An analysis of the concept "honesty"

Should you think about your duty, or about the consequences of your actions? Or should you concentrate on becoming a good person?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
SpheresOfBalance
Posts: 5142
Joined: Sat Sep 10, 2011 4:27 pm
Location: On a Metamorphic Elemental

Re: An analysis of the concept "honesty"

Post by SpheresOfBalance » Wed May 15, 2013 2:24 pm

prof wrote:Moral growth is encouraged by accurate feedback. If you are honest with a friend who asks you for an opinion you may be aiding in his/her moral development ... if you frame it right.

At least, by speaking truth, you are a good role-model for others.
Impenitent wrote:
prof wrote:
Impenitent wrote:I'm certain that your Ministry of Truth will provide accurate feedback.-Imp
imp

Is this your idea of doing Philosophy?

Wouldn't you agree that those who know nothing about truth ought not to be so certain about anything.

The only thing I know for sure is that I do not know.
Socrates is smiling
No, he's long dead, but obviously childish, pointless sarcasm is still alive and kicking.
prof wrote:Why didn't you look up the analysis of the concept "truth" that I offered, and maybe learn something??

Have you never heard of The Correspondence Theory of Truth? It says that when a consensus of several individual's perceptions agree with your conception - as found in some proposition you have stated - then that proposition is more likely to be "true." Let's say, for example, that you declare "It's raining outside." If other people put their noses to the window pane and see drops falling and a wet pavement, and perturbations in a puddle, they may respond, "Yes, that's true."

To illustrate the point in question: If you notice that a buddy of yours is getting obese, you may possibly do him a favor by reminding him to do something about it - before he comes down with various conditions associated with obesity. This can be done in a nice way (diplomatically) or in a way that hurts. If you did use language that hurts, you likely will rationalize what you did by saying: "I was truthful with him when he asked me for counseling." However you would be unethical because you did not minimize suffering.

If, however, when he asked you about his appearance you told him "You look great" you would not be providing him accurate feedback. You would be fibbing. In the long run you would not have maximized value - again, a failure to practice ethics.

If one is unaware that obesity is harmful, then substitute smoking in the example - but maybe that same reader has never heard of emphysema nor of lung cancer ...and could be ignorant of the misery that goes with it.

I , suspect Imp, that you CARE - at least for a good buddy of yours. Don't you?

The Libertarian ethos is: Let him kill himself if he so chooses [ by his bad habit ]. Is that a caring attitude, though? I ask you, imp, does caring have a place in Ethics? {Carol Gilligan and lots of others believe it does. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethics_of_care }

If you have no idea about that, tell us please why you are here at an "Ethical Theory" site? I'm really curious to know.

Thanks for an honest response.
so when everyone votes to jump off the bridge, it must be Truth...
Yes, the fact that everyone 'voted' to jump off the bridge is in fact truth, if and only if in fact they voted to do so, which says nothing of the truth in the doing of such. I expect far more from a Rush fan than this.
and by the by, your definition of the correspondence theory is not the one most epistemologists use...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correspond ... y_of_truth

and check out Sosa and Kim's anthology of epistemology

-Imp
Did you even read it?
Wikipedia said:
Wikipedia wrote:Correspondence theories claim that true beliefs and true statements correspond to the actual state of affairs.
And Prof said:
prof wrote:Let's say, for example, that you declare "It's raining outside." If other people put their noses to the window pane and see drops falling and a wet pavement, and perturbations in a puddle, they may respond, "Yes, that's true."
I'd say that both are in fact synonymous.

Impenitent
Posts: 1847
Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2010 2:04 pm

Re: An analysis of the concept "honesty"

Post by Impenitent » Thu May 16, 2013 1:37 am

SpheresOfBalance wrote:
prof wrote:Moral growth is encouraged by accurate feedback. If you are honest with a friend who asks you for an opinion you may be aiding in his/her moral development ... if you frame it right.

At least, by speaking truth, you are a good role-model for others.
Impenitent wrote:
prof wrote: imp

Is this your idea of doing Philosophy?

Wouldn't you agree that those who know nothing about truth ought not to be so certain about anything.

The only thing I know for sure is that I do not know.
Socrates is smiling
No, he's long dead, but obviously childish, pointless sarcasm is still alive and kicking.


he stole Socrates' line...

and then announces that he has found the truth (and even borrows an established name of a theory that has nothing to do with his group-think)





prof wrote:Why didn't you look up the analysis of the concept "truth" that I offered, and maybe learn something??

Have you never heard of The Correspondence Theory of Truth? It says that when a consensus of several individual's perceptions agree with your conception - as found in some proposition you have stated - then that proposition is more likely to be "true." Let's say, for example, that you declare "It's raining outside." If other people put their noses to the window pane and see drops falling and a wet pavement, and perturbations in a puddle, they may respond, "Yes, that's true."

To illustrate the point in question: If you notice that a buddy of yours is getting obese, you may possibly do him a favor by reminding him to do something about it - before he comes down with various conditions associated with obesity. This can be done in a nice way (diplomatically) or in a way that hurts. If you did use language that hurts, you likely will rationalize what you did by saying: "I was truthful with him when he asked me for counseling." However you would be unethical because you did not minimize suffering.

If, however, when he asked you about his appearance you told him "You look great" you would not be providing him accurate feedback. You would be fibbing. In the long run you would not have maximized value - again, a failure to practice ethics.

If one is unaware that obesity is harmful, then substitute smoking in the example - but maybe that same reader has never heard of emphysema nor of lung cancer ...and could be ignorant of the misery that goes with it.

I , suspect Imp, that you CARE - at least for a good buddy of yours. Don't you?

The Libertarian ethos is: Let him kill himself if he so chooses [ by his bad habit ]. Is that a caring attitude, though? I ask you, imp, does caring have a place in Ethics? {Carol Gilligan and lots of others believe it does. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethics_of_care }

If you have no idea about that, tell us please why you are here at an "Ethical Theory" site? I'm really curious to know.

Thanks for an honest response.
so when everyone votes to jump off the bridge, it must be Truth...
Yes, the fact that everyone 'voted' to jump off the bridge is in fact truth, if and only if in fact they voted to do so, which says nothing of the truth in the doing of such. I expect far more from a Rush fan than this.
and by the by, your definition of the correspondence theory is not the one most epistemologists use...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correspond ... y_of_truth

and check out Sosa and Kim's anthology of epistemology

-Imp
Did you even read it?
Wikipedia said:
Wikipedia wrote:Correspondence theories claim that true beliefs and true statements correspond to the actual state of affairs.
And Prof said:
prof wrote:Let's say, for example, that you declare "It's raining outside." If other people put their noses to the window pane and see drops falling and a wet pavement, and perturbations in a puddle, they may respond, "Yes, that's true."
I'd say that both are in fact synonymous.
then you share his lack of understanding. the correspondence theory of truth does not require an audience outside the observer.

-Imp

prof
Posts: 968
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 1:57 am

Re: An analysis of the concept "honesty"

Post by prof » Thu May 16, 2013 7:52 am

Impenitent wrote: ...announces that he has found the truth (and even borrows an established name of a theory that has nothing to do with his group-think)[/color]
If you are referring to me, this is mistaken. For I never announced that I had found the truth. My post comprised arguments as to why and how the concept "honesty" belongs to Ethics; and also I showed how there can be degrees of honesty, from least (lying altogether) to most (being ethically-committed to it, that is, Intrinsically-valuing it.

Also, anyone who even casually studied my theory of ethics noticed that I am opposed to group-think, and am for individuality, for variety-within-unity, and for individual autonomy. My system gives top priority to the individual, not the group !

Impenitent wrote:so when everyone votes to jump off the bridge, it must be Truth...
Yes, the fact that everyone 'voted' to jump off the bridge is in fact truth, if and only if in fact they voted to do so, which says nothing of the truth in the doing of such. ....
I never claimed anything remotely resembling this. ...I don't know where you get this stuff :!:

Impenitent wrote: your definition of the correspondence theory is not the one most epistemologists use...
Wikipedia wrote:Correspondence theories claim that true beliefs and true statements correspond to the actual state of affairs.
And Prof said:
prof wrote:Let's say, for example, that you declare ....
-Imp
As any reader can see, I offered an example NOT a definition. Furthermore, my example illustrated "that true beliefs and true statements correspond to the actual state of affairs."
Yes, I did imply that agreement by others would tend to add confirmation to a true proposition.

Hi, Impenitent

You are getting a little closer to actually doing philosophy. And that is progress !!
:wink:

.
Last edited by prof on Thu May 16, 2013 6:16 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Impenitent
Posts: 1847
Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2010 2:04 pm

Re: An analysis of the concept "honesty"

Post by Impenitent » Thu May 16, 2013 9:26 am

prof wrote:
Impenitent wrote: ...announces that he has found the truth (and even borrows an established name of a theory that has nothing to do with his group-think)[/color]
If you are referring to me, this is mistaken. For I never announced that I had found the truth. My post comprised arguments as to why and how the concept "honesty" belongs to Ethics; and also I showed how there can be degrees of honesty, from least (lying altogether) to most (being ethically-committed to it, that is, Intrinsically-valuing it.

Also, anyone who even casually studied my theory of ethics noticed that I am opposed to group-think, and am for individuality, for variety-within-unity, and for individual autonomy. My system gives top priority to the individual, not the group !

Impenitent wrote:so when everyone votes to jump off the bridge, it must be Truth...
Yes, the fact that everyone 'voted' to jump off the bridge is in fact truth, if and only if in fact they voted to do so, which says nothing of the truth in the doing of such. ....
I never claimed anything remotely resembling this. ...I don't know where you get this stuff :!:



prof wrote:Have you never heard of The Correspondence Theory of Truth? It says that when a consensus of several individual's perceptions agree with your conception - as found in some proposition you have stated - then that proposition is more likely to be "true."




Impenitent wrote: your definition of the correspondence theory is not the one most epistemologists use...
Wikipedia wrote:Correspondence theories claim that true beliefs and true statements correspond to the actual state of affairs.
And Prof said:
prof wrote:Let's say, for example, that you declare ....
-Imp
As any reader can see, I offered an example NOT a definition. Furthermore, my example illustrated "that true beliefs and true statements correspond to the actual state of affairs."

prof wrote:Have you never heard of The Correspondence Theory of Truth? It says that when a consensus of several individual's perceptions agree with your conception - as found in some proposition you have stated - then that proposition is more likely to be "true."



as any reader can see, your definition relies on a consensus whereas Russell and Moore et.al. do not base "Truth" on popular opinion




So, once again, we witness inaccuracy, misinterpretation, sloppy thinking, and the urge to conform to what most think.

At least, for a change, Impenitent, you are getting a little closer to actually doing philosophy. And that is progress !!

.
thank you for your insults and personal attacks

finis

-Imp

User avatar
SpheresOfBalance
Posts: 5142
Joined: Sat Sep 10, 2011 4:27 pm
Location: On a Metamorphic Elemental

Re: An analysis of the concept "honesty"

Post by SpheresOfBalance » Thu May 16, 2013 2:35 pm

SpheresOfBalance wrote:red
then
purple
Impenitent wrote:Black
then
blue
prof wrote:The only thing I know for sure is that I do not know.
Socrates is smiling
No, he's long dead, but obviously childish, pointless sarcasm is still alive and kicking.
he stole Socrates' line...
I'm sorry, but please show me where he said that he coined the paraphrase.
SpheresOfBalance wrote:red
then
purple
Impenitent wrote:Black
then
blue
prof wrote:Have you never heard of The Correspondence Theory of Truth? It says that when a consensus of several individual's perceptions agree with your conception - as found in some proposition you have stated - then that proposition is more likely to be "true." Let's say, for example, that you declare "It's raining outside." If other people put their noses to the window pane and see drops falling and a wet pavement, and perturbations in a puddle, they may respond, "Yes, that's true."
so when everyone votes to jump off the bridge, it must be Truth...
Yes, the fact that everyone 'voted' to jump off the bridge is in fact truth, if and only if in fact they voted to do so, which says nothing of the truth in the doing of such. I expect far more from a Rush fan than this.
and by the by, your definition of the correspondence theory is not the one most epistemologists use...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correspond ... y_of_truth

and check out Sosa and Kim's anthology of epistemology

-Imp
Did you even read it?
Wikipedia said:
Wikipedia wrote:Correspondence theories claim that true beliefs and true statements correspond to the actual state of affairs.
And Prof said:
prof wrote:Let's say, for example, that you declare "It's raining outside." If other people put their noses to the window pane and see drops falling and a wet pavement, and perturbations in a puddle, they may respond, "Yes, that's true."
I'd say that both are in fact synonymous.
then you share his lack of understanding. the correspondence theory of truth does not require an audience outside the observer.
While he made a mistake as to the definition, clearly his example was that of the correspondence theory, -Plus-.

Perspective is everything. We each choose that perspective that fuels our individual selfish desires.

prof
Posts: 968
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 1:57 am

Re: An analysis of the concept "honesty"

Post by prof » Thu May 16, 2013 6:46 pm

Since honesty is related to telling the truth, the topic of "truth" has come up. This is a concept usually discussed in Epistemology Forums, since "Truth" may be defined as: "Valuable Knowledge."

Extrinsic-truth is Objectivity. This correlates with The Correspondence Theory of Truth. However, a Unified Theory of Ethics would be concerned with a full spectrum of truth.

We would want propositions and statements to be Systemically-true, that is, sound. That correlates with The Coherence Theory of Truth. Soundness includes validity.

To be coherent is not enough; objective and subjective considerations are to be taken into account.

Intrinsic-truth is subjective truth. This correlates with the Existentialist views of truth. Here - among other perspectives - we find unshakeable confidence that something is the Truth. We find this in people of faith. Allowance ought to be made for this sense of "truth" also, since the fact that so many people intend this sense when they employ the concept, it is data for epistemologists to analyze and understand.

This thread though is about Honesty. Do you agree with me that is it essential to ethical living? Do you have any insights on honesty that you can share with us?

User avatar
Hjarloprillar
Posts: 952
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2012 7:36 am
Location: Sol sector.

Re: An analysis of the concept "honesty"

Post by Hjarloprillar » Thu May 16, 2013 8:55 pm

I share this
i speak the truth as i see it.

I hold profs post above as definition . well said.

I cannot hold a job.
[not that i need one]
i thought i'd try out working for or others . What a disaster.
The people i worked for were so stupid. Is this what society is? no standards.

NO QUALITY

what has quality to do with truth?
Yet it is common term.
Quality is subjective like beauty or love.
what one person holds as quality another cares naught.

Truth.
Is not just mathematics. and scientifically repeatable argue position.

To us.. we who observe.
truth is Peer Gynt Suite No.1
the curve of a womans hip.
The beauty of a fine line of poetry.

The wisdom of 'Gogito ergo sum'\

;)

Impenitent
Posts: 1847
Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2010 2:04 pm

Re: An analysis of the concept "honesty"

Post by Impenitent » Thu May 16, 2013 10:04 pm

SpheresOfBalance wrote:While he made a mistake as to the definition, clearly his example was that of the correspondence theory, -Plus-.

Perspective is everything. We each choose that perspective that fuels our individual selfish desires.
no, his example had nothing to do with the correspondence theory of truth; it was a weak attempt to conflate an established epistemological theory with his ethical system...

...

-Imp

User avatar
Hjarloprillar
Posts: 952
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2012 7:36 am
Location: Sol sector.

Re: An analysis of the concept "honesty"

Post by Hjarloprillar » Thu May 16, 2013 10:47 pm

Impenitent IS
Sphere of Balance.

He went purple LOL
you cant teach a dead dog new tricks

Coward
conniver.
false face
deceiver
squirrely SoB
something found behind fridge


sniker

reasonvemotion
Posts: 1649
Joined: Tue May 15, 2012 1:22 am

Re: An analysis of the concept "honesty"

Post by reasonvemotion » Fri May 17, 2013 12:58 pm

I think you are being a little harsh and for what reason?

A measure of one's intelligence.

User avatar
SpheresOfBalance
Posts: 5142
Joined: Sat Sep 10, 2011 4:27 pm
Location: On a Metamorphic Elemental

Re: An analysis of the concept "honesty"

Post by SpheresOfBalance » Fri May 17, 2013 3:27 pm

Impenitent wrote:
SpheresOfBalance wrote:While he made a mistake as to the definition, clearly his example was that of the correspondence theory, -Plus-.

Perspective is everything. We each choose that perspective that fuels our individual selfish desires.
no, his example had nothing to do with the correspondence theory of truth; it was a weak attempt to conflate an established epistemological theory with his ethical system...
prof said:
prof wrote:...you declare "It's raining outside." If other people put their noses to the window pane and see drops falling and a wet pavement, and perturbations in a puddle, they may respond, "Yes, that's true."
While it's true that others verified his truth statement, I see that he was using a real world scenario, so as to give weight to his argument. Most people don't say things to themselves such as: "humans have decided to call evaporated water that condenses at a certain altitude, into something called a cloud, that after reaching critical mass, releases water droplets, so as to fall to the ground, providing water, needed by life, rain, such that as I look out the window, I see water droplets falling from the clouds in the sky, which means that what I'm seeing corresponds with what we've decided to call it, such that it's necessarily true that it's raining." Well maybe you do, talk to yourself like that, that is, but most people don't. As an outside observer, in the real world, most of the time, the correspondence theory is seen in the communication of several people.

I believe that's what he was doing in his example, which tripped him up as he formulated the def. But it's true, that I have given him the benefit of the doubt, while you obviously have an axe to grind.

You give me a real world example of the correspondence theory of truth, so that I may know it, that is from your third person observer point of view, and I shall concede.


...

-Imp

Impenitent
Posts: 1847
Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2010 2:04 pm

Re: An analysis of the concept "honesty"

Post by Impenitent » Fri May 17, 2013 9:50 pm

SpheresOfBalance wrote:
Impenitent wrote:
SpheresOfBalance wrote:While he made a mistake as to the definition, clearly his example was that of the correspondence theory, -Plus-.

Perspective is everything. We each choose that perspective that fuels our individual selfish desires.
no, his example had nothing to do with the correspondence theory of truth; it was a weak attempt to conflate an established epistemological theory with his ethical system...
prof wrote:Have you never heard of The Correspondence Theory of Truth? It says that when a consensus of several individual's perceptions agree with your conception - as found in some proposition you have stated - then that proposition is more likely to be "true."

prof said:
prof wrote:...you declare "It's raining outside." If other people put their noses to the window pane and see drops falling and a wet pavement, and perturbations in a puddle, they may respond, "Yes, that's true."
While it's true that others verified his truth statement, I see that he was using a real world scenario, so as to give weight to his argument. Most people don't say things to themselves such as: "humans have decided to call evaporated water that condenses at a certain altitude, into something called a cloud, that after reaching critical mass, releases water droplets, so as to fall to the ground, providing water, needed by life, rain, such that as I look out the window, I see water droplets falling from the clouds in the sky, which means that what I'm seeing corresponds with what we've decided to call it, such that it's necessarily true that it's raining." Well maybe you do, talk to yourself like that, that is, but most people don't. As an outside observer, in the real world, most of the time, the correspondence theory is seen in the communication of several people.



in philosophy, the correspondence theory of truth has a specific definition and use.



I believe that's what he was doing in his example, which tripped him up as he formulated the def. But it's true, that I have given him the benefit of the doubt, while you obviously have an axe to grind.


no, I have no axe. I have studied philosophy.



You give me a real world example of the correspondence theory of truth, so that I may know it, that is from your third person observer point of view, and I shall concede.[/color]

...

-Imp
I gave you real world examples of the correspondence theory of truth.

http://books.google.com/books/about/Epi ... nXAAAAMAAJ

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/truth-correspondence/

http://instruct.westvalley.edu/lafave/T ... ories.html

-Imp

User avatar
SpheresOfBalance
Posts: 5142
Joined: Sat Sep 10, 2011 4:27 pm
Location: On a Metamorphic Elemental

Re: An analysis of the concept "honesty"

Post by SpheresOfBalance » Sun May 19, 2013 4:20 pm

Impenitent wrote:
SpheresOfBalance wrote:You give me a real world example of the correspondence theory of truth, so that I may know it, that is from your third person observer point of view, and I shall concede.
I gave you real world examples of the correspondence theory of truth.
No you didn't you gave me links to definitions, that's not what prof did.

My point, which I'm sure you're well aware, is that in 'your' words, I'd like you to give me a 'real world' example, as a 'third person observer,' of the 'correspondence theory' of truth, in action, as you witnessed it, so that I may understand it.

prof
Posts: 968
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 1:57 am

Re: An analysis of the concept "honesty"

Post by prof » Mon May 20, 2013 1:11 am

Am I the only one who has noticed that a thread on the topic "honesty" may have been hijacked?


Spheres, I thank you for your support. You are sincerely honest. I admire you.


The whole idea in ethics-as-a-new-paradigm is to add value to situations we find ourselves in. Added value is a positive thing. As imp would say, "It is double-plus good."

So if someone here would contribute to the analysis of the concept "honesty" or to "how to avoid lying" they would surely be adding value ....and thus increasing the value in life for us all.

prof
Posts: 968
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 1:57 am

Re: An analysis of the concept "honesty"

Post by prof » Mon May 20, 2013 1:49 am

duszek wrote:"I want always to tell the truth."

Salesmen also tell the truth when they try to sell something.
Truth in a certain sense.
They tell you the truth but not the whole truth. They hide the bad aspects.

Are they honest ?
As you said earlier, duszek, no one ever tells the whole truth.

You ask a very good question, though, When an individual, or group, holds back the bad aspects, are they being honest?

Everybody:

What would you say in response to that question?



This is addressed to Reasonvemotion.

You ask why I speak as a teacher.
That is what a professor does.

You say I speak in a condescending manner.

When someone makes a snide remark like this:

[See the 8th post down on page 1, from which I quote.]

"I'm certain that your Ministry of Truth will provide accurate feedback."

...how would you react? With reason alone, or with some emotion?

I did not see where that "Mintistry of Truth" crack came from. I felt it was uncalled for. ....Way out of line.

I respect all persons; and believe I am no better than anyone else. Thus it would be hard for me to actually be condescending. If someone takes it that way - I can't really help it.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests