Truth is Ruthless
Or, why the quest for truth should have nothing to do with feelings
đ Hey, Abhishek here! Welcome to the 124th edition of The Sunday Wisdom. Each week I share ideas on thinking clearly and making better decisions.
Something to remember when you reach rock bottom, from Matt Haigâs The Comfort Book:
You have survived everything you have been through, and you will survive this too. Stay for the person you will become. You are more than a bad day, or week, or month, or year, or even decade. You are a future of multifarious possibility. You are another self at a point in future time looking back in gratitude that this lost and former you held on. Stay.
On to this weekâs essay!
Iâve been thinking deeply about âpersonal freedomâ for the past few days and that has led to some interesting development in thoughts. Iâm presenting one of those aspects in this essay. These ideas are still a bit raw, so I might not have been able to articulate them very well. Happy to hear your thoughts. Feel free to challenge these ideas. Either reply to this email or leave a comment.
Note:Â If you find this issue valuable, can you do me a favour and click the little grey heart below my name (above)? It helps get the word out about this budding newsletter. đ
Today, letâs talk about truth. More precisely, the relationship between feelings and truth, and how they often get in the way of each other.
There is a scene in the movie Sherlock Holmes starring Robert Downey Jr. where Holmes analyses Mary Morstan, Watsonâs soon-to-be, at dinner. Even though he hesitates in the beginning, he relents after Mary âinsistsâ.
Holmes deduces some rather embarrassing details about Mary which makes her throw a drink on his face. Even though Holmes said the truth, it âhurtâ Maryâs feelings.
There are two fundamental ethical orientations that guide human behaviour: deontological ethics and consequentialist ethics.
Deontological ethics is an absolutist view of ethical standards. The rule is final. It dictates everything. There are no exceptions. For example, itâs never correct to lie, no matter what the circumstances.
Consequentialist ethics, on the other hand, evaluates actions based on consequences. For example, It is at times acceptable to lie to spare someoneâs feelings.
Humans operate under both systems. If your wife asks you if she looks overweight, you will utter ânoâ without flinching, whatever you actually think. On the other hand, all of us consider it morally wrong (under all circumstances) to make sexual advances on children.
There are however no clear rules about when to operate under which system. This fuzziness creates an interesting dilemma.
Say a professor from a reputed Indian university announces she wants to study the relationship between religion and intelligence. Say she decides to see how being a Hindu or a Muslim or a Christian or a Sikh in India affects our intelligence, would you be able to keep a straight face?
Letâs take a bit more extreme example: if a politician criticises a religion, say Islam, and its growing influence in India, isnât there a good chance youâll call him Islamophobic?
But if you think about it, people should have the right to criticise a religion in a free society. They should have the right to do so, and of course their criticisms are themselves open to criticism. Isnât that the essence of freedom of speech and thought?
In fact, the above examples arenât completely fictitious.
In 2010, Geert Wilders, a Dutch parliamentarian, was charged with a slew of crimes for criticising Islam and its influence in the Netherlands. When Mr. Wilders sought to call on expert witnesses to show that his concerns werenât unfounded, the response from the prosecutorâs office was: âIt is irrelevant whether Wildersâs witnesses might prove Wildersâs observations to be correct. Whatâs relevant is that his observations are illegal.â
In 2018, British sociologist Noah Carl was investigated and subsequently dismissed from his position as a Toby Jackman Newton Trust Research Fellow at St Edmundâs College, Cambridge after over 500 academics signed a letter refusing to accept his research on race and intelligence.
A deontological view asserts that it is never justified to suppress the truth. A consequentialist perspective asserts that the truth must at times be altered, fudged, or suppressed to avert bad consequences.
A consequentialist perspective forces you to be âpolitically correctâ which is important in a lot of circumstances but is a fundamental problem when it comes to the pursuit of truth.
Any human endeavour rooted in the pursuit of truth must rely on facts and not feelings.
Legal proceedings are a good example. We do not establish the innocence or guilt of defendants using feelings, do we? Instead we rely on a broad range of available facts to make a case. The threshold for establishing guilt is set purposely high: the cumulative evidence must be beyond a reasonable doubt to convict someone.
It is important to be concerned about feelings, especially when it comes to sharing the truth, but this concern should never prevent us from finding the truth!
For example, if gender or race really affects intelligence, itâs natural to be concerned about longterm adverse consequences if this information is shared publically, but this concern shouldnât stop somebody from pursuing the answer.
Otherwise itâs a slippery slope. If we prohibit somebody from studying the relationship between gender and intelligence today because we are afraid of âpublic sentimentsâ, tomorrow we might prohibit them from studying the relationship between lack of education and religious fanaticism, or the authenticity of palmistry, or the effectiveness of gau mutra (cow urine). Soon all weâll care about is public sentiment (which loosely translates to: make sure people like us) and have clue about what the truth really is.
While it might have been okay if Holmes would have saved Mary from the truth and didnât hurt her feelings, it wouldnât be okay if he didnât catch a criminal because it would hurt somebodyâs feelings. The nickname of Bengali detective Byomkesh Bakshi (created by writer Sharadindu Bandyopadhyay) is Satyanweshi or the pursuer of truth, and this isnât without reason. Itâs their job; their only job.
The pursuit of truth should always be deontological. Thereâs no room for exceptions or feelings or public sentiment or political correctness in the quest for truth.
Feelings are related to humans; truth is related to the universe. The universe doesnât care about humans. Truth ignores feelings.
Truth is relentless. Truth is ruthless.
Interesting Finds
We all have to say no sometimes. Itâs rarely easy. Sean Usher at the wonderful Letters of Note has compiled some of his favourite letters declining invitations. I might start using this one from E.B. White: âThanks for your letter inviting me to join the committee of the Arts and Sciences for Eisenhower. I must decline, for secret reasons.â
Rationality begins by asking how-the-world-is. But spreads virally to any other thought which depends on how we think the world is. Your beliefs about âhow-the-world-isâ can concern anything you think is out there in reality, anything that either does or does not exist, any member of the class âthings that can make other things happen.â
Timeless Insight
People generally determine what is correct by finding out what others think is correct â especially when they are in doubt.
â On Being Persuasive Without Authority
What Iâm Reading
Returning from work feeling inspired, safe, fulfilled and grateful is a natural human right to which we are all entitled and not a modern luxury that only a few lucky ones are able to find.
â Simon Sinek, Leaders Eat Last
Tiny Thought
People lose curiosity as they gain experience, becoming rigid around what works and what doesnât.
Before You GoâŚ
Send me tips, ideas, questions:Â abhishek@coffeeandjunk.com. Read all the essays Iâve written so far:Â coffeeandjunk.com.
Until next Sunday,
Abhishek đ