Truth, Right, and Wrong: Are They Related?

[Gees]

Little Johnny's Mother told him that it was bad to tell a lie -- that it was wrong. Little Sarah's Mother told her that it was bad to tell a lie -- that it was wrong.

As they grew, Johnny and Sarah learned that sometimes it is good and right to tell a lie, because the truth could hurt people. These are called "little white lies".

When they matured, they learned that some bad and wrong things can be good and right. Like killing people is bad, except when it isn't and you get a medal for it. Fighting is bad, except when you have to. And stealing from people is wrong and bad, except when you call it taxes, or maybe insurance, or maybe even stocks.

So in my opinion, all of this mingling of good and bad, right and wrong, and truth and lies has led people to believe that truth is as changeable as the wind, so it can not be relied upon. Many people have told me that truth is subjective, so it is not reliable. 

As a philosopher, I see a lot of value in truth and use it extensively to work Philosophy. So I would be interesting in knowing why other people do not trust truth. If you would give your opinions, and the reasons why you hold those opinions, maybe we could discuss it.

I will check back tomorrow.

Gee

[dimreepr]

Yin and Yang 

Quote

describes how seemingly opposite or contrary forces may actually be complementary, interconnected, and interdependent in the natural world, and how they may give rise to each other as they interrelate to one another.

 

[puppypower]

Another way to approach this is to use science as a litmus test. Would it to be good to lie in science, if the lying spares feelings and/or makes you more popular? The answer is no, because we all benefit, collectively, by truth in science, even if that truth means we may have to deal with some neurotic people. Science is converted to engineering which make consumer products, Lying in science can cause serious injuries; the new pill is safe so take it. 

White lies are a way for the ego, to avoid neurotic reactions, from those who may need to be deceived, so they will shut up. The mother may lie to the child about him being smart, so she does not feel bad, if he feels bad. She is lying for herself, to avoid the discomfort that might be induced by her child because the true may make him feel bad. This is short term thinking.

Long term thinking, like in science, would think of the long term consequences of appeasing the neurotic, to avoid your own short term awkwardness. If the mother deceives the child into thinking he was smart, this may win the emotional battle, for both. However, there is no reason for the child to change behavior; study more.  Mother may feel better, but her child may go down the road, dumb for life. The  both lose the war. 

Truth is designed for long term thinking, whereas relative truth and white lies is about short term thinking. Truth is important to science since science has a long term vision often connected to consumer products. In politics, the scale is shorter in time, so lies and relative truth make more sense. The lie may only need to last until election time. If there is a negative long term consequences, the politician and fake news, can lie again and again, to buy additional time. 

If you compare the Conservative approach to the Liberal approach, in terms of time scale, Conservative is about long term values. Liberal is new and cutting edge and is shorter term ideas. Truth would be more useful to conservatives, while relative morality would serve Liberalism better; appeasement. If you look deeper, this breaks down to male and female or conditional and unconditional love. Conditional loves sets long term standards, unconditional changes with needs. We are more feminized in modern times, so relative morality seems to be as valid due to the practical needs of appeasement. 

 

[koti]

7 hours ago, Gees said:

Little Johnny's Mother told him that it was bad to tell a lie -- that it was wrong. Little Sarah's Mother told her that it was bad to tell a lie -- that it was wrong.

As they grew, Johnny and Sarah learned that sometimes it is good and right to tell a lie, because the truth could hurt people. These are called "little white lies".

When they matured, they learned that some bad and wrong things can be good and right. Like killing people is bad, except when it isn't and you get a medal for it. Fighting is bad, except when you have to. And stealing from people is wrong and bad, except when you call it taxes, or maybe insurance, or maybe even stocks.

So in my opinion, all of this mingling of good and bad, right and wrong, and truth and lies has led people to believe that truth is as changeable as the wind, so it can not be relied upon. Many people have told me that truth is subjective, so it is not reliable. 

As a philosopher, I see a lot of value in truth and use it extensively to work Philosophy. So I would be interesting in knowing why other people do not trust truth. If you would give your opinions, and the reasons why you hold those opinions, maybe we could discuss it.

I will check back tomorrow.

Gee

Funny, I was having a long conversation with myself yesterday on this while watching some insignificant movie. I agree with all the premises you layed out in your above post, I would add that however un-empathetic it sounds, the truth is also impractical in many life situations. It is the main reason that I get in trouble when I do when I should have lied or at least keep the truth to myself. I don’t know how somebody can say that the truth is subjective, that is a dead end logic in my opinion, I can agree that it is unreliable though. There is also so many shades of lying and tellig the truth, you can blatantly lie without remorse which is the sociopathic end of the scale or you can empathetically lie about something which saves someone pain which is at the other end of the scale - same with the truth. I think that this is one of those subjects which is so diversly subjective that its impossible to reach any decent consensus    when trying to find objectivity which everyone can agree on. The never ending quest of not being an a**hole is on for everybody. 

[Strange]

 

8 hours ago, Gees said:

So in my opinion, all of this mingling of good and bad, right and wrong, and truth and lies has led people to believe that truth is as changeable as the wind, so it can not be relied upon. Many people have told me that truth is subjective, so it is not reliable. 

I have never heard anyone else say that truth is as changeable as the wind or that it is subjective and unreliable. Your examples don't show that truth, or right and wrong are arbitrary and decided on a random basis. They show that, not surprisingly, these are complex ideas that have to be tuned to the specific situation. 

The fact that some  people think that truth is relative, not absolute (or, perhaps more accurately, it can be relative) does not necessarily imply that people don't trust truth.

 

Edited March 14, 2018 by Strange
clarity and grammar

[dimreepr]

7 hours ago, Gees said:

So I would be interesting in knowing why other people do not trust truth. If you would give your opinions, and the reasons why you hold those opinions, maybe we could discuss it.

2

How do you know what the truth is (people lie)?

Some people know what the truth is but don't want to admit it, even to themselves, because it's something they don't want face.

[Strange]

30 minutes ago, puppypower said:

Would it to be good to lie in science, if the lying spares feelings and/or makes you more popular? The answer is no, because we all benefit, collectively, by truth in science, even if that truth means we may have to deal with some neurotic people. Science is converted to engineering which make consumer products, Lying in science can cause serious injuries; the new pill is safe so take it. 

I don't think that is the reason why lying doesn't work in science. After all, people do lie about other things that have serious consequences.

The reason that lying doesn't work in science is that, sooner or later, you will be found out because science is evidence based. So if you lie about vaccinations causing autism and fake the evidence, then you will be found out and struck off when others look at the evidence. But, sadly, the negative consequences continue despite the individual being punished.

Edited March 14, 2018 by Strange
clarity

[dimreepr]

29 minutes ago, puppypower said:

Another way to approach this is to use science as a litmus test. Would it to be good to lie in science, if the lying spares feelings and/or makes you more popular?

1

What makes you think politics doesn't include the scientific community?

[koti]

1 hour ago, Strange said:

 

I have never heard anyone else say that truth is as changeable as the wind or that it is subjective and unreliable. Your examples don't show that truth, or right and wrong are arbitrary and decided on a random basis. They show that, not surprisingly, these are complex ideas that have to be tuned to the specific situation. 

The fact that some  people think that truth is relative, not absolute (or, perhaps more accurately, it can be relative) does not necessarily imply that people don't trust truth.

 

Right. Truth is binary and people either don’t know it or do know it and do things with it for resons. But the truth is always there regardless of the situation, and its never subjective. 

Edited March 14, 2018 by koti

[Strange]

1 hour ago, koti said:

Right. Truth is binary and people either don’t know it or do know it and do things with it for resons. But the truth is always there regardless of the situation, and its never subjective. 

I don't think it is as simple as that. What about something that can never be known? Or that can never be proven to be true or false?

What if I think hip-hop is the greatest form of music ever invented and you think it is opera? Is one of these statements true and one false? Is one of us right and one of us wrong?

(I tried to google for some good examples, but all I found were religious websites saying, "truth is not relative because God".)

Suffice it to say that philosophers have been debating (and disagreeing about) the nature of truth for millennia and have never agreed on the truth of the matter.

[koti]

22 minutes ago, Strange said:

I don't think it is as simple as that. What about something that can never be known? Or that can never be proven to be true or false?

What if I think hip-hop is the greatest form of music ever invented and you think it is opera? Is one of these statements true and one false? Is one of us right and one of us wrong?

(I tried to google for some good examples, but all I found were religious websites saying, "truth is not relative because God".)

Suffice it to say that philosophers have been debating (and disagreeing about) the nature of truth for millennia and have never agreed on the truth of the matter.

If something can never be proven or known then the answer is really simple - we don’t know the truth. Hence I stated „people either know it (the truth) or don’t know it”. I might be wrong but I’m not convinced that we can be 100% sure that we can state that something will never be possible to prove true/false. 

As for your hiphop/opera example I think its flawed because it doesn’t deal with the concept of truth at least not in the academic sense that we are discussing here. Its opinion/preference and not truth/not truth.

As for the nature of truth Im sure youre right that philosophers are tackling it for millenia thats why I wrote in my original post that „I think that this is one of those subjects which is so diversly subjective that its impossible to reach any decent consensus” But the truth itself is absolute despite the circumstanes, it is out there no matter what. The truth is not in some quantum state of probabilities, it can either be or not be.

In my opinion there can be a debate only in circumstances where the concept of truth should not be applied (like your hiphop/opera for example)

Edited March 14, 2018 by koti

[Strange]

7 minutes ago, koti said:

As for your hiphop/opera example I think its flawed because it doesn’t deal with the concept of truth at least not in the academic sense that we are discussing here. Its opinion/preference and not truth/not truth.

So are there different sorts of truth that can be more or less true?

[koti]

8 minutes ago, Strange said:

So are there different sorts of truth that can be more or less true?

No. Thats what Im trying to say all along, truth is binary and absolute despite the circumstances. If we encounter a situation in which the truth might look like its not absolute then we are dealing with a situation in which the concept of truth is not appropriate to use against. Like comparing apples and oranges, hiphop/opera example, etc. 

Edited March 14, 2018 by koti

[dimreepr]

15 minutes ago, koti said:

Hence I stated „people either know it (the truth) or don’t know it”. I might be wrong but I’m not convinced that we can be 100% sure that we can state that something will never be possible to prove true/false. 

 

2 minutes ago, koti said:

No. Thats what Im trying to say all along, truth is binary and absolute despite the circumstances.

Everything we hear is an opinion, not a fact. Everything we see is a perspective, not the truth. - Marcus Aurelius

[koti]

20 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

 

Everything we hear is an opinion, not a fact. Everything we see is a perspective, not the truth. - Marcus Aurelius

With all due respect to my Grandfather’s favourate philosopher - Hear and see are not the best tools for determining the truth. At least not on their own.

Edited March 14, 2018 by koti

[dimreepr]

1 minute ago, koti said:

With all due respect to my Grandfather’s favourate philosopher - Hear and see are not good tools for determining the truth. 

Do you have others?

[koti]

7 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

Do you have others?

You skipped the vital part where I said “not on their own” Evidence confirmed by multiple sources is the key. Im sure Marcus Aurelius was aware of magic tricks and lying. In modern times it is even more apparent - you should not believe everything you see as it can be a special effect on TV or even your faulty sight or hearing perception. If multiple people confirm the same thing over a period of time again and again then we are closer to the truth. Which is always absolute on its own, regardless of circumstances. 

[dimreepr]

1 minute ago, koti said:

You skipped the vital part where I said “not on their own” Evidence confirmed by multiple sources is the key.

 

My point is, did you see that or hear it or did you scrutinise the evidence, fully understanding the subject at hand?

[koti]

6 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

My point is, did you see that or hear it or did you scrutinise the evidence, fully understanding the subject at hand?

It doesn’t matter, the truth is out there regardless. 

[dimreepr]

I have faith in the late, great, Stephen Hawkin; he had all the tools and never found it.

 

2 minutes ago, koti said:

It doesn’t matter, the truth is out there regardless. 

How will you know?

[Rob McEachern]

9 minutes ago, koti said:

If multiple people confirm the same thing over a period of time again and again then we are closer to the truth.

As when billions of people, for centuries, all believed that the sun and planets orbited the earth?

 

Just now, koti said:

the truth is out there regardless.

Ever hear of the Liar paradox?

[dimreepr]

Anyone with a PhD knows an awful lot about very little.  

[koti]

29 minutes ago, Rob McEachern said:

As when billions of people, for centuries, all believed that the sun and planets orbited the earth?

They haven’t confirmed their belief with evidence. When that happended the belief changed into a truth. 

25 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

Anyone with a PhD knows an awful lot about very little.  

I agree, that is how focused knowledge works, our lives are too short to know really a lot about really a lot of things. I dont see how this correlates though. 

35 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

 

How will you know?

Thats how I think the world works.

[dimreepr]

1 minute ago, koti said:

I agree, that is how focused knowledge works, our lives are too short to know really a lot about really a lot of things.

1

 IOW, an awful lot knows very little.

[koti]

4 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

 IOW, an awful lot knows very little.

Unless its an awful lot of PHD’s who produce a truth.