where
we are bombarded with lies and manipulation? Is there
really an objective truth, even across cultures, that
we can expect everyone to believe in, or is there only
personal truth? Is manipulation bad necessarily, or is
it okay when it is done for a good cause? Is
manipulation being dishonest? Is it okay to be
dishonest if you are doing for a good cause? These are
just a few questions I have on the issue of truth, but
during my research I am sure I will come up with many
more.
Part 2
In order to answer the questions I posed in the last
paragraph, I started by looking up the definition of
truth in the dictionary. According to Webster’s, it is
defined as a n. agreement with reality; the eternal
principal of right or the natural law of order;
fidelity, constancy. The Oxford English dictionary
defines truth as n. conformity with fact; agreement
with reality. These definitions follow the
correspondence theory of truth, which holds that x is
true iff x corresponds to some fact; and x is false iff
x does not correspond to any fact (1). While
researching the correspondence theory the name Thomas
Aquinas came up. He is known for saying "A judgement is
said to be true when it conforms to the external
reality" (1). Aquinas position follows the idea that
there is a natural law which the whole universe is
governed by. This is also known as moral absolutism
(2).
The idea of natural law first appeared with the Stoics,
who say that the universe is governed by absolute law,
with no exceptions, and the essential nature of humans
is reason. They believe virtue is the life according to
reason and morality then, is rational action. This way
of thinking is also similar to Aristotle’s (2)(3).
Aquinas believed that things are not good because we
desire them, like knowledge and friendship, but rather
they are good and so we desire them, because they are
essential for human flourishing. He said,
"To the natural law belong those things to which a man
is inclined naturally; and among these it is proper to
man to be inclined to act according to reason…Hence
this is the first precept of law, that good is to be
done and promoted, and evil is to be avoided. All other
precepts of the natural law are based upon this; so
that all the things which the practical reason
naturally apprehends as man’s good belong to the
precepts of the natural law under the form of things to
be done or avoided" (2).
In the interest of humanity, reason can help us
discover the principals of truth. It is essential for
our survival that we search for these truths, with the
foundation being that of what Aquinas said, good is to
be done and promoted, and evil is to be avoided. When I
asked if it was okay to judge what is right and wrong,
I believe that the answer is yes, but only with
knowledge, careful reasoning, sympathy and
understanding.
On the flip side of moral absolutism is moral
relativism. This theory says there are no absolute
universal moral standards that moral principals will
vary from society to society (2). This theory basically
holds that we cannot judge individual actions because
there are different moral standards for different
societies. I have a problem with this theory, because
it would then mean some things are morally acceptable
just because it is following the norms of a certain
society. This would mean slavery was morally right just
because it was accepted among society. It would also
mean the discrimination and cruel treatment of women is
morally permissible just because some societies
practice and believe it to be true. This would give
justification for many immoral acts if moral relativism
were accepted. I want to include a rather large quote
from Ted Bundy in which he justifies his murders. I
think it is important in understanding why moral
relativism is a dangerous belief system.
"Then I learned that all moral judgements are "value
judgements," that all value judgements are subjective,
and that none can be proved to be either ‘right’ or
‘wrong.’ I even read somewhere that the Chief Justice
of the United States had written that the American
Constitution expressed nothing more than collective
value judgements. Believe it or not, I figured out for
myself-what apparently the Chief Justice couldn’t
figure out for himself-that if the rationality of one
value judgement was zero, multiplying it by millions
would not make it one whit more rational. Nor is there
any ‘reason’ to obey the law for anyone, like myself,
who has the boldness and daring-the strength of
character-to throw off its shackles….I discovered that
to become truly free, truly unfettered, I had to become
truly uninhibited. And I quickly discovered that the
greatest obstacles to my freedom the greatest block and
limitation to it, consists in the insupportable ‘value
judgement’ that I was bound to respect the rights of
others. I asked myself, who were these ‘others’? Other
human beings, with human rights? Why is it more wrong
to kill a human animal than any other animal, a pig or
a sheep or a steer? Is your life more to you than a
hog’s life to a hog? Why should I be willing to
sacrifice my pleasure more for the one than for the
other? Surely, you would not, in this age of scientific
enlightenment, declare that God or nature has marked
some pleasures as ‘moral’ or ‘good’ and others as
‘immoral’ or ‘bad’" (2)?
"The Stoic’s asserted virtue alone is good, vice alone
evil, and that all else is absolutely indifferent.
Poverty, sickness, pain, and death, are not evils.
Riches, health, pleasure, and life, are not goods…Above
all, pleasure is not good. One ought not to seek
pleasure. Virtue is the only happiness…Virtue is
founded upon reason, and so upon knowledge" (3). The
stoics believe that we must live by reason and be free
from passion. To be free from passion means free from
hate, fear, pain, pleasure, distress, and appetite.
They believe all life has suffering, but clear reason
and logical thinking can free an individual of this
(4).
Considering Ted Bundy’s question about pleasure, as
being marked by nature or God as moral or immoral, the
Stoics would say to seek pleasure in whatever form is
against the laws of nature. Therefore his question
would be irrelevant from an absolute moral standpoint.
If an individual holds the view of a moral relativist,
all moral principals are simply value judgements, and
we can all do whatever we want, like Bundy claims. I
might be talking too broadly about the ideas of moral
relativity, but I think that is sort of my point. They
can be taken this way by individuals, which can lead to
any sort of justification for immoral behavior.
In the first part of my paper when I was talking about
integrity, I believe I was taking the relativist view,
when I was not wanting to be to critical of others
behavior. I used the example of the sweatshop, saying
if a person knowingly continued to support an
organization who employed one in the production of
their product, even though I know this behavior is
immoral, I would be hesitant to judge them. After
reading over the different ethical theories and ideas
about truth, I believe that I was wrong in taking that
view. It is immoral to support such a degrading
operation, and as I stated then, one of the biggest
problems with our society is that we too often turn a
blind eye to such immoral acts as these. We try to make
excuses as to why it isn’t our problem, our business,
or our right to judge, much like moral relativist do.
To conclude the second part of this paper I want to
look at the questions I asked in the final paragraph of
the first part of my paper, and try to answer them
using the knowledge I have gained thus far in my
research.
What is truth really? If I were going to use the Oxford
English Dictionary to define truth, it would be the
conformity of fact and agreement with reality. But I
don’t believe this is the case. Many Americans’ ideas
about reality are sorely mistaken if they consider what
is told to us by our media or our government to be
truth, and this usually conforms with some fact that
has been given to us. I don’t really know yet what is
the truth really, I know I would follow what Aquinas
said about the first natural law, good is to be done
and promoted, and evil is to be avoided. I think this
is the first step in understanding truth, to have good
intentions, at least with in ourselves.
How can we distinguish truth from lies and maintain it
in a society where we are bombard with lies and
manipulation? This answer is a little more difficult.
My pessimistic voice wants to say that we cannot
because we are so completely manipulated and lied to.
But I would also say we have to look inside ourselves
for what is good and try to find that in other people
and things.
The last question I will answer for now is, are there
really absolute truths, even across cultures? When I
started this paper I thought there probably was I just
wasn’t exactly sure what they I believed they were.
After reading about the different ethical theories I
have come to believe that I probably fall under the
absolute moralist viewpoint. I don’t think I adhere to
it as strictly I should, but whether or not I do, I
think it really comes down to understanding what I
believe is good, and what I believe is evil. This is
something that I will continue to think about and
discuss in the third and final part of my paper.
Bibliography
(1) The Correspondence Theory of Truth. Stanford
Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Pg. 1-15.
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/truth-correspondence/
(2) Pojman, Louis, P. Ethics; Discovering Right and
Wrong. Wadsworth Publishing Company. 1999. Pg. 26-61.
(3) Stoicism. The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
http://www.utm.edu/research/iep/s/stoicism.htm
4. Stoicism. Wikipedia Encyclopedia.
http://en.wikipedia.org