Is Truth Ethical?

[Hollus]

Hypothetically, if there was a society where the extreme majority of the population held a false belief, would it be ethical to correct their false belief if that belief somehow made them happier and more productive citizens?

(Yes, I realize its one sentence long; I'm just looking for your opinion.)

[Smok3y]

Re: Is Truth Ethical?

That's a bit too vague for me to come to a conclusion. It'd depend greatly upon the belief and how much effect it would really have.

[Hollus]

Re: Is Truth Ethical?

Um...It could any religion that believes in eternal life. Then those people in thatv society would be happier and more comfortable with death and other issues like that.

(But the belief could conceivably be anything.)

[Relambrien]

Re: Is Truth Ethical?

So what you're saying is this...

Assume that the population of a hypothetical civilization hold a certain belief which adds comfort, security, and happiness to the people. However, that belief is false. Would proving that belief false and thereby removing it from the population be the right thing to do?

I agree with Smok3y, it depends on the belief and its exact effects on the population. If the people believe that doing something is good, but it really has a neutral effect, then I see no reason to correct them. If however, the belief adds only a slight amount of happiness but is causing extremely detrimental effects, then correcting them is obviously the preferable choice.

[Hollus]

Re: Is Truth Ethical?

I was thinking that it may be ethical to tell them the truth, but it definitely wouldn't be practical to do so.

[im_buh_seal]

Re: Is Truth Ethical?

That same belief can start wars (as it is doing now). Sometimes it causes hostility between countries, and in most cases, even among the people inside a nation.

[Kilroy_x]

Re: Is Truth Ethical?

It would only be ethical if the good brought about by correcting it outweighed the good held in place by its continued existence. However, good is ultimately a subjective valuation. I would propose that it would be ethical to inform them of the problem you've brought up and let them decide which course of action to take, then tell them the error of their belief if they decide to let you, but this faces its own problems.

[AquaTeen]

Re: Is Truth Ethical?

The truth is not ethical sometimes because say someone asks "do these jeans make me look fat?" and you respond with the truth of "Yes dear those jeans make you look fat." that person is most likely going to be offended. So the truth is ethical until the truth offends someone.

[devonin]

Re: Is Truth Ethical?

I think your comparison isn't really accurate to the stated intention of the thread.

It's not asking "If my wife asks if these jeans make her look fat, is it ethical to tell her they do"

It is instead: "If my wife thinks she has the body to carry off those jeans, and she utterly doesn't, and even though she's happy, it's pretty obvious that she does not actually look good in these jeans, is it ethical to correct her belief?"

[bobeck2]

Re: Is Truth Ethical?

The answer to the preceding question depends on one's definition of ethics. Some definitions state that ethics is simply a set principles of right and wrong. Others will define ethics as a code of conduct for the benefit of society as a whole.

To those who define ethics as a set standard of right and wrong, refraining from correcting that which is inherently flawed (their false belief) would thus be considered "unethical" because that is a wrong doing.

However, to those who define ethics as a code of conduce for the benefit of society, if the benefit of refraining from correcting the false belief outweighed the harm that the false belief would cause, then it would be considered ethical to keep silent about the issue.

In conclusion, because there is no definite application nor definition of this elusive "ethical code" people will use different variations of the meaning of ethics which is why, when dealing with issue of ethics, there is really no absolute.

[UnderlockanKey]

Re: Is Truth Ethical?

Universal ethical codes and relative perceptions of what is ethical of a person or culture are two seperate things in my opinion. There are things in which are just not exceptable such as murder, rape, etc. Then there are codes that people follow within their own lifes that primarly affect themselves physically or emotionally. When people use their religion or beliefs to justify actions are not ethical to the majority but to themselves they percieve that they just.

[foxyroxy2693]

Re: Is Truth Ethical?

In conclusion, because there is no definite application nor definition of this elusive "ethical code" people will use different variations of the meaning of ethics which is why, when dealing with issue of ethics, there is really no absolute.

Are you absolutly sure about that?

[awein999]

Re: Is Truth Ethical?

This can be applied to most religion. Most religion obviously (from a logical standpoint these days) is wrong, but even though the religion is false, the lie brings people comfort, happiness, and a sense of community. People care for each other and for the world. (I'm talking about general trends. There are always some exceptions.)

It doesn't matter whether religion is actually true or not. But what does matter is the way we live on this Earth. The nice lie brings out the best in us as a human society, helps us function, and helps prevent aggresion. (more stability, ultimately less severe world crises and less crises in number) If the comforting lie is taken away and filled with a meaningless truth we become worried, insecure, and ultimately aggressive and uncaring.

Ethical? Who says what is ethical and what isn't that is arbitrary. I say living a comforting lie is more important than searching for the ultimate truth in life, because in the process of searching for the ultimate truth we have come to the conclusion that we are insignificant little things with no purpose or meaning, we don't even understand where we came from, or what we are, all we know is that we are small and there is only "empty" space around us and an unimaginable amount at that.

We function better with hope, and a sense of meaning, religion (mostly lies) give us the power to feel this way.

your question is quite vague though so this doesn't answer all aspects. All I'm saying is that a lie is a good thing if it brings a better reality than the truth.

[Izzy]

Re: Is Truth Ethical?

I find it wrong to blatantly lie to people to make them feel better. That seems like ethics 101. I'm sure these people would be just as happy if they weren't ever lied to. Can't be unhappy about something you've never heard of.

[foilman8805]

Re: Is Truth Ethical?

I've noticed, and actually found it quite ironic, that the pursuit of absolute truth is often met with extreme opposition and adversity - sometimes resulting in imprisonments and executions for individuals striving to ascertain and disseminate the real truth.

There are many very good examples of this buried in history - people like Pythagoras and Galileo who were seekers of absolute truth, but were never out to destroy religion and culture. Nevertheless, they did as such. Pythagoras and Galileo were actually both very religious men; however, they simply held the belief that what society believed at the current time was actually wrong. Though the story of Pythagoras is more interesting (it involves the Golden Ratio and a bean field, haha), Galileo's story is a bit easier to tell.

As many of you well know, during the time of Galileo's existence, the solar system was built upon a geocentric model with Earth being at the heart of it. This idea had been adopted by the church, and had been a part of the knowledge base of the church and its constituents for hundreds and hundreds of years. It was even written in the Holy Scripture.

After some careful observation, and some mathematical calculations, Galileo came up with a very different picture of the solar system, and due to the dogma of the times, a very heretical picture of the solar system. His ideas were banned, and he was put under house arrest for the ending years of his life simply for pursuing the absolute truth. As it turns out, we now are aware that Galileo was correct; we do inhabit a heliocentric universe with the Earth revolving around the sun. This idea was incredibly upsetting to the church as it threatened the foundation on which the Holy Scripture had been written. It was contradictory, and therefore dangerous. It was heresy.

His findings eventually revolutionized science as we know it, and the church had to relent. It was about two hundred years later that his works, specifically his Dialogue, were finally unbanned and accepted as truth. We now believe that it was ethical of Galileo to do what he did because he was simply correcting a false belief.

I think that truth is very much like water - both are pure in their elemental sense. Anyways, envision a very large boulder containing all that is known to us: religion, science, math, history, world culture, and all else having water constantly poured over it. The water (truth) is seemingly harmless as you view it rolling off the sides of this very large rock with little effect. What you don't see is that the water (truth) has time on its side. The water slips and seeps into small pockets and cracks slowly eroding away at the structure of the boulder eventually getting deeper and deeper. The water makes it to the heart of the boulder and begins to weaken it from the inside-out. When the boulder is weakened too much, it splits and crumbles. The water (truth) has finally split the boulder, though it has taken a very long time.

This metaphor reverberates with what Galileo experienced as he eventually broke the dogma of the geocentric solar system that the church held for literal centuries.

To close, while I think that the truth is better than a lie, and that the truth is eventually bound to come out and become accepted (as it did with Galileo), I have a hard time using ethics as a scapegoat to destroy a religion or a culture as a whole simply because said religion or culture is following a false belief. What the OP suggests would likely do as such. While it would be technically ethical to correct the false belief, for the sake of productive citizens, it may be a better idea to just allow them to hold the false belief. I think it would be difficult to convince that kind of a society that their belief was false anyways. It would take time. In my opinion, and with what history has shown, the truth will eventually come out. It's inevitable...even if it's hundreds of years down the road.