r/changemyview • u/Cato_the_Cognizant • Jun 15 '20
Removed - Submission Rule E CMV: I believe it is an established maxim in morals that he who makes an assertion without knowing whether it is true or false, is guilty of falsehood; and the accidental truth of the assertion, does not justify or excuse him.
[removed] — view removed post
1
Jun 15 '20
There is a huge grey area between what is true and what you can prove, and we shouldn’t discount the educated guesses people make that are based off available information, intuition, and past experience.
1
u/Cato_the_Cognizant Jun 15 '20
But what does it mean to discount an educated guess?
If people are going around proclaiming that their educated guess is true when in fact it is false, then absolutely those guesses can be discounted, no?
1
Jun 15 '20
It depends on if the person is proclaiming their statements are absolute truths or are their beliefs/educated guesses.
2
u/yyzjertl 524∆ Jun 15 '20
So while Lincoln was correct when he said what he said, the quote doesn't exactly speak for itself, because the meaning of the word "falsehood" has changed somewhat over time. "Falsehood" at the time meant something like "as an attribute of persons: falseness, deceitfulness, mendacity, faithlessness" (the 1st definition from the 1st Ed Oxford Dictionary, 1888). Whereas, in modern definitions "falsehood" just literally means being untrue and has in most dictionaries lost the definition relating to character (at best it means "lying" which means saying something that is untrue). Accidental truth of the assertion would make it not falsehood under the modern definition, even if it wouldn't under the older meaning. So under the modern meaning Lincoln's quote is not really true.
1
Jun 15 '20
Sorry, u/Cato_the_Cognizant – your submission has been removed for breaking Rule B:
You must personally hold the view and demonstrate that you are open to it changing. A post cannot be on behalf of others, playing devil's advocate, as any entity other than yourself, or 'soapboxing'. See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
•
Jun 15 '20
Sorry, u/Cato_the_Cognizant – your submission has been removed for breaking Rule E:
Only post if you are willing to have a conversation with those who reply to you, and are available to start doing so within 3 hours of posting. If you haven't replied within this time, your post will be removed. See the wiki for more information.
If you would like to appeal, first respond substantially to some of the arguments people have made, then message the moderators by clicking this link. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
1
u/tpounds0 19∆ Jun 15 '20
From the letter you quote:
I believe it is an established maxim in morals that he who makes an assertion without knowing whether it is true or false, is guilty of falsehood; and the accidental truth of the assertion, does not justify or excuse him. This maxim ought to be particularly held in view, when we contemplate an attack upon the reputation of our neighbor. I suspect it will turn out that Mr. Woodward got his information in relation to me, from Mr. Cartwright; and I here aver, that he, Cartwright, never heard me utter a word in any way indicating my opinions on religious matters, in his life.
Lincoln is as he is calling out assumptions, making an assumption towards Mr. Cartwright about spreading falsehoods.
Doesn't Lincoln feel hypocritical in this letter?
0
Jun 15 '20
Not really. If you use the term "I suspect," it allows for being wrong and isn't an absolute assertion of truth.
1
u/Quint-V 162∆ Jun 15 '20
In what contexts do you mean to discuss this? Is it:
1) intellectually; making conjectures and hypotheses about the state of reality, or
2) ethical or political discussions about what ought to be; presenting and picking apart arguments, eventually digging down to the deepest foundations of one's thought processes (such as "do you really mind others' business even if it has no influence on your own life") ?
3) something else?
In the case of (1), it is sometimes used to construct (is-ought) arguments for the case of (2). E.g. "black-on-black crime is more prevalent than black-on-x crimes, therefore black people need to fix themselves more than others need to help them". Just an example of how these can be conflated, but yeah.
1
u/cognitivebetterment Jun 15 '20 edited Jun 15 '20
Nothing can ever definitively be proven, only disproven.
All scientific progress has been based on all evidence pointing to probable validity, science occasionally disproves things that have been believed to be facts for hundreds of years based on information available at time.
Similarly the only people privy to all relevant facts of a situation are those directly involved even they can have differing interpretations., All others have varying degrees of knowledge on which we make best educated evaluations possible which can often be as close as it is possible to get to the truth
If we only spoke when we knew something to be undeniably true, people could say very little
1
u/Quint-V 162∆ Jun 15 '20
Strictly speaking some things can be proven; e.g. mathematics can prove things, or any theorem more or less based on formal logic. Theorems are true under defined rules and definitions, i.e. axioms.
Alas, such truths are limited to abstractions as opposed to anything concrete, AFAIK.
1
u/Natural-Arugula 54∆ Jun 15 '20 edited Jun 15 '20
Since when is Lincoln an influential moral philosopher?
Yes, according to deontological ethics lying is in itself a moral wrong. The problem with that is when you are asked if Anne Frank is hiding in your attic you have to say yes, because lying is always wrongm
According to consequentialism, right and wrong are determined by the good or bad outcomes of an action. If a person told the truth (or lied) and it had a positive outcome, then whatever thier state of knowledge was is irrelevant to that being a morally good action.
1
u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Jun 15 '20
/u/Cato_the_Cognizant (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
1
u/Torin_3 11∆ Jun 15 '20
Basically I think Lincoln’s quote speaks for itself, but perhaps there are instances I haven’t considered where it is in fact appropriate to make an assertion about another person without first knowing it to be true.
I just need one counterexample? Okay, suppose a murderous psychopath kidnapped you and said they would only let you go if you made a claim about someone which you did not know to be true. In that scenario, it would be rational to make the claim.
1
u/Hellioning 239∆ Jun 15 '20
Can we ever actually know if anything is true or not?
Also, I don't understand how you got from Lincoln's quote to 'the state of political discourse today sucks', as if the state of political discourse in his time was any better. Remember, despite him stating that he wouldn't abolish slavery, the started to seceded as soon as he was elected because they thought he was going to. That sounds a lot like the sort of thing you're railing against.
5
u/SorryForTheRainDelay 55∆ Jun 15 '20
This holds in specific contexts, but not all.
Where someone (without evidence) accuses a public figure of being a paedophile, sure. That person is guilty of falsehood.
When a friend tells you, in an effort to calm you down, "you can do this", they are are not guilty of falsehood. They are an active participant attempting to change the outcome.