Thursday, April 22, 2021

Truth, "Subjective" Truth, and "Objective" Truth

What is truth?

People sometimes find this to be a mysterious, deep, and profound question. 

And maybe it is!

But maybe it's not. 

One way of understanding the question "What is truth?" is that it's just asking what it is for something—a claim, or statement, or beliefto be true

When people find that question mysterious, that's usually because they are thinking about hard questions, like whether there's a God, or whether there's something everyone would need to do to make their life meaningful, or whether some controversial moral claims are true. 

In short, they think of examples from philosophy classes where it's hard to know what the truth is and so conclude that truth is really hard to understand. 

But to understand truth we are better off thinking about simpler examples: if we begin with simpler examples, we can then take what we understand back to the harder cases. 

First, we should notice that the kinds of things that can be true (or not true, or false) are beliefs, or claims, or  statements, or sentences: anything that can fit this type of blank: "I think that _________."

And, to understanding truth, these thoughts can be about mundane things, e.g.: I believe that:

  • "It's not snowing today."
  • "I have a stomach."
  • "2+2=4."
For these beliefs to be true is for reality to be such that it's not snowing, I have a stomach, and 2 and 2 add up to 4. If I think those things, and reality is like that, then my beliefs are true.

If I somehow believed there was a blue whale in my classroom (when there is no such whale), or that I can run a mile in 1 minute (I can't), or that 1+1=3, all those beliefs would be not true, false, because they don't fit or represent reality. It's as simple as that. 

So that's the basics of what truth is. A claim or belief is true when, and only when, it fits the facts of the world. 

The problem with hard cases is that it's often hard to know what the truth is: maybe that's sometimes even impossible: maybe we could never have enough evidence for our beliefs about these matters to be knowledge, and maybe there are no real facts of the matter or underlying reality for our beliefs to fit or match or represent. 

But that doesn't change the truth that our beliefs are true when they are accurate to the facts of the world and false when they are not. 

"Subjective Truth"

People sometimes say that truth is "subjective." If someone says this, it's fair for us to ask them what they mean. 

Sometimes what they mean to say is that people have different beliefs about various matters. And they call these different beliefs "different truths" and claim that truth is "subjective," meaning dependent on the subject, or the believer. 

While it's true that, about many issues, there are different beliefs, that doesn't seem to mean that there are different "truths" about the matter. 

For example, some people even now believe that the earth is flat. While they believe that, their belief is not true.

As another example, some people believe that vaccines cause autism. While they believe that, their belief is not true: careful investigation has shown that there is not good evidence to believe that. 

As another example, some people believe that the election was stolen from Trump. Again, while they believe this, their belief is not true and is not supported by all the available evidence on the issue.

So this idea of "subjective truth"—as some people understand that phrase—appears to overlook that there's a difference between believing some claim and that claim being true. And there is a difference: just because someone believes some claim doesn't mean that claim is true: e.g., your believing you are a billionaire (sadly) won't make you a billionaire; someone believing you are in prison (thankfully) won't make you be in prison. 

(This suggests another idea of "subjective truths" as beliefs that aren't supported by much evidence. This, however, seems to allow that some of these "truths" are not true, which is confusing.)

So, in sum, the phrases "subjective truth" and "truth is subjective" don't seem to make sense: people shouldn't talk this way. 

Objective Truths

So, in general, whether a claim is true or false depends on what the world like. And what the world is like is an "objective" manner: it is that way independent of what you, or anyone, thinks of it. So, most truths are "objective" in nature.

Since this categorization invites the question "What's the alternative to 'objective'?" and "subjective" doesn't make much sense, it's probably best to just call truths truths, not objective truths. 

What's important to remember is that there's a difference between whether a claim is true or not and whether there is evidence, or strong evidence, for that claim. And just because there isn't good evidence for a claim doesn't mean, or entail, that it's not true and it doesn't mean that it's false either: they are separate issues. Furthermore, we can have really good evidence for a belief that turns out to be false. 

But when it's hard to tell what the truth is because it's hard to get good evidence or there is competing evidence, that does not in itself mean that there is no truth to be found: there might be a truth, but it's just hard to tell what it is. 

P.S. Aesthetic Judgments

To return to "subjective truths," people sometimes call aesthetic judgments, about what's beautiful or attractive or pleasing, "subjective truths." E.g., 
  • "Raspberries are the best berry," 
  • "The bass player on Dua Lipa's recordings is really good," 
  • "They are a great band," 
  • "Chocolate is so tasty," 
  • "They are really attractive."
These types of claims, if ever true, seem very much related to subjective feelings about what you like and find pleasing: indeed, one view about aesthetic judgments is that they are reports about those types of preferences and feelings. But even then, it's not like just thinking that you like something means that you like it: you have to really like it, not just think you like it, and that's an "objective" matter: there are objective facts about your subjective experiences! 

Does anyone have better judgment about what to like or find pleasing? Does anyone have better "taste"? These are hard philosophical questions: trying to figure out the truth of the matter requires a lot of hard thinking. (Affirmative answers here though are suggested by the fact that it seems like some singers, musicians, and artists are much better than others, and that seems to be more than just mere preferences and more than just some people like them more.)

But most issues, aren't like that: trying to figure out the truth of a historical or scientific or moral or medical or any other factual question doesn't seem much like debating who is a better singer, and even if there is such a thing. So aesthetic judgments might be a case where "subjective truth" makes some sense, but the notion doesn't seem to readily apply anywhere else. 

At least, that's what I believe, and I think that's true, and although my case has been brief, I hope I have provided enough initial support for it. 

(If I have said anything false, is what I've said false, subjectively false, or objectively false? Which answers here make the most potential sense?).

Note: this was written to help someone in responding to people who talk about "subjective truth" and claim that "truth is subjective," since these terms seem to be based on confusion and misunderstanding. 

Sunday, April 11, 2021

Why the case against abortion is weak, ethically speaking

Why the case against abortion is weak, ethically speaking

Why the case against abortion is weak, ethically speaking

Many medical procedures are ethically similar to abortion — but without the outcry. Why?


APRIL 11, 2021 

The article really is about more than what the title suggests. Here's an important paragraph:

Enabling more people to more productively engage the many ethical arguments about abortion won't, by itself, solve any social or political problems: no single strategy would. But ethics education is an essential part of any successful comprehensive strategy to ensure abortion rights and access, and so pro-choice advocates should engage in it. More generally, our political culture needs genuinely fair and balanced, honest and respectful engagement of arguments and truth-seeking: more people practicing this with the complex topic of abortion would help set a better intellectual and moral tone that would enable us all to better engage the many other polarizing issues that confront our society.

 Here is an explanation of the argument, or one interpretation of the argument:

  1. Organ donation procedures and the treatment of anencephalic newborns are morally permissible.
  2. If organ donation procedures and the treatment of anencephalic newborns are morally permissible, then it’s permissible to end the lives of biologically human organisms without functioning, consciousness-making brains.
  3. If it’s permissible to end the lives of biologically human organisms without functioning, consciousness-making brains, then early abortions, of fetuses without functioning, consciousness-making brains are morally permissible.
  4. Therefore, early abortions, of fetuses without functioning, consciousness-making brains are morally permissible.
To respond, here’s what one could do, regarding each premise:
  1. Argue that organ donation procedures and the treatment of anencephalic newborns are not morally permissible, for whatever reason(s): e.g., these are human, these are human organisms, these are human beings; there is always some chance of recovery, etc.
  2. Argue that a different generalization, or none, at all, is suggested by the cases in (1). Explain why that's a better generalization to draw than what we propose. 
  3. Identify a relevant difference such that (3) is false and justify the relevance of that difference: e.g., clearly, fetuses and the organ donation and anencephalic newborn cases are different: fetuses typically have a type of “potential” that the other cases don’t; fetuses, if “left alone,” so to speak will continue living, etc., but how is that relevant? Why would that make killing them wrong? Real, developed answers are needed, and the answer that “because they are human organisms” isn’t going to cut it, at least not for those who accept (1).

Colin McGinn on Reparations

Colin McGinn has a short essay on reparations. I wanted to repost it here in case it disappears off his page. I also wanted to add more paragraph breaks. See below: