The phenomenon of Truth is something that most of us confront regularly. Many would regard it as one of the values underpinning every civilized society. Those of us brought up in a Judaeo-Christian tradition were taught that untruthfulness was a sin that would affect our relationship with God. Telling the truth would therefore set us free from “the bondage of sin.” I can still hear my grandmother telling me to “tell the truth and shame the Devil” As a child this seemed quite straightforward. However, as an adult, I have found the issue of truth to be complex and perplexing. This opinion piece will address what I consider to be key questions about the nature of truth in our contemporary world.
Who decides what is true and what is not?
How are these decisions made?
Is truth perpetual or is it subject to change?
What are the benefits of telling the truth?
Why do we avoid or distort the truth or simply tell lies?
The writing of this paper will reflect my background as a Quaker whose search for truth and enlightenment is ongoing. I do not have specific knowledge about or qualifications in law, philosophy, or theology. Instead, I have pursued a career in Social Work and Social Research which often left me pondering about the truth of matters in which I have been involved and regularly exposed me to ethical dilemmas.
Who decides?
In democratic countries, like Australia, citizens are largely free to decide what they believe to be the truth. However, that Governments often spend substantial amounts of taxpayers’ money on Public Relations programs aimed at explaining and promoting Government policy and legislation. This expenditure is justified as a necessary component of good government. Critics, however, often assert that this PR activity is largely propaganda which often distorts or ignores the truth as a means of influencing compliance and subsequent voting behaviour.
“History is written by the victors,” a phrase famously attributed to Winston Churchill, which refers to the potentially biased nature of historical narratives. It suggests that the winners of conflicts have the power to craft and dominate the stories that are passed down, often sidelining the defeated and avoiding inconvenient truths. To find an examples of this we need to look no further than the way truth has been ignored or distorted concerning the dispossession of Indigenous peoples around the world.
Sovereign Citizens and their ilk accept as true the proposition that they are not subject to any government statutes unless they consent to them. Notwithstanding this, they like everyone else will be held accountable for any breach of the law or statutory regulations.
Like other social activists, some Quakers engage in acts of civil disobedience as a means of demonstrating their opposition to practices and policies that they consider to be unjust. This is sometimes described as a means of “speaking truth to power.”
Of course, people engaging in acts of civil disobedience run the risk of facing legal sanctions. It is unclear to what extent the publicity generated by acts of civil disobedience has a positive or negative impact on public opinion. However, civil disobedience constitutes a practical and often risky expression of faith that moves beyond discourse's relative safety.
How individuals determine the truth.
Using conventional wisdom (common sense)
We use this strategy, daily, to make rapid decisions. If something does not make sense, then we are unlikely to believe that it's true. For example, teachers are unlikely to believe students who claim that “the dog ate my homework.” Similarly, most of us are unlikely to believe that the email we received from a “Nigerian Prince” is a genuine offer to gift us several thousand dollars legally. In the vernacular, these sorts of things just do not “pass the pub test.” Of course, using common sense has its limits.
Using a “values framework”
During our “formative years” we develop a set of values that can be used to determine truth. These values are acquired within our family and social network and at school or place of worship.
Many religions believe that truth has been divinely revealed in the words of prophets and sacred texts and these truths are then reiterated in their doctrines and ceremonies.
Having this kind of values framework can give us something to rely on when we are struggling with an issue of truth. However, as we mature, and our environment changes it may be necessary for us to review our values framework. For instance, many of us who are now senior citizens grew up at a time when it was widely believed that people with dark or yellow skin were less competent (and perhaps less worthy) than people with white skin. Similarly, homosexuality was thought of as “unnatural,” against the “law of God” and was, of course, illegal. Consequently, the possibility of same-sex marriage was never envisaged. Decades later there have been radical social and legal changes regarding these issues and many of us have had to review our values accordingly.
Using information from the media
All of us rely on some form of mass media to find out what is happening in the world around us, and it is easy to assume that what we read, hear and watch is true. Professional journalists indeed have a code of practice that requires them to ensure that what they report is true. In cases where this is not clear then they must report “both sides of the story.” However, it must also be acknowledged that media outlets and more likely to present content in a way that is congruent with the owner’s ideological orientation. Of course, sensational stories always help to build readership and viewer numbers, and news organisations are always eager to get “a scoop “Many people are now “hooked” on social media which is constantly available to them on their mobile devices. Anyone can “post” on social media and there is scant evidence of any code of ethics. The providers of social media services continue to accumulate fortunes using strategies that appear to be “ethics-free.” In short, there is no guarantee that anything you see on social media is true!
The investigative approach
This involves collecting and analysing information that supports and disproves the statement or assertion in question. Of course, this approach will require a willingness to engage in some critical thinking about the strengths and weaknesses of the approach suggested by conventional wisdom and reliance on our values framework. This may involve talking to a range of people and accessing other reputable sources of information. Many people find it useful to use a notebook to record their findings and then take some time to think through what all of this means about the truth of the matter under consideration.
Seeking spiritual assistance
This implies some form of communication with a God/higher power as understood by the individual seeking assistance. This is usually sought using prayer, meditation, or some other form of silent worship. As a Quaker I regularly seek my truth through silent worship. I must admit that I find this an arduous process that requires time, patience, and having faith that something will eventually emerge. When this occasionally happens, the truth revealed can be inconvenient or ego-deflating.
Specialists Strategies
A variety of disciplines have developed specialist skills that enable them to make determinations about truth. For example, historians have expertise in locating and analysing sources of information with the hope that this will enable them to improve the accuracy of what is known about past events. Whilst this is often a precarious and contentious process it is enhanced through critique and subsequent enhancement by professional colleagues.
Scientists are usually more interested in the investigation of contemporary phenomena. Their work is often driven by data resulting from a variety of data collection methods. Analysis of this data can be complex and often involves theory development and statistical computation. It is recognised that scientific knowledge is provisional and that further scientific enquiry may either invalidate or enhance existing knowledge or may uncover findings that provide a completely new framework of understanding.
Economists play an influential role in advising Governments and Financial Institutions about strategies likely to influence productivity and the accumulation and distribution of wealth. There are several quite different theoretical “schools of thought” amongst economists which are sometimes pursued with considerable fervour. For some, the truth is that a “Free Market” will create greater productivity and wealth for all than a system that is subject to Government ownership or regulation.
Proponents of “trickle-down economics” find truth in the notion that supporting large corporations, and wealthy individuals through tax breaks and other concessions will enable them to accumulate yet more wealth; some of which will eventually “trickle down” to the less wealthy.
Followers of Keynesian theory believe it's true that spending (even using borrowed money) will generate economic activity which will be to everyone’s advantage. Other economists focus on developing strategies to balance monetary policy (the amount of money in circulation and the interest rates applied to borrowers and savers) with fiscal policy (taxation and government spending). It is not surprising that many of us find it difficult to navigate our way through this economic maze.
Strategies used by other groups
Australian Governments
The Commonwealth of Australia and each Australian State and Territory have elected parliaments with either one or two chambers which following the Australian Constitution create legislation and administer a range of Government Services. These Parliaments operate on an adversarial basis in which the truth of statements by Government Ministers and other members is constantly being tested by their opponents. This often leads to rowdy and disrespectful exchanges which is euphemistically referred to as a robust contest of ideas. Parliament also seeks to uncover the truth using a range of enquiries which can also utilise adversarial techniques to question the truth of the information being presented by witnesses.
The development of a “24-hour news cycle “means that political decisions are increasingly made “on the run” with little time available to check the truth of the facts on which they are based. This increases the risk of reliance on “politically expedient truth.” The “Children Overboard Affair” is a frequently used example of this. In 2001 Australian Commonwealth Government Ministers alleged, that seafaring asylum seekers had thrown children overboard in a presumed ploy to secure rescue and passage to Australia. Although these allegations were subsequently found to be untrue, the government's handling of this and similar events involving “boat people” worked to its advantage. Polls indicated that these measures had public support. This enabled the government to portray itself as "strong" on border protection measures and its opponents as "weak". As a result, they were re-elected with an increased majority, some months later.
Australian Courts also use adversarial techniques to test the truth of evidence provided by witnesses. The Prosecution presents and calls witnesses in an attempt a prove that the accused person is guilty of a specified offence or offences, whilst the Defence calls witnesses to prove that the accused person is innocent. The Prosecution and the Defence then attempt to discredit and outmanoeuvre each other. Depending on circumstances a final decision is made by a Magistrate or Judge or a Jury. In Criminal Proceedings these decisions are made on the basis that the allegation has been proven beyond reasonable doubt. In Civil trials, however, truth is established on the balance of probabilities. Many citizens find court proceedings can be confusing and intimidating and are left feeling that the truth, as they see it, has been lost in the technicalities and adversarial theatre of the legal system.
Boards and Management Committees in both business and not-for-profit settings often seek to make consensus-based decisions about the truth of claims or assertions. However, when this is not achieved the matter may be settled by voting or referring the matter back to a specialist committee for advice. It is a Quaker tradition to involve all members in discerning matters of truth and making decisions at a business meeting. Quakers strive to arrive at a unanimous decision even though this may result in matters remaining unresolved for extended periods. It is believed that in so doing Quaker members will have the opportunity to receive spiritual guidance from a God or Higher Power.
Is Truth Perpetual?
In my view, some propositions have probably retained validity throughout the ages. For example, over the centuries people have believed that the human attributes of Faith, Hope and Charity/Love are essential determinants of human well-being and cohesion. On the other hand, changes in the earth’s environment and human demographic structure, along with the exponential growth of science and technology have resulted in the progressive abandonment of many core beliefs that once had clear scientific endorsement. For example, in the 19th Century, it was believed that several diseases including, Cholera, Chlamydia and Black Death were spread by a foul-smelling vapour known as Miasma and emanated from decaying vegetable matter. The theory had been advanced by Hippocrates and widely accepted in Europe and China. At the end of the century, however, this theory was abandoned in favour of the currently accepted Germ Theory that these and other infectious diseases are caused by the transmission of microorganisms through water and food and person-to-person contact. More recently the accepted theory that stomach ulcers developed largely because of stress was superseded when Australian scientists discovered that a major cause of ulcers was the overgrowth of a gastrointestinal microorganism called Helicobacter Pylori and that this problem could be treated with antibiotics.
Distorting the truth or telling lies?
While many of us agree that it is important to tell the truth, there are many reasons why this does not happen.
Being influenced by our emotions and unable to perceive the truth. Having checks and balances in place can help us remain objective: perhaps seeking confidential counsel from an independent third party.
Telling the truth can have unwelcome consequences. We may be faced with legal and or financial consequences or the breakup of business, social or family relationships.
Situations may arise wherein we are asked to avoid or distort the truth or simply tell lies in exchange for financial or other rewards. For example, going along with “the party line” even when we know it is not true may be viewed favourably by those in power and may sometimes lead to business or professional advancement. On the other hand, revealing the truth may result in career damage.
Keeping personal information secret.
Protecting others from harm – so-called white lies.
Having a Personality Disorder such as Narcissism, Sociopathy, Psychopathy
Benefits of telling the truth
Telling the truth can be painful and expensive. However, in the long term, it can help develop more open and trusting relationships and improve self-esteem. Truth telling is at the core of the confessional where individuals reveal their sins in confidence to a priest and are given forgiveness. It is also a crucial part of recovery in Twelve Step Programs like Alcoholics Anonymous where people reveal their drinking or drug history and character defects to “clear the decks” and move on to a sober, more productive, more fulfilling, and socially acceptable lifestyle.
Truth-telling has also been a core component of Restorative Justice Programs such as those involving Indigenous groups whose land and way of life has been taken from them by colonists and leaving them displaced and traumatised. From a scientific perspective, it has been difficult to determine how effective these Restorative Justice Programs have been. Program evaluations of Restorative Justice Programs would suggest, at least, a moderate level of success. Unsurprisingly many of those involved in these programs have been unsure as to what their role should be. Further development may be necessary to improve program performance. Those who oppose Restorative Justice Programs may fear that this kind of program could lead to an erosion of their power and their capacity to generate wealth.
Conclusion
Truthtelling is a complex and at times painful issue that can be good for our self-esteem but sometimes bad for our career prospects and bank balance!
Comentários