TRUTH

Alexander was never particularly religious but having migrated to a country where the practice of religion was almost a prerequisite for one to have any social standing, he quickly adopted the dominant faith as his own. In his heart he never truly believed the teachings of his new religion, but it did open up many business and social opportunities for him.

Is it wrong to pretend to believe any religious teaching in order to get financial or social benefits?

Is it wrong to pretend to believe any religious teaching for any reason?

Can it be damaging to the credibility of any religion, if a member of that faith is found to be less than honest about his or her convictions?

If we continuously pretend to be what we are not, are we defeating our own selves in some way?

If you are asked to describe your best friend, you might do so as truthfully as you can. Whatever you say would not change your friend in any way. The reality (the truth) of whom and what your friend is remains unchanged. What you say is only true insofar as it describes that truth.

If someone else were to describe your best friend, that person's description would probably be a little different from yours. The things which you notice about your friend would probably not be exactly the same as those another person would see, and certainly not in the same way.

Although the person being described remains the same, different people describing that one person would be describing what they perceive and not necessarily the truth of who your best friend is. Although the truth of your best friend remains unchanged, the perception of that truth changes in relation to who is doing the description.

Although it may be possible for anyone to change their perception of a truth such as the truth of your friend, they cannot change the truth itself. This type of truth which is not subject to any creature's control may be classified as "objective truth."

One morning in assembly the principal of a school stated that there would be no classes after lunch due to a staff meeting. Now, the principal was the person in charge of the school. He had the authority to call the meeting.

The principal's words are true, not only because it describes a truth (although it is a truth to be accomplished), but because his words caused that truth to exist. Can it be said that insofar as one has the authority, one's words can be creative, causing something to happen?

Quite different from describing a truth therefore is the act of calling it into being. Any of the teachers in the school could say the same words which the principal said: "there is going to be a meeting," but the teacher's words would not have the effect as those of the principal's words. The teacher does not have the authority over the school.

Contrast the authority of the principal over the school’s operation, and his authority to judge the school. If the principal says that his school is the best in the country, his words would not make the statement true. Even if all the teachers shared his opinion, it may still remain just a perception, even if all think that their perception is true. We can call this type of truth which is defined by perception, "subjective truth."

Now, consider that the principal also has the authority to set the agenda for the meeting he created. Apart from the authority to call the meeting, he also has the power to define the nature of the meeting. In other words, he does not only call the meeting into being but also defines its rules. He can say what is appropriate or not in the meeting. The true nature of the meeting therefore is subject to the will of the principal.

Truth therefore can be placed in two categories: objective truths which comes into being through the will of authority; others may only describe this truth but cannot change it. And there is subjective truths over which man does have a certain amount of power.

A long time ago a special award was created for the most outstanding student and presented at the end of each school year. With time however, the standards of behaviour and performance required to earn the award lowered considerably, and it was given out to increasing numbers of students. Eventually it became common practice to hand out the award to all students as a matter of course.

Is the truth or meaning of the award "subjective" or "objective?"

Did the award lose its original meaning? Was the original truth of the award destroyed?

The Truth (meaning) of Relationships

The school in the previous example created the award and arguably had the power to change the truth of the award, but what about the award of the title "Father" or "Husband?" Do people have the power to change the meanings of natural relationships? Can we change the rules of natural relationships such as marriage? Or are many human relationships simply human inventions? Is the truth of human relationships objective or subjectively defined?

Human relationships, such as between husband and wife, father and child, etc. have had various social meanings, and have been governed by differing rules in various cultures throughout history. Many ancient cultures saw the wife as an item of property of the husband. Even today, some societies see nothing wrong with a man having multiple wives while others condemn this practice. There are some who equate historical and social/cultural norms with moral truth. But then, what can one say about cannibalism, human sacrifice, forced castration, or slavery, all of which were socially acceptable in various cultures?

It is very important to appreciate that while in their social contexts these practices were not seen as immoral, one cannot assume a link between cultural acceptance and morality, unless one already concludes that truths of relationships and morality in general are subjective (to the will of society). Are they subject to the will of society?

There was a young woman living in the United States who married a friend of hers from Jamaica, for the sole purpose of him obtaining U.S. citizenship. Both the man and woman agreed to get a divorce as soon as the man became an American citizen.

Was the marriage a true marriage? Is marriage a truth defined by man, a human invention, and something man could redefine? Or is there an objective truth to marriage, something that it ought to express in order for it to truly be called marriage? Is there a truth to marriage which we can only discover and describe, but have no power to change?

Surely any husband and wife can agree on what is, or is not acceptable in their particular relationship (as the young American woman and the Jamaican man did), but does the institution of marriage have a nature of its own which might not accommodate particular behaviour patterns or uses? In other words, the relationship between any two people would have its own peculiar nature. But marriage may have its own rules peculiar to the institution of marriage. If the nature of the relationship between husband and wife is incompatible with the nature of marriage, then is their marriage "true?"

If, for example, both husband and wife agree to sleep around with other people, and even if they both feel a natural tendency towards this infidelity (as people sometimes do), would not their infidelity still go against the nature of marriage? Any two people can change the rules of their relationship but can married people change the rules of marriage without destroying it?

(Assuming that one of the things which make marriage different from other types of relationships is moral freedom to engage in sexual acts, if sex is morally permissible outside of marriage, then marriage, (like the school’s award,) might have lost at least some of its meaning.)

How has marriage (or man's perception of it) changed over the last century?

Does the "Truth" of any relationship depend on the natural urges of man?

Do we have a creative word over other natural relationships? Can we redefine the relationship between mother and child? Could a mother say that it is not her responsibility to care for her child? What kind of relationship do you think a woman should have with her unborn child? Can we dictate new rules for natural relationships such as that between brothers? Do we have the authority to create a new norm which would accommodate sexual relationships between brothers even if they are "naturally" sexually attracted to each other?

The usual objections from many in society to brothers having a sexual relationship with one another are based on perceptions that (1) incest is wrong and (2) homosexual relationships are wrong.

If sex between brothers is not "true" to brotherly relationships, is this because.

(1) They are members of the same family?

(2) They are of the same sex?

(3) Both of the above?

If the answer is 1, then the obvious question is, If it is okay for two men to have sexual relations with each other, why should it matter whether they are related or not? What difference would it make?

Even conceding that homosexual tendencies are “natural” in many people, does it express the nature and purpose of sex as well as heterosexuality does? Where does the idea that homosexual relationships is as "healthy" and as "ordered as heterosexuality" come from? Is it:

1. A progressive and better understanding of the function of sex in human relationships?

2. Our attempt to redefine the meaning of sex and gender?

3. A pragmatic acceptance of the realities of human sexuality without concern for their moral implications?

To choose answer #1 infers that there is indeed an objective Truth to human relationships with norms not made by man, which we must try to discover, understand, and follow.

If the answer is #2 Then the next question is: do we have the authority to redefine the meaning of sex and gender? And then, is there any other type of relationship, such as between brother and sister, father and daughter, or mother and son, which we cannot similarly redefine? Is any relationship sacred (defined by a higher authority than man)?

Do you think there is a limit to the things man will redefine to suit himself? Is there any type of relationship he dares not change?

Is there a natural code of behaviour to be followed between total strangers? As there may be a "truth" and a code of conduct to the relationship between family members, is there a "truth" which exists between strangers? Do people have any obligations toward others who are unrelated to themselves? Should people care whether a stranger is starving or homeless? Is it permissible to disrespect a stranger? Can one cheat or in any way abuse a stranger? Should one trust another before he or she proves worthy of one's trust? Should one share intimate things with strangers?

Is it true that at the heart of every moral issue is the question of man's authority to dictate the rules of his relationships with others and with nature itself? Is not the main issue of every moral dilemma, that of man accepting as truth whatever he fancies at the time? Is truth dependent on man?

"But we shook hands on it." Andre insisted. "I thought we had a deal." But Joel pointed out, "I never said that I would give you my bike if you helped me pass maths. You just assumed that I would." But we shook on it.," Andre again pleaded. "So what?" Joel replied flippantly. Then angrily Andre said, "So you are a liar. Your handshake is a lie. You made me believe one thing and you knew all along that you would not give it to me. A handshake is a handshake. Both you and I know that a handshake means that we agree. But you now say that it does not. Now I cannot trust your handshake, and I will never again trust you.

Was Andre misled by Joel?

Are there nonverbal signs such as a smile or a nod of the head, which have cultural or even universal meanings to human beings?

If someone seems quite warm with you and gives you a friendly smile then goes and says the worst things about you to another person, does that mean the smile was untrue or false or deceitful?

Candice was having an intimate relationship with Ricky for six weeks before she found out that he was married. She felt very hurt and could not understand how he could have deceived her, but she completely broke down when Ricky told her that he did not really love her and thought that they were only having a good time together. "But you made love to me. Did that not mean anything to you?" she asked him. But to Ricky it really did not mean anything.

Does sex have a truth and a nature of its own. or is it more like a man-made tool of communication? Is it similar to a word that man has created, and whose meaning man has the power to change?

Some use sex to express love, some power, others submission. Sadly, sometimes others use it to express hate and anger. For many, the meaning of sex does not go beyond the satisfaction of bodily urges. But does it have a true meaning or even an ideal context for expression which a man cannot change?

Does sex have the intrinsic meanings of love and openness and closeness between two people? Does it mean that two people are open to the possibility of having a child

Is "casual sex" deceitful?

What about the Truth of yourself? Do the opinions others have of you change the Truth of who you are? Do the opinions and words of others change the way you see yourself?

Do you consider the opinions of your parents or teachers in the same way as your peers?

Are you the only one who has the authority to change the Truth about yourself, like the principal had authority to "create" the Truth of the meeting? Or does a God have the only authority to define your truth? Can you decide to be a better person?

Can you think of any written words which are creative and not just descriptive?

Are the laws of your country creative or descriptive? On whose authority are they based?

Is all authority ultimately subject to the authority of a 'God?'

If truth is defined by authority, and all authority is subject to the authority of a 'God,' then to fully understand truth, one must understand it in the context of that ultimate authority. But what or who is 'God?' What do we know of “God,' if he, she, or it even exists?

As presumptuous as it may be, the following chapter takes up the challenge of studying this question.

Activity: Debate the proposition,

'It is always right to be honest." Or conversely, "Sometimes the right thing to do is lie."

Or discuss the following scenario:

Many years ago, religious missionaries working among a remote tribe of Native Americans translated their sacred scriptures into the native language. The whole tribe eventually was converted to this new religion and considered the scriptures as truth, since it was taken as the words of "God".

Sometime after, however, the US army completely destroyed the tribal village. A Soldier found a copy of the scriptures but was unaware of its significance. In fact, there was no longer anyone left who could understand the words of this translation.

Are the scriptures translated into the native language still truth? Was it ever truth? If so, what exactly made it truth? Was it objective or subjective?