The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules document is now in effect.
The value of truth
Vincent Grayson
Frederick, MDRegistered User regular
Frederick, MDRegistered User regular
Does truth have any inherent value? What say you?
This sort of thing comes up a lot in discussions of religion. If it turns out that the people who believed, in one religion or another, and it was a positive force in their lives, were totally wrong (regardless of how we were to find that out), would the truth diminish what they felt?
Is it more valuable to know the truth, than to have something positive?
There is, of course, the saying "Ignorance is bliss", and I have to wonder if that isn't a pretty accurate assessment. There are a great number of truths people willfully ignore in favor of something more pleasant, yet most of us were taught that the truth is important.
We're certainly reminded often in both social, and legal situations that we should (or must) tell the truth, that lying is bad, and that no good will come from it.
Yet, I can't help but think that perhaps the truth only has value when knowing would make a given situation better, rather than worse.
For instance, picture a married couple. The husband, in a bout of stupidity sleeps with another woman. He regrets his actions, and must decide whether to tell his wife (let's assume the situation is such that she will not otherwise find out). Should he? Clearly, by telling her, he brings harm to her, their relationship, possibly their children...yet it often seems as though society would still believe he should tell her the truth. Why is this?
TLDR; why is truth important? Is it more important than the consequences it may bring? Or is it not important, except when it leads to something positive?
This sort of thing comes up a lot in discussions of religion. If it turns out that the people who believed, in one religion or another, and it was a positive force in their lives, were totally wrong (regardless of how we were to find that out), would the truth diminish what they felt?
Is it more valuable to know the truth, than to have something positive?
There is, of course, the saying "Ignorance is bliss", and I have to wonder if that isn't a pretty accurate assessment. There are a great number of truths people willfully ignore in favor of something more pleasant, yet most of us were taught that the truth is important.
We're certainly reminded often in both social, and legal situations that we should (or must) tell the truth, that lying is bad, and that no good will come from it.
Yet, I can't help but think that perhaps the truth only has value when knowing would make a given situation better, rather than worse.
For instance, picture a married couple. The husband, in a bout of stupidity sleeps with another woman. He regrets his actions, and must decide whether to tell his wife (let's assume the situation is such that she will not otherwise find out). Should he? Clearly, by telling her, he brings harm to her, their relationship, possibly their children...yet it often seems as though society would still believe he should tell her the truth. Why is this?
TLDR; why is truth important? Is it more important than the consequences it may bring? Or is it not important, except when it leads to something positive?
Vincent Grayson on
0
Posts
Of course some religious people lose sight of those things, but I imagine their delusion has reached a point where they're incapable of comprehending truth.
This is where moral relativism comes in, though. Restricting freedom can be justified in many instances, and the same applies to hiding the truth.
Hey, don't knock being able to lick your own nuts.
And the phrase "you can't handle the truth" is the god damn truth.
Stuff like "to cut down on emissions for a better world environment the gas price needs to triple (or something) and not driving around a goddamn demilitarized tank of a SUV" makes people put on their mental blindfold.
There's a clear difference between fiction, and lies. Fiction, people walk into knowing it is not true, and that's part of the appeal. It's a story, and while it might touch on some "truths", it need not be a history of true events to do so.
Although, there is another avenue there. What was that book from a year or two ago that was "non-fiction", but turned out to be highly embellished? I never read it, but I got the impression it was more effective and powerful because of the embellishments, yet people were very angry when they found out.
I'd also point out that religious beliefs, like other bits of wisdom we inherit through culture, can transmit truth even if the literal, dogmatic elements of it are not true. Sure, I might believe that accepting Christ is the only ticket to heaven, and that all other earthly concerns are secondary, and that kind of belief only has value if it turns out to be accurate. But if I believe God wants me to be charitable, to act for the good of my community, to avoid violence, and to maintain my own peace of mind, then those prescriptions have value even if God does not exist, because they reflect certain truths about the human condition and the way people live together as part of a social body. A lot of religious people approach their faith in that very mature way, as a cultural mnemonic that contains certain social wisdoms.
Beyond practical and functional concerns, I don't think truth has any inherent value. If I was in the Matrix and I could choose between fighting against robots for the truth, and living in the Matrix as a rich dude with a harem and steak for dinner whenever I want, I'd go for the rich dude every time.
Meh. Recursive language and opposable thumbs are what differentiate us from animals.
I'm a pragmatist. I believe that if I have to choose between adhering to some abstract moral principle and doing somebody else good, I'm going to choose the latter.
Depends on how he feels about his wife.
If somebody cheats, it's typically representative of how they feel about their primary partner. Maybe it means they're no longer in love and are feeling restless. Maybe it means that they didn't respect their partner in the first place. That's the problem with cheating - not that the cheater is "making the decision for his wife," it's that the cheater is trying to maintain a relationship with somebody he doesn't love and doesn't respect.
If he cheats, and is genuinely sorry, and fully intends to never do it again, then I see keeping it a secret as a fully justifiable choice. At that point, telling her would do nothing but hurt her.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
If you have information that you believe absolutely to be true and it turns out to be true before you actually have any proof of its veracity does that count as "knowledge"?
-Robert E. Howard
Tower of the Elephant
This is pretty much my opinion on it. I would add that although untruth and dishonesty may bring more short term benefits, the long term benefit, especially for a society as a whole, usually comes from truth.
What's the difference?
The distinction between belief and knowledge depends on your awareness in relation to the thing. For the true believer, there is no distinction; the proof, once presented, makes no difference since it offers no new information.
I thought we were talking about truthiness.
Judging from Podly's sig, maybe "the Truth" means Paul Pierce.
Interesting point of view. However, could it be that you're placing far too much emphasis on the subjective? Whether the possibility exists to the observer makes no difference in the hard truth of the matter, does it?
If I "know" that the bridge is sturdy and John walks across it and it collapses then what I "knew" wasn't true, therefore it could not be knowledge. Now, back that example up and consider the bridge holds steady as John walks across... the scenario isn't different, it just so happens now that the belief is justified and can therefore be considered knowledge, but it wasn't so before now.
-Robert E. Howard
Tower of the Elephant
Same.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
I think it's a little difficult to discuss this in-depth without a more personal example. In your example, certainly there is some reason you hold this belief. You didn't simply decide without any input that the bridge was steady.
No, I don't think it wouldn't diminish "what they are feeling", although that's a vague enough statement that I'm not sure that I understood it enough to make an entirely informed response.
Knowing the truth is important as it allows us to make informed decisions. Ignorance equaling bliss only lasts so long as the ignorance isn't about anything relevant to one's life. At the level of the individual, I don't think that state would last long. At the level of society, I think that would precipitate disaster. At the very least, it would severely increase the possibility and opportunities for disaster to arise.
Lying I see as being a little different. Lying is a social lubricant, like beer. I think there are appropriate times to lie/drink beer, and I think there are grossly inappropriate times to lie/drink beer. Off the top of my head, I think there is a severe amount of overlap between when lying and drinking beer are appropriate and inappropriate. Your situation with the cheating husband is a little different. That's lying by omission, which isn't necessarily the same thing.
How it was decided isn't really important, the assumption is that one has enough information to make the determination on their own.
-Robert E. Howard
Tower of the Elephant
Absolutely not.
See, this is why I love this argument.
-Robert E. Howard
Tower of the Elephant
Oh God don't tell the creationists.
It's pretty simple. Knowledge requires a causal connection between the belief and the truth. Beliefs that are accidentally true do not constitute knowledge.
That would be internalism of Justification, which is a valid school of thought (and the one I agree to, by the way).
The other school is internalist about knowledge which dictates that any information that one has that turns out to be true, even after the fact, is considered "knowledge".
The interesting thign is that even though I agree with the former both sides make valid points. The real issue comes down to what the definition of knowledge truly is and the answer is that it's one part truth, one part belief. The question is whether or not that has to come before or after revelation for it to be considered knowledge.
-Robert E. Howard
Tower of the Elephant
No, that's not true. That's a circular argument.
How do you know the bible is true? Because the bible says so. You cannot derive the argument of a thing's existence from the existence of the thing itself.
-Robert E. Howard
Tower of the Elephant
I believe Loren is saying that not only must the belief in question be supported by proof, the proof must itself be valid and perhaps supported by yet more proof. The problem with that would be the difficulty in actually identifying "real" knowledge.
We're not talking about morality, we're talking about the belief in a set of ideas. Those ideas can be as simple as whether or not there are two beers in the fridge or one, or they can be as complex as believing in God.
If you want to talk metaphysics then we can discuss the possibility that all things in all stories exist somewhere, but largely, to be honest, I'm not really prepared to discuss that topic intelligently as I only have Leibniz and his stupid monadologie as background.
-Robert E. Howard
Tower of the Elephant
Well, there's also the matter of having the proper relationship to the truth. We may believe something to be true (e.g., I may think the time is exactly 12:31 a.m.), we may believe it for a good reason (I am currently looking at a clock that reads 12:31 a.m.), and our belief may be true (it really is 12:31 a.m.), but we may not be in a state of knowledge about the world (because, in the present instance, the clock is broken and only shows the correct time by accident).
This is why I feel that we should all be a lot more skeptical about things, both in belief and in the way we use our language.
"Trust in the Lord with all your heart and lean not on your own understanding"
lol