More on Truth Claims

Following up on the post about self-referential incoherence, a quick discussion on the benefits of truth claims is needed. One such benefit is condemnation. Condemnation is a truth claim that expresses strong disapproval and in some cases a sentence of punishment. It presupposes a standard of behavior or beliefs that is approvable, right, and true. However, without the acceptance of objective truth, condemnation of certain beliefs or acts is unintelligible and useless. 

To demonstrate this point, here is a short list of things or people you can’t condemn when you believe, “there is no such thing as truth.”

1.       Racists. Sorry, racism isn’t wrong in a world without objective truth claims.

2.       Nazis. Beaten dead horse.

3.       Donald Trump. Hate everything the Donald has ever said? Or think he is a sexist, racist, patriarchal pig? Congratulations, you believe in some objective truths.

4.       Traditional Gender Norms. An appeal to truth is necessary to affirm gender fluid theory and denounce gender assignment at birth.

5.       Communists. Their crimes are curiously less advertised than the Nazis, but the commies take home the gold in body count.

6.       Third World Hunger.

7.       Rapists. Yikes. I would hate to be the guy that argues that rape is not wrong because, “truth doesn’t exist.” That’s how you get your teeth punched in friend.

8.       Barack Obama. On a list of things that need to be condemned, drone striking a hospital should be on there.

9.       Pedophiles. Love has no labels?

10.   Carbon Emissions.

11.   Mid-video advertisements on YouTube. If this one doesn’t convince you, I don’t know what will.

This list does not prove that these people/things are worthy of condemnation. Nor does it attempt to prove that moral truth claims exist. Rather, the list shows that condemnation is useful, popular, and only possible when the condemner accepts the existence of truth. Anything else is hypocrisy. 

Stop Saying This

“There is no such thing as truth.”  

  

Before we can begin our study of vanilla ethical principles this phrase must be suspended from our vocabulary immediately, remaining only to denounce those who utter it. Sure, propositions such as, “there is no such thing as truth,” and its variants seem innocent at first. Maybe you heard it as a response in a debate and it felt edgy and exhilarating, your first exposure to someone fighting the powers that be. Then, in a tight spot in an argument you surprisingly found yourself saying it to deflate the tension, only discovering later that (gasp) you actually believe it. Wherever you are on this progression, cease and desist.   

  

Self-Referential Incoherence  

  

To understand why, “there is no such thing as truth” is troublesome, a brief overview of self-referential incoherence is necessary. Self-referential incoherence (when applied to propositions) is a proposition that must be false due to its very claim. For instance, if I were to say, “I am not speaking” then I would clearly be wrong because I had to speak in order to assert that I am not speaking. Or, “all claims have four words” is false because that claim itself had five.   

  

With this quick background, it is plain to see that the proposition, “there is no such thing as truth” is false, because it claims to be true! It is self referentially incoherent. This trick also applies to variants, “we can’t know anything for sure," "nothing is absolute," and "there is no right and wrong,” for they claim knowledge, absoluteness, and rightness.  A critic may say that these statements of radical ignorance are not asserting a universal objective truth, but if that be the case then they are no more binding than someone’s ice cream flavor of preference (i.e. vanilla).  

  

Hubris and Science  

  

Often a persistent opponent may suggest that affirming the existence of truth is a sign of arrogance or hubris. “How dare you claim to know a truth!” Ironically, both sides are making truth claims of equal gravity. One claims that it is true that there is no truth, the other claims that it is true that there is truth. The difference between the two being that one is immediately falsified when asserted. So, the charge of arrogance will not stick, without also being applied to the accuser. Once this equality of arrogance is demonstrated, an opponent may be more willing to see that arrogance really bears no consequence on the validity of a claim.

  

Those that hold that the scientific method in high esteem can also fall victim to self-referential incoherence if they are not careful. For example, the claim, “the only way to determine truth is the scientific method” is itself a truth claim whose rightness or wrongness can’t be verified by the scientific method. This is good news for academic fields who don’t primarily use the scientific method such as mathematics, geometry, and ethics. In later posts, other methods of obtaining knowledge, such as deduction or induction will be discussed at length.    

  

Socratic Paradox  

  

Perhaps the most famous use of a self-referentially incoherent statement is attributed to the classical Greek Philosopher Socrates in his Apologia (Greek for defense speech). The Socratic Paradox is formulated as, “I know one thing, that I know nothing.” Socrates believed the oracle of Delphi called him wisest among men because only he was aware of the depth of his own ignorance. In this paradox, he simultaneously claims to know that he knows nothing, thus falsifying his claim to ignorance.   

Lucky for Socrates, this form of the paradox does not seem to exist anywhere in Plato’s writings about him. The closest statement being that “I was conscious that I knew nothing at all” in reference to his examinations of the artisans, a far cry from the ignorance in the paradox. Indeed, this radical claim of ignorance would be strange considering that Socrates later claims that to sentence him to death would do greater damage to the jurors than it would to himself.   

  

Quite a claim for someone who knows nothing.

Why Vanilla? (Part 2: An Addendum)

In the first blog post I outlined some criticisms of the field of bioethics, as well as certain positions of popular bioethicists. However, it would be foolhardy to hold the view that there are zero fine institutions, philosophers, or thinkers that are dedicated to applying traditional principles of ethics to medicine and biological research. Below are my top 5 favorite resources for topics of bioethics (or ethics in general).  

1. 1. David Oderberg. Highlighted in the first blog post, Prof. Oderberg is a Professor of Philosophy at the University of Reading and his interests include metaphysics and moral philosophy. In the field of bioethics he has written on Human Embryonic Stem Cell Research, ordinary duties and extraordinary means, and the metaphysical status of the embryo. He has also co-edited a book, “Human Lives: Critical Essays on Consequentialist Bioethics” which can be found here.  
2. 
   

2. 2. BioEdge is an independent newsletter edited by Michael Cook that reports on the most up-to-date bioethical issues. All while promoting human dignity, ethical principles, and evidence-based medicine. 

3. 
   
4. 3. The National Catholic Bioethics Center is a great resource for: consultation when in an ethical dilemma, Church Documents on bioethics, or finding statements on current events in the field of bioethics from a great staff of ethicists. Do not worry, one does not have to be baptized into the Catholic Church to receive their free consultation service! Their journal The National Catholic Bioethics Quarterly addresses “ethical, philosophical, and theological questions raised by the rapid pace of modern medical and technological progress." They also have a monthly publication of essays, Ethics & Medics. 

4. 
   
5. 4. Sadly, sometimes reading is not possible. For those times, the Thomistic Institute has a large Soundcloud library of recorded lectures from Thomists on topics such as Faith & Science, Politics, Man & The Meaning of Life, and Metaphysics.  

5. 
   
6. 5. Last, but certainly not least, is Professor Edward Feser who teaches philosophy at Pasadena City College. In addition to teaching, Prof. Feser maintains a wonderfully entertaining blog and has authored several books on St. Thomas Aquinas, the philosophy of mind, Scholastic metaphysics, and atheism. Prof. Feser’s book chapter on sexual perversion is one of my personal favorites. 

Certainly, this is not a comprehensive list, but it’s a great start on the road to vanilla. Comment below on your favorite (living) resources for studying ethics or to tell me where I have gone wrong.