-
Truth. Truth is that which corresponds to reality. Truth is that which “is”.
-
Justification. Any form of inquiry begins with a question, a guess (hypothesis). A justified belief is an answer/theory justified by evidence/reasons.
-
Justification=/=truth. Ought=/=is. (General truth.) A justified belief does not necessarily correspond to reality, is not necessarily true. We are all familiar with having found out that what we thought we knew was true, turned out to be false. There are different reactions to this “argument from error”. Some hold firm to a critical realism and say that we just have to be flexible to counter-evidence, and that this argument shows that truth is not dependent on the knower (the knower was wrong, at least initially). Others resort to anti-realism, agreeing with the critical realist that we must remain flexible, but saying that it is absurd and ivory-tower-ish to put truth beyond the knower, for how will we ever know it? (For the how, keep reading.) However, the principal users of this argument defect to skepticism and say that truth (which they agree with the critical realist is not dependent on the knower, otherwise truth is a construct) is impossible to know, though the “argument from error” relies on an essentially critical realist premise: we trust the evidence which leads us to realize we were in error. Nevertheless, justification (evidence/reasons) does not guarantee truth (correspondence), and to suggest it does commits the ought-is fallacy (reversed is-ought, see point seven).
-
Open to revision. The critical realist, rather than retreat to skepticism or anti-realism, leaves answers/theories open to future revision, while knowing (not with absolute certainty, and so with varying degrees of both certainty and faith, defined in point five) we are at least on the right track and making “real” progress (phlogiston being replaced with oxygen-based combustion, etcetera).
-
Certainty and faith. Certainty is when a belief is completely proven to correspond and has no room for doubt and faith is not required. The more certainty is lacking, the more faith is required. Faith in this context is belief, trust in the evidence, that lacks certainty (in other contexts, it involves interpersonal trust). Faith that lacks justification altogether is blind faith, trust persisting even when there is a complete lack of evidence (or, as Richard Dawkins would say, “in the teeth of evidence,” meaning counter-evidence), and is to be avoided (lest ye be drinking the kool-aid). Both certainty and faith are stronger when the evidence is stronger, when the answer/theory is more strongly justified. One answer which is no longer even considered theory by many scientists (including the Christian head of the Human Genome Project and director of NIH, Dr. Francis Collins), due to the fact that there is so much evidence for it: evolution by natural selection. Still, as mentioned in point 3, justification (evidence/reasons), while providing strong support which may seem to approach certainty—does not guarantee truth. That is not a statement against evolution or any other well-supported answer! However, consider that Kant treated Euclidean geometry and Newtonian physics as a priori. This is only an argument against apodictic (absolute) certainty for finite knowers, who will only have varying degrees of certainty and faith, depending on the strength of the evidence/reason(s).
-
Knowledge (“knowing”) is justified, true belief (google Plato’s “Theaetetus”). When our belief is not both justified (point two) and true (point one), we can be 1) right for the wrong (or no) reason (s), or 2) wrong despite having good reasons (because we do not have all the relevant reasons, which would have changed our belief). (If you want to learn more about this, google for Gettier problem examples.) In the first case, our belief is true, but it is not justified (see point seven). In the second case, our belief is justified, but it is not true (see point three). So, knowledge is when belief is both justified and true—when we are right for all the right reasons. Again, this rightness is not dependent on our knowing, on our having all the right reasons (see point three). For finite beings who lack absolute certainty, knowing always involves varying degrees of certainty and faith. If later you find out you were wrong [that your belief did not correspond, or that you were right for the wrong, or no, reason(s)], then you were not “knowing” in the first place. You only thought you were. But, now you ‘are’ knowing. You are knowing why you were wrong! If you’re still on the verge of collapsing into skepticism, reread points three through five.
-
Truth=/=justification. Is=/=ought. (General truth.) In point six, we saw that we can be right for the wrong (or no) reason(s), that we can have a true belief which is not justified. It would be logically fallacious to say that a belief is justified merely because it corresponds to something in reality. Again, if you want to learn more about this, google for Gettier problem examples. This is also Hume’s is-ought fallacy, however, it fuelled his skepticism, so—reread points three through five.
-
Truth=/=justification. Is=/=ought. (Moral truth.) Point seven, Hume’s is-ought fallacy, also (and originally!) applies in the case of moral truth. It would be logically fallacious to say that a belief about moral truth is justified merely because it corresponds to something in reality. It is logically fallacious to say that “might makes right” is justified (answers the question of Ethics, see point two) merely because (say) might always wins in reality. It is logically fallacious to say that the Golden Rule (in essence, treat the Other as self) is justified merely because it corresponds to a being who is always a loving being who always treats the Other as self.
-
Justification=/=truth. Ought=/=is. (Moral truth.) Point three, the reverse is-ought fallacy, also applies in the case of moral truth. In point six, we saw that we can be wrong despite having good reasons, when we do not have ‘all’ the relevant reasons (which would have changed our belief)—we can have justified belief that is not true. It would be logically fallacious to say that a belief about moral truth is true (see point one), merely because it is justified (answers the question of Ethics, see point two). It is logically fallacious to say that because the Golden Rule is justified, it is true to a being whose very existence and every behavior is described by it.
-
Fallacy of reification. In sum of points six through nine, any belief that is not both justified and true, but is either only justified (ought-is) or true (is-ought), commits the fallacy of reification (google it), in that it believes to be true or justificatory something that is not true or justificatory. It, in essence, invents reality.
-
All is not lost. Even if one is not a sceptic about knowing in general, points 8 through 10 might lead one to be a sceptic or nihilist about moral truth, believing that we cannot know moral truth, or that it is a matter of opinion and there is no moral truth to be known. Reread points three through five. Point six says that knowledge (“knowing”) is justified, true belief. That also applies to beliefs about moral truth. In order to count as knowing, a belief about moral truth must be justified and true, it must answer the question of Ethics, and correspond to reality.
-
Hunger. We all behave as if our moral conduct is truly justified, or apologize or make excuses for it if it isn’t, and the Golden Rule is found in every culture throughout history. All with a hunger for truly justified meaning, hunger for the answer to “How and why should we be or behave with the Other and self?” We hunger for meaning that exists, or we would not have evolved a hunger for it, just as physical hunger would not have evolved, had there been no nutrients already in existence to satisfy it.
-
How and why. The Golden Rule recognizes that a ‘how’ (conduct theories) without a ‘why’ (consequence theories) is pointless; that a ‘why’ (end) without a ‘how’ (do) is impossible to apply—the Golden Rule is both ‘why’ (love) and how (treat the Other as self).
-
Be or behave. The Golden Rule sees that the nature of the ‘doing’ (conduct theories) affects the nature of the ‘being’ (virtue theories) and vice versa—the Golden Rule is both what we should do (treat the Other as self), and how we should be (loving).
-
Other and self. The Golden Rule acknowledges self as Other and Other as self, and so rules out self-abusive theories as well as other-abusive egoism and group egoism (game theory).
-
Justified. The Golden Rule is the only theory in Ethics which sufficiently answers the question of Ethics (see point two), “How and why should we be or behave with the Other and self?” It is the only “justified” theory in Ethics. In order to be always true (not just “justified”), it must correspond to a being who always is and does what we should be and do—Golden Rule love—treat the Other as self (see point one).
-
Faith. That the Golden Rule is justified, does not guarantee it corresponds to such a being (see point three). Justified=/=true. (Leaving out discussion of theistic voluntarism.) This means that if the only justified theory in Ethics, the Golden Rule, does not correspond, then there is no moral truth. We can either trust (5) points twelve through sixteen, or we can defy our hunger, defy every culture in history, and trust (5) that there is no moral truth. Only one option is true—all else is a construct, a fallacious reification (see point ten), including the beliefs of those like Sam Harris who embrace the possibility of justified beliefs about moral truth, while denying the existence of a being to which those beliefs must correspond in order to be properly “true”. The logic of this, and also points twelve through sixteen, point towards putting faith (see point five) in the Golden Rule and the God it describes.
