Truth vs. Happiness?

[oliman]

I know this isn't always the case, but let's assume that the truth is something bad and happiness is the total obliviousness to it. Something that comes right off the top of my head is the Christian heaven being vs the atheist non-existence being the truth. Would you be unhappy for your entire life knowing the truth or be blissful in ignorance?

Again, we must assume that non-existence is bad and heaven is good. I also don't want this becoming a religious debate, this is just the best example I can think of.

 

[#HBC | Acrostic]

Hypotheticals I Came Up With:​

If you were a psychiatrist at a clinic and you had been offering a patient in a trial study who was suffering depression the entire time placebo pills that only contained sugar, yet the patient said he was feeling better, would you inform the patient of the truth? As the patient, do you feel that you would have a desire to know the truth?

When it comes to political campaigns, do you believe that personal slander and smearing are aspects of information that help clarify whether a candidate has the qualities to make a good leader? Or do you feel that the system would be better off with promoting privacy and enforcing legal action if such personal matters are outed to the general public?

Do you feel that parents are better off knowing whether their children have been born with genetic predispositions? Or do you feel that awareness of such traits will cause over compensation and other problems to arise in the child's development?

Is there a limit to how much certain concepts should be taught such as in physics or quantum mechanics that could potentially lead to the engineering of weapons such as hydrogen and atomic bombs? Or should this information remain free in order to promote accelerate learning and mutual progress?

A Real Case:​

Rofecoxib (play /ˌrɒfɨˈkɒksɪb/) is a nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) that has now been withdrawn over safety concerns. It was marketed by Merck & Co. to treat osteoarthritis, acute pain conditions, and dysmenorrhoea. Rofecoxib was approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) on May 20, 1999, and was marketed under the brand names Vioxx, Ceoxx, and Ceeoxx.

Rofecoxib gained widespread acceptance among physicians treating patients with arthritis and other conditions causing chronic or acute pain. Worldwide, over 80 million people were prescribed rofecoxib at some time.[1]

On September 30, 2004, Merck voluntarily withdrew rofecoxib from the market because of concerns about increased risk of heart attack and stroke associated with long-term, high-dosage use. Merck withdrew the drug after disclosures that it withheld information about rofecoxib's risks from doctors and patients for over five years, resulting in between 88,000 and 140,000 cases of serious heart disease.[2] Rofecoxib was one of the most widely used drugs ever to be withdrawn from the market. In the year before withdrawal, Merck had sales revenue of US$2.5 billion from Vioxx.[3]

Rofecoxib was available on prescription as tablets and as an oral suspension. It was available by injection for hospital use.

 

[Dre89]

I'd rather know truth and suffer for it, but only because that knowledge allows you to contribute something good to the world.

If I couldn't make any contribution from my knowledge, I'd rather just be ignorant.

 

[Jim Morrison]

First, you must define a truth. If someone was unaware of the truth, but believed something else to be true (AKA Christians believing in God), wouldn't that be their truth and they would still be happy?

We know so little of the DNA and what we're actually doing with it, but it's still assumed the truth, just like a geocentrical solar system was the truth in the 1300's.

I'd like to see a definition of an universal truth, and when people not believe in that. My prediction is that this argument will dwindle down to that path of rationalism being the generally accepted truth or not.

 

[Dre89]

An atheist's beliefs and a Christian's beliefs can't both be truths because they're contradictory. Truth isn't subjective.

 

[Toruk Makto]

First, you must define a truth. If someone was unaware of the truth, but believed something else to be true (AKA Christians believing in God), wouldn't that be their truth and they would still be happy?

We know so little of the DNA and what we're actually doing with it, but it's still assumed the truth, just like a geocentrical solar system was the truth in the 1300's.

I'd like to see a definition of an universal truth, and when people not believe in that. My prediction is that this argument will dwindle down to that path of rationalism being the generally accepted truth or not.

I believe he is just asking a hypothetical question and assuming that there are absolute universal truths, but in order to gain these truths you must sacrifice happiness, and in order to gain happiness, you must sacrifice the truths. This is not necessarily the reality that we live in, which is why his question is hypothetical. In his example hypothetical he is asking to assume:

-Heaven/God = Untrue, but to believe in it makes one happy
-No Heaven/No God = Truth, but to realize this truth makes one empty and unhappy

His question isn't whether this is realistically the case, but if it were, which should one choose if they could?

If you were a psychiatrist at a clinic and you had been offering a patient in a trial study who was suffering depression the entire time placebo pills that only contained sugar, yet the patient said he was feeling better, would you inform the patient of the truth? As the patient, do you feel that you would have a desire to know the truth?

I like this example much more than the above, and I think it's a great representation of the proposed question.

The difficulty with this question, "truth or happiness?", is that realistically I don't believe that one generally excludes the other. Though the case with the psychiatrist comes as close to a realistic example we will get.

If it were true that one could only have one or the other (truth or happiness), then I believe it would make logical sense to choose happiness. If the truth does not bring satisfaction, then what purpose would you have for it?

OP example: If it was true that there was no God and that knowing such a thing would bring you emptiness and unhappiness, then what use would this truth do for you? Knowledge that brings unhappiness and doesn't have any other use has no value, thus it would not be worth knowing. If the universe and our lives had no meaning at all, then why not simply choose to be happy rather than knowing this fact and be unhappy? If there is no benefit to truth, then happiness (which is intrinsic in value) is logically the best choice.

Psychiatrist example: Again here if the truth would solely bring me happiness, then I would prefer not to know. As the psychiatrist I wouldn't want my patient to know the truth for the same reason; however, from the psychiatrist position I believe it would be my duty to reveal the truth. I don't believe anyone has the right to conceal the truth from another. But that's a whole other issue in itself.

Now let's look at these realistically. Truth does not necessarily result in unhappiness, and respectively ignorance doesn't necessarily result in happiness (though I must say there are many cases that this is so...). In this case I believe truth is always the best option as it is the only way towards progress, and I believe that progress ultimately results in happiness. Truth --> Progress. Progress --> happiness.

Advancement in knowledge (i.e advancement in truth) is explanatory in itself as progress. As for why progress results in happiness, this sums it up well: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uMymZoj9Z8g&feature=channel_video_title


In summary, the proposed assumption given by the OP in which truth and happiness are exclusive, it is the logical choice to choose happiness as truth has no intrinsic value based on this assumption, where as happiness does. However, realistically truth often intrinsically brings satisfaction/happiness, and if not so it still takes steps towards progress which ultimately results in long term happiness for everyone.

However, now the question seems to be, is the happiness from truth greater than happiness while ignorant?

 

[Holder of the Heel]

Yeah, I have to say that there are only beneficial reasons as to why we seek truth. If a specific piece of truth entailed no benefit whereas a lie did, then the lie would be the most logical choice. However, like mentioned above, truth doesn't entail happiness, and knowing a truth and that truth making you sad is ultimately your fault, and it could be argued (as I would) that it is possible to avoid sadness with any truth. So in a SENSE I say truth is better, for I see no reason why a truth should be upsetting, but under the assumption nothing progresses, and lies doing the converse, lie > truth.

 

[Sucumbio]

Truth isn't subjective.

Fact isn't subjective.

Truth can be.

http://www.differencebetween.net/miscellaneous/difference-between-fact-and-truth/

 

[Orboknown]

So in a SENSE I say truth is better, for I see no reason why a truth should be upsetting,

So you have never read Oedipus Rex? The title character is operating under the assumption that he came to a town after escaping from his parents to dodge a prophecy of the Gods that say he will kill his own father and have sex with his mother.
Under the assumption that the man and woman who raised him were his parents, Oedipus leaves and meets a man and his escort in the woods.He eventually kills the group. He gets to a city where the king has just died, he defeats the sphinx and marries the queen.
Years later, he finds that the man he killed was indeed his father, the king of the city he has reigned over. The queen is actually his mother. The truth can be very upsetting indeed.

 

[Holder of the Heel]

Emphasis on the word "CAN be upsetting". But we all have the capability to not be upset by anything that comes are way. Finding that news upsetting, believe it or not, is your own fault. Not that it is uncalled for to find it upsetting, but the only one who can decide whether it is or not is yourself.

 

[Orboknown]

The point being that some truths are indeed upsetting to those whom it affects.
That's subjective though.

 

[Holder of the Heel]

Well it is quite obvious that there are things that upset people because they can't handle the truth, but that isn't my point.

 

[Jim Morrison]

You're thinking in abstract human forms though.

So in a SENSE I say truth is better, for I see no reason why a truth should be upsetting, but under the assumption nothing progresses, and lies doing the converse, lie > truth.

Assuming we are all human, have emotions and feelings, we can say there is definitely truth that upsets us, with reason, because nothing happens without reason (reason as in cause).

The whole point of this thread is to debate the truth vs happiness, and it has then come up that truth brings happiness. How is this possible, if we have just concluded that there are truths that upset us, as humans? Truths CAN bring happiness, just as it CAN be upsetting.

I am now wondering, what would be a universal characteristic of a truth...

 

[ElvenKing]

I am now wondering, what would be a universal characteristic of a truth...

That it is true. A truth is "something that is the case."

 

[Orboknown]

You cant use a word to define itself. Saying a truth is something that is true does not give any characteristic of what a universal truth would be

 

[Holder of the Heel]

Didn't you read the second sentence of his post? Or was it a tl;dr? XD

 

[Pachinkosam]

I agree with truth because the truth will set you free.

 

[Orboknown]

Didn't you read the second sentence of his post? Or was it a tl;dr? XD

I read it.still felt the need to mention that.

I agree with truth because the truth will set you free.

Cliches. Truth wil set you free while chaining your thoughts to what you have learned to be true.

 

[ElvenKing]

You cant use a word to define itself. Saying a truth is something that is true does not give any characteristic of what a universal truth would be

Well, you are simply wrong. The characteristic of truth is a conception that there is something present which is known to exist. There are quite a number of things which are simply themselves.

Let's try this: you define what the characteristics of truth are. I mean everyone uses the concept everyday to mean something. What do they mean?

 

[Orboknown]

Truth's are something which are proven to be undeniably correct 100% of a time.

 

[ElvenKing]

Truth's are something which are proven to be undeniably correct 100% of a time.

That is not actually correct. There are several truths that are the case that actually haven't been proven, in the sense of deriving that they must be. Let's begin with this:

Prove that the screen in front of you exists.

 

[Orboknown]

I can physically touch it, therefore i can prove that it at the time is 100% undeniably there.

 

[ElvenKing]

I can physically touch it, therefore i can prove that it at the time is 100% undeniably there.

How do you know it is there for you to physically touch?

You can certainly say that there is something there for you to physical touch, but that is not deriving that it must be there. You still haven't proven its existence. You have just said: "It is there and I can touch it."

 

[Orboknown]

How does it not exist if it is there and i can physically observe it?

 

[Jim Morrison]

Truth's are something which are proven to be undeniably correct 100% of a time.

But then

Fact isn't subjective.

Truth can be.

http://www.differencebetween.net/miscellaneous/difference-between-fact-and-truth/

Would you argue that a truth = always a fact?

 

[ElvenKing]

How does it not exist if it is there and i can physically observe it?

That isn't the issue. The issue is you deriving that it must exist. You haven't shown how that you experiencing something means that it must exist.

The point here is that you cannot derive that what you experience exists. It is simply the case that the existence of what you experience is apparent. You experience of what is existent is true itself. What is exists "simply is" and that you experience it "simply is." There is truth without deriving that it must be.

 

[Orboknown]

But then

Would you argue that a truth = always a fact?

..
I would say that a true truth would be a fact. What someone considers true and what really is true are not always the same thing.
@Elven- alright i get the point.

 

[ElvenKing]

..
I would say that a true truth would be a fact. What someone considers true and what really is true are not always the same thing.
@Elven- alright i get the point.

You are correct. Truth is never anything but fact. That its point: that something is the case.

I'm not quite sure if Sucumbio was trying to communicate the truth that different people feel that different things are true or making the mistaken argument that truth could be other than objective.

 

[Sucumbio]

Let me clarify.

Fact: 1+1=2
Truth: The world is round.

The first is a microcosmic statement. It is a self contained statement that does not necessarily lead to anything else other than further examples of itself that can be broken down or expanded open. e.g...

(0.5+0.5)+(0.5+0.5)=(1)+(1)=2

or

(1+1)+(1+1)=(2)+(2)=4

"The world is round," a macrocosmic statement is, factually speaking, incorrect. The world is an oblate spheroid. But from a truth standpoint, the broader idea of the world being round is to correct an early "Truth" that the world was flat. Round being an easier word to evoke the image of the difference in truth between how things were and how they are, it is lexically common to refer to the world as "round." It is a true statement insofar as people will accept it as true.

This distinction is not unlike the distinction between Accuracy and Precision. In Significant Figures, a number can be both precise and accurate, or it can be only one or the other, or neither.

A football field is 100 yards. That is a precise number.

The walk from home to school is about 3 football fields long. That is an accurate number, but it isn't precise.

As far as Truth -always- being objective, that is not correct. 1+1=2 is objectively true. This makes it fact. It will NEVER change, no matter what you do, how you look at it, etc. It. Will. Always. Be. True.

"The world is flat" was true! For eons, it was the truth of our existence on Earth. But ... over time, that perception changed. Truths have the unique ability to be either factual (being something that can never change) or being subjective (an opinion, however educated, that may change as new information is gained).

Hope that clarifies my point.

 

[Dre89]

Something can't be precise and not accurate though.

I can't say I agree with the idea that the world being flat used to be true. If truth simply based on mass opinion, then it becomes arbitrary to determine when it is no longer truth, or how many people need to believe it to become a truth.

 

[Pachinkosam]

its every true i see a great topic becoming a big hit

 

[Orboknown]

Something can't be precise and not accurate though.

I can't say I agree with the idea that the world being flat used to be true. If truth simply based on mass opinion, then it becomes arbitrary to determine when it is no longer truth, or how many people need to believe it to become a truth.

Which is why i said a "True Truth", something is really is true, regardless of opinion.

 

[Sucumbio]

Something can't be precise and not accurate though.

"A measurement system can be accurate but not precise, precise but not accurate, neither, or both." -source

I can't say I agree with the idea that the world being flat used to be true. If truth simply based on mass opinion, then it becomes arbitrary to determine when it is no longer truth, or how many people need to believe it to become a truth.

O ye that reject Faith!
I worship not that which ye worship,
Nor will ye worship that which I worship.
And I will not worship that which ye have been wont to worship,
Nor will ye worship that which I worship.
To you be your Way, and to me mine.

- Qu'ran, surah 109 "The Atheists"

There are so many types of truth, that it's important to distinguish truth from fact. Facts are facts. They are objective, testable, never change, etc. Truths... truths are often met by consensus. In a Court of Law, a Jury by Peers reaches a decision based on the presentation of Facts, but each presenter is sworn to tell "the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help them God." If two witnesses to the same crime recount the incident in two different ways, and they are both telling the truth, which truth is better to use to help decide for the jury's sake? Maybe both are equally compelling truths, and cannot be separated so easily.

 

[GofG]

so far this argument seems to have been an argument over the definition of the word 'truth'

this is ridiculous

the first thing you're supposed to do when you notice someone using a word differently than you would, in such a way that it becomes impossible to have a debate, you don't say, 'you're wrong about how you're using that word'. you say, 'hey, i don't grok that definition, we need to agree upon a carefully worded definition for that word before we can continue'.

like the whole, 'if a tree falls in a forest, does it make a sound?' argument, for instance, which is easily resolved by defining 'sound' as either 'an auditory sensory packet' or 'a wave of moving air at a specific frequency and amplitude'.

anyway, i always thought the whole 'truths are subjective but facts aren't' seemed like a copout. if something is true, it is 100% accurate about reality, or it isn't true. I like that definition, and we can redefine 'less-than-true truths' (as opposed to somehow true truths) to be 'beliefs', which seems to be the better word for what some above are describing as truth anyway.

I believe that truth is inherently better than happiness, simply because it is much less fragile. It is possible to destroy a truth with a falsehood, but it is much harder than destroying a falsehood with the truth. The truth is nigh-invincible, being that you can often recover it independently. I consider happiness which is well-supported by truth to be 'strong' happiness, and happiness not based on truth at all to be 'weak' happiness. Love vs religious belief, for instance.

 

[Dre89]

In logic, a true argument is an argument that is sound, which is completely objective.

Metaphysically, truth is the unity of thinking and reality (as a falsehood only exists in the mind), and reality is objective.

The logic definition is probably the best one because logic is axiomatic.

 

[ElvenKing]

"A measurement system can be accurate but not precise, precise but not accurate, neither, or both." -source



O ye that reject Faith!
I worship not that which ye worship,
Nor will ye worship that which I worship.
And I will not worship that which ye have been wont to worship,
Nor will ye worship that which I worship.
To you be your Way, and to me mine.

- Qu'ran, surah 109 "The Atheists"

There are so many types of truth, that it's important to distinguish truth from fact. Facts are facts. They are objective, testable, never change, etc. Truths... truths are often met by consensus. In a Court of Law, a Jury by Peers reaches a decision based on the presentation of Facts, but each presenter is sworn to tell "the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help them God." If two witnesses to the same crime recount the incident in two different ways, and they are both telling the truth, which truth is better to use to help decide for the jury's sake? Maybe both are equally compelling truths, and cannot be separated so easily.

That is the truth of how two people experience an event. Neither of these is necessary what actually occurred. It might have appeared to one or both that things happened in a particular way when it didn't, meaning it is true that they experienced what happened in the way they described, but it is not the truth off what actually happened.

"Equally compelling truths" is a question of when there is not enough information to determine what is true, and so no sure conclusion about what is right can be reached. This does not change the nature of what is actually true in terms of the point trying to answered(regardless of what can be determined from available information, what is the case remains the same), even if it does never enter human knowledge.

 

[Mr. game and watch]

Truth is not relative. When you all use "truth" I use an analogy.

Let's call something objective to be "perscriptions" and something subjective to be "ice cream."
The term "I like vanilla more than chocolate ice cream" is an "ice cream statement." it's subjective, and based on your opinion.
"you need to take X pill for Y amount of days" is a prescription statement. It's presented to you as truth.

"I drive a black corvette" is not true, but still objective, and still a perscription statement.

Truth, however, is something factual.
"the earth is flat" is a perscription statement, while it doesn't hold to be true. "we live on earth" is both perscription and true.

"I believe in God" is true and perscription.
"God exists." is perscription, and whether is true will rest for another thread.
"God doesn't exist." is also perscription. The definition some of you gave doesn't apply here. While both of these are presented as true, they are but perscriptions, and whether or not you say God does not exist doesn't change the truth of either Him existing or not.


That being said, in looking at Truth vs. happiness, the main question I would ask is "which is more beneficial?"

Truth, while often painful, saddening, and uncomfortable, is beneficial. Happiness is not always beneficial.
If playing five-finger-fillet makes you happy, it is not beneficial. Because odds are, you will get cut.

I think even when truth can remove happiness, It is beneficial, even in the sorrowful moments. If I learned for a fact that God does not exist, then I would be depressed. But this truth would benefit me, because now I could stop wasting my time.

When I critique a replay of your Jigglypuff, I could say "You suck, you missed 10 rests, staled the balls off you fair, never touched bair once, and down smashed 8 times in a row."

You would most definitly not be happy, but the truth will, infact, benefit you.




How'd I do?

 

[Pachinkosam]

true i agree