Truth

** Philosophy ** is concerned with two fundamental questions: what can I know and what should I do? The first question addresses a branch of philosophy called epistemology, dedicated to knowledge, thus with the purpose of finding the ultimate meaning of things. The second one, addresses ethics, which is our competency here.
 * Veritas (Latin), Aletheia (Greek, (ἀλήθεια) **

Touching briefly on **[|epistemology]**, however, truth is conceived as the ultimate **[|knowledge]** of things, which can be acquired by factual analysis and explorations of that which we can prove methodically. Pythagoras can be cited as a precedent, because he aimed to form a collection of known phenomena following a systematic method, focusing on music and mathematics. Before this, the closest to truth could have only been understood as established ritualization or “the //right// way of doing things”. [0]

** [|Ethically] **, on the other hand, the possibility of achieving truth follows a historical debate worth highlighting. Truth in ethics is seen as **[|objectivity]** [1]; what we ultimately look for when faced with a moral dilemma, because ethics are about figuring out principles to live by, especially in community. In the past, many have been harmed because a few claimed to have privileged access to the truth (think Holocaust, or the Spanish inquisition). Therefore a process should also be followed to achieve ethical truth; but how can truth be assessed?

[|Socrates] believed truth was the highest value, discovered through **[|reason and logic]** in dialectic discussion [2]. Aristotle also believed truth can be achievable by intellect, and goes further by pairing truth with that which is //right// [3]. For him, knowledge and truth are a virtues, thus representing the path to a virtuous life, a life well lived.

The Cognitivists, shared this perspective: they held that moral utterances typically can be determined by our cognitive faculties [4], making truth related to demonstrability. Truth can be grasped by facts or supported by reasoning: this is called the **[|objective truth]**. In fact, the Natural Law Theory says “there are some universal, objective truths about what’s good for human beings from which it is possible to derive standards governing human conduct… these truths are in some way discernible by reason”[5].

And this is where things get heated up: we can say that terrorism is wrong, for example, and it’s wrong because it kills, and killing is wrong. But to arrive to this conclusion, we have to determine, as a truth, that killing is indeed wrong [6]. Do **[|moral judgments]** have their foundation independent from moral agents and situations, or is it all the other way around? Aristotle certainly stands by a teleological philosophy, but others see them as opinions based on taste, not truth.

The [|Non-Cognitivists] believed this. Ayer, particularly, thought “moral utterances simply express the emotions of the speaker”[7]; Stevenson, that they merely convey attitudes based on what we believe in; and Hare shared a similar view with Kant regarding a process of rationalization that can’t be considered real thinking, which is one way to achieve truth.

Finally, others go beyond this to even state there is no such thing a the truth (see Moral Relativism, Ethic Relativism, Cultural Relativism), stating that morality has no objective or rational basis, thus denying objective moral truths [8], which can be reflected in the widespread disagreement on moral questions, because there’s a big diversity of points of view and demonstrability isn’t plausible to achieve consensus.

From this brief historic perspective, we can identify three ways of achieving truth: [9]

-Dogmatism believes there’s a **universal truth**, innate and always attainable (when certain groups follow an ideology or system of beliefs that imposes a certain truth, like the Divine Authority Theory).

-Skepticism considers that everything must be questioned, so knowledge, facts, opinions and beliefs can’t simply be extrapolated (because we are looking for that **objective truth**).

-Relativism: everyone has their own truth (when points of view are too diverse to reach an agreement, so everyone is considered to have their own **subjective truth**).

Truth can be told (see Truth Telling) and it’s related to accuracy of report of what one thinks it’s true; while inaccuracy can be seen simply as an error, because the truth is mistaken; in the same way that a guess can be made about something we don’t know [10]. We can see, in this way, how truth relates to **[|honesty]**: a virtue that is developed and constitutes one’s character. However, honesty is a capacity of humans, while truth goes beyond human existence, since it’s present in the universe whether we experience it or not [11].

Bottom line, as Waluchow states, “whether or not our moral claims can ultimately be judged true or false, we do seem to be capable of assessing them, and judging them to be better or worse than others”[12]. Moral theories express the author’s personal moral beliefs, or the ones of the society he lives on, but definitely not the truth.

[0] Inwood, B., & Gerson, L. P. (1997). [1] Garder, S. T. (1998) [2] Plato,. (1952). [3] Aristotle,. (1966). p. 146 [4] Waluchow, W. (2003). p.58 [5] Waluchow, W. (2003). p.118 [6] Brassington, I. (2007). p. 27 [7] Waluchow, W. (2003). p.59 [7] Waluchow, W. (2003). p.66 [9] Pestana, F. (2011). [10] Kenny, R. W. (forthcoming) [11] Kenny, R. W. (forthcoming) [12] Waluchow, W. (2003). p.63
 * Notes **

Aristotle,. (1966). //Nichomachean ethics//. Baltimore: Penguin Books. Brassington, I. (2007). //Truth and normativity: An inquiry into the basis of everyday moral claims//. Aldershot, England: Ashgate. Garder, S. T. (1998). Truth: In Ethics and Elsewhere. Analytic Teaching, 19 (1), 78-88. Inwood, B., & Gerson, L. P. (1997). //Hellenistic philosophy: Introductory readings//. Indianapolis: Hackett Pub. Co. Kenny, R. W. (forthcoming) .//Honesty//. in Levine, T. (Ed.) Encyclopedia of Lying and Deception. Sage Publications.
 * References **

Pestana, F. (2011).A concepção filosófica da Verdade. Para entender a história... ISSN 2179-4111, 2 (5), 01-04.
Plato,. (1952). //Gorgias//. New York: Liberal Arts Press. Waluchow, W. (2003). //The dimensions of ethics: An introduction to ethical theory//. Peterborough, ON: Broadview Press.


 * Photo Credits **

“Calumny of Apelles” by Boticelli