A Philosopher's Blog

Post Truth

Posted in Ethics, Philosophy by Michael LaBossiere on January 2, 2017

It has been declared, rather dramatically, that this is a post-truth era. In making a case for this, people point to Trump lifting himself into the presidency on an unrelenting spew of untruths as well as the surging success of fake news. On the one hand, this view is appealing: untruth seems to have emerged victorious over truth. On the other hand, this view is obviously false. Truth remains, as it always has and always shall. In discussing this matter, I will begin with a metaphor.

Imagine, if you will, people in a tent located within the jungle of the real. Between the fabric walls of the tent, the inhabitants weave narratives about all manner of things and are rewarded or punished based on whether others believe or reject their tales. Some realized it did not matter whether their tales were true or not and found that lies were lapped up like the sweetest honey. They became convinced that all that mattered was their stories. But they are wrong.

Outside the tent, stalking the jungle of the real, is a tiger whose name is “truth.” The tiger does not care about the sweetness of narratives. The thin fabric of the tent is no match for her claws. The tiger might pass by the tent (and perhaps the dwellers grow a bit quiet and nervous) time and time again while doing nothing (allowing the dwellers to return to their noisy tale telling). But someday, perhaps soon, the tiger will come through the thin fabric and her hunger will not be satisfied by even the sweetest of lies.

While a metaphor is not an argument, it is easy enough to make one based on the tiger story. The tent is analogous to the society we construct that serves as a fabric between us and the rest of world (the jungle of the real). The people in the tent are us and the untrue narratives are the lies. The tiger is truth, which is how things really are. As in the metaphor, no matter what lies people tell, the truth remains true. While people can often get away with these untruths and perhaps avoid the consequences for a while, reality remains unchanged for good or ill. For example, consider the narrative woven by the sugar industry about sugar, fats and heart disease.  This tale, told within the tent, has shaped the American diet for decades and served the sugar industry well. However, reality is not changed by such narratives and the consequences for health have been rather serious. The tobacco companies provide yet another example of this sort of thing. Perhaps the best example is climate change. Some think that it is lie told by a global conspiracy of scientists. Others think that its denial is a lie fueled by those who profit from fossil fuels. Regardless of one’s view, one side is weaving a false narrative. But the tiger is out there—the fact of the matter.

It could be objected that few believe that this is really a post-truth era in the sense that there is no truth. Rather, it is that truth just does not matter that much in certain contexts, such as politics. In one sense, this is true—Trump was, for example, rewarded for his relentless untruths and he might usher in a regime of untruth with great success. Some of those peddling fake news have also enjoyed great financial success, thus showing (once more) that there can be great profit in lies. On this view, Ben Franklin was wrong: honesty is no longer the best policy, lying is. At least in the context of politics and business.

In another sense, this is not true. While lying has proven an effective short term strategy, it will still ultimately run up against the truth. Going back to the metaphor, the tiger is always out there. As an example, while the narrative of climate change might result in short term success, eventually it will prove to be a long-term disaster. Those who believe it is real recognize the disaster will be the climate change. Those who deny it claim that the ruin will result from the catastrophic environmental policies imposed by the green gang. So, both sides assert that reality will impose a disaster—though they disagree on the nature of that disaster. While both cannot be right in their claims about climate change itself, they are both right that ignoring the truth will be a disaster—something that is very often the case.

It could be countered that my view is mistaken because I am considering the impact of such lies broadly—that is, how their consequences can impact people in general. I should, instead, focus on the advantages to those engaged in the untruths. In philosophical terms, I should embrace ethical egoism—the moral theory that what is right is to maximize value for oneself. Alternatively, I should just accept selfishness as a virtue.

While it is true that an unskilled liar can end up in trouble, those with a true talent for untruth can ensure that they benefit from their untruths and that the harmful consequences impact others. One obvious way this can occur is that the harms will take time to arrive. So, for example, lies about the climate will not harm the liars of today—they will be dead before the greatest consequences arrive. Another way this can happen is that the harms occur to other people and are avoided by the liar by physical distance from the harms of their lies. For example, lies about the safety of a town’s water would not impact the health of a governor who does not live in the town.

A third way is that the liar might be able to protect themselves through their wealth or position. For example, a rich straight white Christian who lies about things impacting Muslims, blacks, gays or poor people does not reap the harms of those lies. These consequences fall upon the others.

A selfish reply to this is that most of us are more likely to be harmed by broad lies than benefited by them. This is because most of us care about our relatives who will be alive when we are gone, because most of us live in the impact zone of lies, and because most of us lack the status and wealth to escape the consequences of broad lies. As such, we have a selfish interest to oppose lying—it ultimately hurts us far more than truth.

An altruistic reply is that we should care about other people and the harms they suffer. This can also be argued for on utilitarian moral grounds—that this lying will create more unhappiness than happiness for everyone. There is also the religious argument—most religions endorse the truth and enjoin us to show compassion for others, to love each other as God has loved us. As such, the post-truth world should be rejected. Honesty is, as Ben said, the best policy.


My Amazon Author Page

My Paizo Page

My DriveThru RPG Page

Follow Me on Twitter


10 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. TJB said, on January 2, 2017 at 8:14 am

    For example, consider the narrative woven by the sugar industry about sugar, fats and heart disease. This tale, told within the tent, has shaped the American diet for decades and served the sugar industry well.

    Am I the only one who has notices how the blame has been shifted from the government to the sugar industry?

  2. TJB said, on January 2, 2017 at 8:18 am

    Mike, if one is interested in truth, does one not have an obligation to re-evaluate one’s position when confronted with new evidence?

    • Michael LaBossiere said, on January 2, 2017 at 8:10 pm

      Yes; as Locke said, belief should be proportional to the evidence. So if new evidence is found, then this can warrant a change of position.

      • WTP said, on January 2, 2017 at 8:12 pm

        Duh! I mean, obviously.

  3. TJB said, on January 2, 2017 at 8:22 am

    Mike, in this essay you are blurring the distinction between “untruth” and “lie.” Is this intentional?

    • WTP said, on January 2, 2017 at 9:55 am

      If the blurring of this distinction were applied on a fair basis, because being fair is very, very important, to Mike’s posts, into which category do you suppose they would fall? Consider this, the sugar industry, or practically any of Mike’s corporate targets, is accountable to something of an objective standard in a court of law. Thus, no matter how the positions are stated, they must be honed either internally or within the courts to some degree of truthfulness. There is no such check on Mike’s “teachings”.

      Not to mention the Costanza defense. If Mike can use it, why not anyone else?

    • Michael LaBossiere said, on January 2, 2017 at 8:08 pm

      No; I’ve written so often about the distinction that I had hoped people would have that down by now.

  4. WTP said, on January 2, 2017 at 8:25 am

    Oh, FFFFS, if anyone around here is post-truth it is Mike himself. He has no interest in discussion that disrupts his, or the left’s (but I repeat myself) narrative. When points are raised by others in disagreement with one of his posts, running man just moves on. To call any of this solipsism and sophistry “philosophy” is post-truth itself.

  5. nailheadtom said, on January 2, 2017 at 10:11 am

    Comme d’habitude, the argument for truth vs. untruth is sketched in binary terms, a reflection, at least in this case, of the contemporary political paradigm. There is either global climate change or there is not. One is truth, the other, of necessity a lie, if a prediction can be so termed. Of course, this is very much of an over-simplification. There are many factors, known and unknown, that will determine conditions on the earth in the future. By spending a few minutes gazing at a full moon, one can see that its surface has been altered by collisions with other space bodies. There’s no reason such a thing could not happen at almost any moment to the earth itself and, in fact, it’s accepted that at times in the past it has. Volcanic eruptions have also altered the world’s climate, even in historical times. During the Devonian most of the world was covered by water, in the recent Pleistocene, ice. The very idea that there should be a stasis in world climate is preposterous. To say that human activity is changing the climate for the worse or better isn’t true or false. It’s mistaken.

    Evaluating whether a statement is a truth or a lie can also be affected by temporal considerations. What may be true at a given moment may be untrue in the next. Which moment is the more meaningful?

  6. ajmacdonaldjr said, on January 2, 2017 at 10:46 am

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: