by Roger Prather

Created on: November 23, 2008

In everyday English vernacular, the concept of truth is equated with honesty. In other words, something is either true or false. Either you cheated on your spouse or you didn't. Either you stole the candy bar or you didn't. You either came to work on time or you didn't. With this construct, it is easy to believe that truth is absolute. Thomas Aquinas said that "a judgement is said to be true when it conforms to the external reality." Likewise, Avicenna stated that truth is "what corresponds in the mind to what is outside." In other words, what one believes or thinks is true if the belief or thought is consistent with all external facts. However, when one examines facts, it is evident that facts are determined by context, so facts themselves are conditional. If the facts of external reality are themselves conditional, then it is only logical to conclude that truth based on those facts is also conditional. This is apparent within the contexts of ethics, politics, and religion.

Ethics, generally speaking, is the attempt to determine correct actions within a particular set of circumstances. Generally speaking, a rational human will base decisions on the facts available to them at the time. Take for example the fictional character Jean Valjean from the novel Les Miserables by Victor Hugo. Valjean has become the caretaker of his extended family. He is responsible for feeding and caring for others, and primarily attempts to do this by earning money and buying the necessities of life. During a bleak period, Valjean takes food from a merchant without paying for it because he is unable to earn money. Overall, Valjean is not a dishonest person. But, as he examines his external reality, he comes to the conclusion that it is a better choice to take food he hasn't paid for rather than allow his family to go hungry. The facts, no matter which side one is on, are essentially the same. However, the ethical choice is conditional based on the context. Valjean feels hopeless because he cannot feed his family. Perhaps he is ashamed. Certainly, he feels some level of fear. His view of the externalities is correct - he has no money and his family is hungry. But the view of the police is different - hungry or not, Valjean still stole. The police are employed, Valjean is not. The police do not want for food, Valjean does. Valjean's choices were consistent with all external realities and so too the police. But each come to very different conclusions.

Politics is like ethics in many respects.

• 1
• 2
• 3
• Next Page >>