“Without truth social intercourse and conversation become valueless.” —ftant “It is said to God ‘Yourlaw is truth. And for this reasonwhat iscontrary to truth cannot be just. But who doubts that every lie is contrary to truth? Therefore no lie can be just.” —St. Augustine Lying lips are an abomination to the Lord: but is it a lie to put murderers off the scent of blood?
“The general rule is, that Truth should never be violated, because of its utmost importance to the comfort of life, that we should have a full security by mutual faith … There must, however, be some exceptions. If, for instance, a murderer should ask you which way a man is gone, you may tell him what is not true, because you are under a previous obligation not tobetrayamanto amurderer …. But I denythelawfulness of tellingalie toa sick manforfear of alarming him. Youhave no businesswithconsequences;youhave to tellthe truth.” —Johnson
“Even if you are in a minority of one, the truth is truth”. —Gandhi “Truth is by nature self-evident. As soon as you remove the cobwebs of ignorance that surround it, it shines clear.”
—Gandhi
“Truthnever damages a cause that is just.” —Gandhi
“Anerror does not become truth by reason of multiplied propagation, nor does truth become error because nobody sees it.” —Gandhi
“Inmatters of conscience, the law of the majority has no place.” —Gandhi “Even as wisdom often comesfrom the mouths of babes, so does it oftencome from the mouths of old people. The golden rule is to test everything in the light of reason and experience, no matter from where it comes.”
—Gandhi
“Abstract truth has no value unless it incarnates in human beings who represent it, by proving their readiness to die for it.” —Gandhi
“He who trifles with truth cuts at the root of Ahimsa [nonviolence].He who is angry is guilty of Himsa.” —Gandhi. “All the religions of the world, while they may differ in other respects, unitedly proclaim that nothing lives in this world but Truth.” —Gandhi
“Morality is the basis of things and truth is the substance of all morality.” —Gandhi
“Breach of promise isa base surrenderof truth.” —Gandhi “Breach of promise is no less an act of insolvencythan a refusal to pay one’sdebt.” —Gandhi “The pursuit of truth does not permit violence on one’s opponent.” —Gandhi It is easier to perceive error than to find truth, for the former lies on the surface and is easily seen, while the latter lies in the depth, where few are willing to search for it . —Johann Wolfgang Von Goethe “If youshut uptruth andbury it underthe ground, it willbut grow, andgathertoitself suchexplosive powerthat the day it bursts through it will blow up everything in its way.” —Emile Zola “From error to error, one discovers the entire truth.” —Sigmund Freud
“Forhere we are not afraidto followtruthwhereverit may lead.” —Thomas Jefferson
“To announce truths is an infallible recipe for being persecuted.” —Voltaire “We swallow greedily any lie that flatters us, but we sip only little by little at a truth we find bitter.”
—Denis Diderot
“Mental fight means thinking against the current, not with it. It is our business to puncture gas bags and discover the seeds of truth.” —Virginia Woolf
“What ismoralityin any giventime or place? It iswhatthe majoritythenandthere happen tolike, andimmorality is what they dislike.” —AlfredNorth Whitehead
“There is no god higher thantruth.” —Gandhi
“If you are out to describe the truth, leave elegance to the tailor”. —Albert Einstein “What the imagination seizes as beauty must be the truth.” —John fteats
“Everythingyouaddtothetruthsubtractsfromthe truth.” —Alexander Solzhenitsyn “Man has always sacrificed truth to his vanity, comfort and advantage. He lives... bymake-believe.”
—W. Somerset Maugham, The Summing Up, 1938
“There is no truth. There is only perception.” —Gustave Flaubert Truthfulness is a vast theme with many ramifications. It figures in various discussions in philosophy, religion, morals and literature. Many political and social movements, their leaders claim, are grounded in truth. Gandhi, for example, placed the highest value on truth. It is a pre-eminent personal virtue. In discussing truth, we need to examine its various aspects. Briefly these are - 1)
definition of truth 2) truth as a moral virtue 3) high value accorded to truthinthe hierarchy of virtues
4) standards or criteria for calling something as true 5) social utility or function of truthfulness 6) socially sanctioned exceptions to truth telling and 7) other virtues allied to or included in truthfulness. There are many synonyms of truth such as veracity, fact, reality, integrity, honesty, candour, fidelity and honesty. Keeping one’s promise is also part of truthfulness. We may begin with early definitions of truth in ancient Greek philosophy. Aristotle says that: “to say of what is that it is, and of what is not that it is not, is true.” He adds “he who thinks the separated to be separated and the combined to be combined has the truth, while he whose thought is in a state contrary to the objects isinerror”.In Greekphilosophy,truth isseen as an accurateperspective on reality.Romanssimilarly
spoke of Veritas as a factual representation of events.
There are three major theories of truth in modern philosophy. The correspondence theory states that what we believe or say is true if it corresponds to the way things are or to facts. When a proposition is true, it is identical to a fact, and belief in that proposition is true. This conception is similar to the Greek view. However, modern philosophers discuss the idea of truth with mind numbing logical rigour. In this context, we may mention the philosophical doctrine of objectivism. It is the belief that the world exists objectively, independent of the way we think about it or describe it. Our thoughts and claims are about that world. These two statements imply that our claims are objectively true or false, depending on how the world objectively is.
The secondviewontruth isknown as coherencetheoryof truth.Thosethinkerswho subscribe to philosophical idealism tend to hold this view. Truth in its essential nature is that systematic coherence
which is the character of a significant whole. In this view, one can speak meaningfully of truth about ideas or beliefs which are embodied in a system of ideas which form a whole. A belief is true if it is part of a coherent system of beliefs. Truth is a property of a whole system and not of isolated facts. This view is metaphysical, and many thinkers would naturally concede that individual facts are in a sensetrue.Idealist thinkers also speak in metaphysical terms of truth as a process of self-fulfilment.
Pragmatic philosophers such as William James proposed a theory of truth based on its social utility.Truth is something which we find useful or satisfactory to believe. Thisdoes not meanthat we should permanently reside in a world of comfortable dreams. Truth of a (useful) belief is borne out by our later experience. It acts as a reliable guide to action. Some pragmatists associate truth with experimental or scientifictruth. Truth is a settled position that emerges after a painstaking inquiry.
So far, we looked at truth from an epistemological point of view. Epistemology is a branch of philosophy which deals with theories of knowledge. This branch of philosophy logically scrutinizes the nature, scope, validity and limitations of human knowledge. In Ethics, truth is conceived very differently as an ideal to be pursued in our conduct or moral life. In this context, we have to understand truth either as religious truth or as moral truth.
Veracity or telling the truth is an intrinsic virtue, and is not based on rights of others or on any external circumstances. It is fit and proper that one should state facts, opinions and truths to the best of his knowledge without mixing any falsehoods. Social existence of human beings depends on truth telling. If truth is abandoned, accounts of human history become fictions. If witnesses habitually tell lies, judicial proceedings will end in mockery of justice. If people cannot trust one another, business and commerce will shrink drastically. In the absence of truth telling, the ordinary transactions of common life will be enmeshed in incessant doubt and suspicion. In short, human sociallifepresupposestruthtelling as a norm of behaviour.Thisis what isimpliedin Kant’squotation cited above.
Lay philosophers and religious teachers have always placed truth on a high pedestal. They hold that telling lies is wrong as such or inherently. Those who utter lies flout the basis of rational relationships between human beings. They also fail to respect themselves as rational beings. Falsehoods are uttered with a view to deceive others. People may not resort to wholesale lying. But theyoftendistorttruthpartiallyandmisleadothers.That iswhywitnessesareasked to tell“thetruth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth”. Another manner of deceiving others is “suppressio veri and suggestio falsi”—suppressing truth and suggesting falsehood.
A statement may have a double meaning, and in the given circumstances mislead people into accepting the false meaning. Only a part of the truth – half truth - may be told to misguide listeners. Atruthmay be toldin such a manner asto falsifyanotherfact.Gesturesandintonations may be used to lead people astray. People may remain silent when lies are being told instead of rebutting them immediately. As Solzhenitsyn observes, truth has to be unvarnished; otherwise, it ceases to be truth. Similarly, Einstein mentions that truth has to be expressedplainly and simply without adornment.
There are many reasons for which people are reluctant to face the truth squarely. As Somerset Maugham points out, men pursue their comforts and advantage, and in the process abandon truth. Men shun harsh realities which shatter their cherished opinions, pet theories and comforting fantasies. Similarly, Diderot observes that men readily swallow flattering lies which bolster their egos, but avoid acknowledging unpalatable truths which undermine their self images.
People tell lies for various reasons. Sometimes religious and other groups who face persecution may tell lies to cover up their identity. Governments may not disclose (or dissimulate about) matters deemed vital for national defence. Often, people utter falsehood to damage the interests and reputation of others. Lies are essentially designed to deceive others and gain personal advantage. People may tell lies to flatter those in power, and thus get into their good books. People also seek to project themselves in an attractive but false light. Those wielding power may tell lies to mislead people and subvert public interest.
Are there any exceptions which justify departures from the duty to tell the truth? This question has divided philosophers and moral preachers. Socrates mentions that lies can be told to guard against enemies and to prevent harm to others. But many philosophers regard truth as a virtue to which there can be no exceptions. Thus, St. Augustine considers that no lie can ever be just since it is against divine dispensation. Immanuel Kant regards truth telling as a categorical imperative (absolute command or duty) which admits no exceptions. Many thinkers regard such views as too rigid and opposed to what commonsense prescribes in some situations of ordinary life.
Dr. Johnson’s observations cover this issue. He says that lying for protecting an innocent man from killers is justified. However, he denies that lying to patients about their serious illness is justified. This raises the question of how to determine the circumstances which justify departures from truth. One can think of virtues as constituting a hierarchy, and that some virtues can at times override truth telling. In the example given by Dr. Johnson, protecting an innocent man takes precedence overtruth telling. But telling lies to psychologicallycomfort a patient is unjustified. In these matters, it is impossible to exclude subjective considerations.
As we noted earlier, the purpose of falsehoods is to deceive others through misrepresentation and gain some advantage. Stringent moralists argue that falsehood – no matter whatever its motive or purpose – is inherently wrong. This is the view of St. Thomas Aquinas. He makes a distinction between 1) uttering a falsehood and 2) its intent to deceive. He holds that it is wrong to utter lies even if there is no loss or disadvantage to others or advantage to a liar. But others consider that the intention of deceit is an essential ingredient of falsehood, and without this ingredient a lie loses its sting.
Now, we turn to another aspect of truth. One may assert truth or say that X is true. One may also consider a) the manner of arriving at truth and b) the standards or criteria used for judging that X is true. These two aspects are epistemological and are discussed in the theory of knowledge. But for a practical moralist these are of no great importance except in preventing him from falling into error. One of the quotations from Gandhi touches on this point. “Even as wisdom often comes from the mouths of babes, so does it often come from the mouths of old people. The golden rule is to test everything in the light of reason and experience, no matter from where it comes.” The Bible says that wisdom (praise of God to be exact) comes out of the mouths of babes and sucklings. Gandhi observes that it also comes from the mouths of old people. Gandhi proceeds to lay down a test for examining claims to truth. Such claims can be logically analysed to see whether they conform to rules of logical validity or correct reasoning. Another way of testing is to see whether they are empirically borne out by human experience or the way things are in the natural world. Gandhi’s comment shows his philosophical insight. Of course, Gandhi refers to truth as a practical moralist, as a reformer and as an ideologue.
Another point is how easy or hard it is to perceive truth. Gandhi says truth has a quality of self-evidence. Once we see it, we identify it without further intellectual effort. All that is required is to remove the veil of ignorance which surrounds it. Goethe puts this idea rather differently. For him error is visible on the surface whereas truth lies in buried structures. People are unwilling to undertake the labour of digging out truth.
Many writers mention the noble attributes of truth and the steadfast moral duty of pursuing truth. We consider in this context the quotations from Gandhi. Gandhi identifies truth with the highest form of divinity. For Gandhi, no higher God exists. He regards truth as the substance or essence of morality. It occupies the highest position among virtues. Gandhi believes that though religions differ on various matters, they are united in proclaiming the perennial value of truth in this world. Gandhi also identifies truth with non–violence. In other words, even if one’s ends are noble, violent means should not be used for achieving them.
The identification of truth with God or with non–violence is not free from obscurity. For example, truth and non–violence are two distinct concepts, and any claims of their identity or equivalence involves what is known as a ‘category error’. Category error consists in comparing or identifying things which belong to distinct categories. However, we need only consider the moral spirit underlying the statements. One is that the nobility of ideals will not justify the use of violence for their attainment. This boils down to a question of ends and means. Both the ends we pursue and the means we employ for their realisation have to be good. This approach is critical to Gandhian thinking. Identification of truth with God implies that all believers in God have to follow the path of truth.
Pursuit of truth, whether in private or public life, is difficult. As a practical moralist Gandhi emphasised that mere theoretical discussions of truth or simplylavishing praise on truth as a virtue is of no use. People have to adopt truth as a practical virtue in their actual life. They should follow the narrow and straight path of truth and be ready to sacrifice life for it. In real life, few people are willing to go such heroiclengths, but usually seek compromises. However, there are many instances of both saints and even common people who laid down their lives for what they regarded as religious truth. Many individuals sacrifice themselves for movements and ideologies which they think embody truth.
As Voltaire mentions, those who propound unpopular truths invite risk of persecution. But as Virginia Woolf says, intellectuals have to puncture high sounding inanities in their search for truth. As Jefferson observes, one has to follow truth unmindful of wherever it may lead. Fear of bad consequences should not lead to abandonment of the quest for truth. It is of course not easy to bury truth and forget about it. It continues to live in the minds of people, gathers strength, and explodes with renewed vigour. In a way, this is what appears to have happened recently in Middle East.
John Keats, the English Romantic poet, identifies beauty and truth. According to him, “beauty is truth, and truth is beauty”. The German poet Schiller mentions –
‘When I dared question: “it is beautiful’
But is it true?” Thy answer was, “In truth lives beauty.”
This identity may not hold entirely. Aesthetics is not concerned with what is morally beautiful, but with what is beautiful in itself irrespective of moral considerations. Ethics is concerned with man’s moral worth as expressed in virtuous will and actions. Ethical judgements ignore mere beauty or
utilityofconduct.What is right may not be immediatelybeautiful,andcaninvolve actionsthat arefar from beautiful. Thus, the process of sanitizing an area stricken by a natural disaster will be far from aesthetic. However, both beauty and ethics involve pursuit of an ideal. In an ultimate sense, what is moral is beautiful and what is beautiful in an artistic sense may be moral. This idea is contained in the expression ‘a beautiful soul’ – the reference being to a moral soul.
According to Alfred North Whitehead, morality at any given place and time is what the majority then and there happen to like, and immorality is what they dislike. In other words, Whitehead believes that there is no universally applicable moral code but that morals are conditioned by time and place. This view is known as moral relativism. It is difficult to accept this view in toto. There are certain fundamental duties such as for one’s family which are universal. There may be minor differences for example in the degree of freedom which parents in different societies allow for adolescent children. But no culture or society endorses murder, rape or dacoity. Moral codes may become lax in matters like severity of punishment. However, one can confidently assert that there are at least a few universal moral tenets.
GustaveFlaubert’s viewon truthreflectscompletescepticism. He deniesthe possibility of knowing objective truth. He makes truth a matter of individual perception or viewpoint. Truth is what an individual thinks is true; it reduces to individual subjectivity.There is longtradition of philosophical scepticism or doubt going back to the Greek philosopher Sextus Empiricus. This is the view that true or objective knowledge is unattainable. This is in fact the core belief of the currently fashionable school of postmodernism. Any discussion on this subject will take us too far away from our main subject. It is enough to note that natural sciences contain objective knowledge which is vouchsafed by commonly accepted scientific procedures. However, ideological and other perceptions often create problems in modern social sciences. Those who are wedded to truth have to give truthful accounts of events. They have to avoid biased, ideological and self-serving interpretations. This is a fundamental aspect of truthfulness – though virtually abandoned in modern social science research. Some journalists and TV commentators are fond of saying that perception is more important than truth. This view may have some use in political propaganda and commercial advertising. But it is hogwash in any serious academic discussion.
Keeping promises, honesty and integrity are virtues which are part of veracity. Gandhiji regards breaking a promise as equivalent to abandoning truth. Inability or unwillingness to pay one’s debts is an instance of insolvency. Failure to honour one’s promises signals moral bankruptcy. One is under an obligation to keep promises made to others in all spheres of life. But acting according to one’s promises is vital in the economic sphere. No economic transactions are possible in a situation in which no one is serious about keeping promises. The term ‘contract’ is the analogue of promise in business and commerce. Law of contracts is a major field of jurisprudence. However, contracts have to be routinely observed, and litigation should be the exception rather than the rule. In a capitalist economy valid contracts are considered sacred.
There are two parts to keeping promises. No one shouldlight heartedly make a promise. Promise signifies a truthfulintent of performing a stated act.Thereshould be an honestyof purpose in making a promise. After making a promise, one has to take all possible steps within his power to deliver on it. One should not avoid the promised action because it may involve personal exertion, trouble, inconvenience and loss.
One should not enter into immoral or illegal promises. Such ‘compacts with devil’ are void from the outset. No one is under any obligation to deliver on such promises. If someone makes such a promise unknowingly, he should get out of it. If the person to whom the promise has been made was also innocent and is likely to suffer loss, he can be compensated in some measure.
In judicial proceedings, witnesses take an oath to tell the truth. Many constitutional functionaries also take oath to uphold the constitution and to perform their duties without getting influenced by personal or other extraneous considerations.
Honesty can be regarded as truthfulness in financial matters. In the modern world, there are many situations in which people handle money belonging to organizations and other individuals. Individuals who perform such functions—accountants, custodians of cash, wealth managers, and guardians of minors, trustees of charitable bodies, bankers and treasury officers—have to be scrupulously honest. They have to justify their positions in the offices of trust. Honesty in public administration implies that civil servants should discharge their duties in a bonafide manner without giving into monetary temptations or inducements. They should follow the adage that honesty is the best policy. Honesty is integral also to business transactions. Businessmen should avoid all forms of deception, cheating and fraud. They should also avoid sharp business practices. Their financial transactions have to be clean and above board. In fact, the present emphasis on corporate governance is designed to promote clean business practices.
Integrity means that the moral agent acts according to his inner convictions. His conduct is free from hypocrisy and deception. His actions are in conformity with his stated values. But it is hard to follow the high morals which one proclaims. The British historian GM Trevelyan has commented on this aspect of Puritanism i.e. rigid pursuit of high morals: “by making a shibboleth of virtue, it (puritanical version of Christianity) bred notorious hypocrites”. But it does not mean that one needs to abandon morals. One should be moral sincerely without making a show of it.
Publicleaders who possess integritycreate interpersonal trust. Integrity which refers to actions resulting from a set of well-ordered commitments and beliefs promotes trust. Trust implies the capacity to depend on and place confidence in the actions of others. All social interaction depends on integrity and trust. Integrity is especially relevant in public administration in which cooperative, corroborative and collective efforts are needed to solve interconnected problems. Hence, character, particularly integrity, is essential in public leaders.
In this context, public administration writers make a distinction between ‘ethics of compliance’ and ‘ethics of integrity’. In ethics of compliance, public servants are trained or given detailed
instructions on the various laws, rules, regulations and procedures which govern their working in an organization. After learning about these matters, public servants are expected to scrupulously follow them. In this process, public servants learn to follow a set of externally imposed commands. However, they may not do any moral thinking on their own.
Ethicsof integrityincontrasttriesto impart to civilservantsthe necessaryskillsto analyse moral problems on their own. They are trained in areas like public service ethos, ethical standards and values and in the processes of ethical reasoning. By using such skills public servants will follow ethical norms in their conduct. Ethics of integrity lead to development of moral character with self- responsibility and moral autonomy. It relies on internal, positive, proactive and voluntary efforts of publicservants ratherthan on external commandsand penalties.
Another aspect of truthfulness implies that a moral agent should never betray trust placed in him. Some acts of betrayal are criminal offences.Cheatingandcriminal breach of trust areoffencesunder the Indian Penal Code. There are many acts of breach of trust which though not illegal are morally reprehensible. These are matters fall within human relations. Disloyalty towards family and friends or failure to perform duties implicit in human relations is the essence of breach of trust.
If someone claims to be in love with a girl and then ditches her later, he has betrayed her trust. Sometimes, people betray their friends. It may happen that X gets acquainted with rich or politically powerful individuals. He may then be tempted to forsake his old friends. Self interest or the excitement of rubbing shoulders with influential people makes X neglect his old friends. This type of behaviour reflects disloyalty. Another example of breach of trust involves refusal to help one’s friends in difficulty. In such situations, one needs to extend material and moral help to friends within his means. The saying that a friendin need is a friend indeed emphasises the aspect of mutual support in friendship. There are many instances when people neglect their aged dependent parents or neglect their duty towards spouses who are chronically ill.
Manyinstances of disloyaltycan be mentioned fromotherspheres of life. In politics,friendsoften become enemies; enemies may also become friends. This situation is summarized in the saying that there are no permanent friends or enemies in politics. Professional politicians are basically interested in advancing their careers and increasing their power. Hence, they change their stance towards others depending on calculations of political advantage. There are many instances in which the protege of a political leader works against him. Similarly, a leader may betray his friends or followers depending on how the political winds are blowing.
Instances of breach are found also in administrative situations. The top level officials may evade responsibility or shift it towards their subordinates. When things go wrong, they may fasten blame wrongfully on juniorofficers.They may make scapegoats of theirsubordinates. Publicservants have to uphold common interest. When they fail to do so, they betray the trust placed in them.