Distinctions between What is True and What is False - Essay Example

There are no absolute distinctions between what is true and what is false: These days, the concept related to the distinctions between what is true and what is false seems to have become increasingly blurred. Blame for inadequately conceiving this concept cannot be imposed on the people alone, since this confusion results from a combination of people’s actions and societal systems. There are such incredibly absurd societal systems existing in some parts of the world, which induce people living in those societies to forget the conspicuous boundary between right and wrong, truth and falsities, and just and unjust. It is from the bedrock of such misbehavior and ignorance resulting from such scenarios that people deny the absolute distinctions existing between truth and falsities. That is the reason, discussion examining the differences between what is true and what is wrong has almost always been a hot topic among sociologists and psychologists, who strive to find out the facts with the help of astute researches regarding whether there is any truth in the claim that “there are no absolute distinctions between what is true and what is false.” In my opinion, this statement or claim is unequivocally false and unjustified and I believe this because were it not for the clear distinction between truths and falsities, this world would have experienced long ago a horrible mess and pandemonium in no time at all. It is only because some people clearly see and realize the differences between the correct and incorrect actions that there is some peace left in this world. Agreeing on the doubtless boundary line marked between right and wrong is a factual and reality-based concept. “Absolutism” and “relativism” are two famous ethical approaches that are highly worth mentioning when discussing this claim that are the truths and falsities two entirely separate domains or not. Absolutism lays stress on the existence and applicability of moral or ethical standards and suggests that right is right and wrong is wrong and there is a clear difference between the good and bad actions. Believers of absolutism have a clear vision for identifying the morally justified deeds and know how to distinguish them from unethical and socially offensive actions. Respecting and abiding by the established moral laws is very important according to absolutism for preserving the traditional or conventional values, which reflect the obvious difference between just and unjust things. If the theory of absolutism is scrutinized, this much becomes clear that its whole philosophy strives to fulfill the obligation of disproving the claim that every action can be justified and that people have unlimited privileges to do whatever they wish to do. It lays responsibility on an individual to behave according to the rules and regulations by clearly recognizing the segregation between right and wrong and thus, struggle to act without pretenses. This philosophical theory is really fraught with denying the claim that everything is true and justified, and there is no such thing as falsehood. Absolutists claim that every action planned to be performed is either true or false, thus firmly drawing a line between what is right and what is false. According to Fumerton and Jeske (359), moral absolutism distinguishes between true and false by making a person realize the right course of a planned action and gives a clear idea of the consequences of every action, so that a person can judge the actual nature of the action with the help of them. It is the capability of understanding the real nature of an action, that enables one to comprehend the visible difference between truth and fake realities or falsities, which otherwise appear so obscured and vague that everything and all the actions form a confused mess and one loses the capacity to understand the nature of true and false deeds. If, even for a second, we forget the facts and stand by the claim that there is no difference between truth and falsities, then will any of us feel the need or obligation to act in accordance with the principles and preserve the values? The answer is a straight no if the question is contemplated honestly. This is so because by forgetting or denying the absolute distinction between facts and pretenses, one is exempted from the responsibility of avoiding or committing sins, as a result of which values and humanity will be brutally violated. Moral and intentional purity can never be preserved if one does not know how to identify the differences between truth and falsehood. This is because actions have to be based on either true or false reasons, and every action is either justified or unjustified since there is no third option. In stark contrast to absolutism, the theory of relativism believes the claim that there is no absolute distinction between what is true and what is wrong. No kind of segregation or distinction is marked between facts and pretenses by this theoretical approach. Many times a person may feel difficulty in recognizing his/her mistake, because he/she is unable to realize the difference between true and false. Such lack of understanding results when one exempts oneself from every moral duty and social responsibility that would make one strive to perform good and talk facts. Relativism reflects this lack of deliberate incomprehension along with indifferent and defiant behavior displayed by an individual. According to Strandberg (131), the making of the distinction between true and false is not totally constituted by an individual on his/her own, but socially learned concept also constitute the making of this distinction. Strandberg emphasizes that everyday, we learn lessons from the better experienced people living in our community, and most of out actions are directly or indirectly based on those socially learned concepts, which may not be based on facts and still we may perceive them as facts since our method of perceiving different notions largely depends on the persons from whom we catch them. If an actually non-factual concept is largely thought of as an authentic and foolproof concept, we may also think that the reality is just that way, thus blurring the line between right and wrong, truth and falsehood. Relativism grows this way when people lose the capacity to identify the differences between what is true and what is false and the exponential growth of relativism in some societies is considered an alarming situation by the sociologists and cognitive scientists. According to Baghramian (301), no matter whatever kind of lessons we catch from the societies we live in, there exists a firm difference between true and false, right and wrong that is totally independent of the locally accepted traditional versions of right and wrong. There are well-defined ethical rules, universal moral codes, and permanent standards that are satisfactorily applicable in any part of the world, and that can inculcate the sense of distinguishing between true and false actions in human minds. Baghramian (302) believes that the theoretical approach of relativism is full of risk of causing moral paralysis in the context of brutal injustice and cruel atrocities. It presents the view that one can do almost anything for acquiring happiness and justify his/her actions, since there are no established standards of true and false actions and therefore, no absolute distinction between the two domains. Cline (2006) asserts the absolute distinction between facts and falsities by saying that people’s lives largely base on the nature and course of their actions, which are either wrong or right. In order to ensure a confusion-free and smooth life, one must have a clear idea as to how to distinguish between what is true and false. This is a matter of extreme importance that people learn the way to identify the differences between truth and falsity in every situation, no matter how much tempting the alternative option may seem if this difference is deliberately denied and people start behaving lawlessly. Summing up, this much becomes clear form the above discussion that the segregating boundary between truths and falsities is absolute and it cannot be denied. The necessity of observing and analyzing this distinction is unequivocally important for causing the betterment of a society. I, personally, strongly defy this claim that there are no absolute distinctions between what is true and what is false, and I believe that it is the duty of every person to develop a clear approach for defending the differences existing between factual and non-factual actions. No matter whatever traditional and conventional approach is established in a society for perceiving myriad everyday actions, we should believe that there is an eternal ethical code that truly details the actual differences between facts and falsities. That ethical standard should be considered authentic, rather than abiding by the varying and fake societal laws that mostly, blur the distinctions between the reality-based actions and false pretenses. An alive conscious is very much important for determining the differences between truth and falsehood. Most of the crime in this world results when people have absolutely no idea of what is true and what is wrong, and so they behave criminally since a dead conscious cannot warn a person about the nature of their actions. Higher the level of consciousness, higher will be the level of effectively discerning facts from fools. Works cited: Baghramian, Maria. Relativism. Oxfordshire: Routledge, 2004. Print. Cline, Austin. “Truth, Falsehood, and Religious Belief (Book Notes: God's Defenders).” 14 Oct. 2006. Web. 31 Oct. 2010. Fumerton, Richard, and Jeske, Diane. Introducing Philosophy Through Film: Key Texts, Discussion, and Film Selections. John Wiley and Sons, 2009. Print. Strandberg, Hugo. The possibility of discussion: relativism, truth, and criticism of religious beliefs. England: Ashgate Publishing, Ltd., 2006. Print. Read More