Q&A: Obligation to Truth
Obligation to Truth
Question
Maybe this is a philosophical question. But I wanted to know: who says a person is obligated to the truth? That is, I understand what the truth is, but why should I follow it?
Answer
I assume you are speaking about value-laden / normative truth, not factual truth. Factual truth does not require being carried out. But if proposition X is a normative truth, then saying that it is true means that there is an obligation to act on it. It is neither possible nor necessary to explain why it should be followed. If you are asking why to follow it, then apparently you simply do not think that this is the normative truth.
Discussion on Answer
I have nothing more to explain. Otherwise, what does it mean that it is true? The claim that this is what is written in some book is a factual claim. But the claim "x is forbidden" is not a factual claim in the usual sense. Its meaning is that one must not do x.
The meaning of saying that something is true is just a factual claim; it has no meaning beyond that. What is the meaning of saying that the egg is white? There is no meaning to that; it is a factual claim. Of course, for someone who likes eating white foods this is meaningful, and someone for whom it matters to follow the truth will be glad to follow what has been revealed to him as true. But I do not see where the truth compels one to follow it or to act according to it.
To where?
Why are you assuming that the truth is supposed to compel someone to follow it? Maybe it is only a matter of practical utility, nothing more.
I explained, and I will explain one last time. The discussion here is not about factual truth but about normative truth. The claim that according to the law it is forbidden to murder is a factual claim, and to find out whether it is correct you need to open the law book. But the claim that murder is forbidden is a normative claim. What does it mean to say that this claim is true or correct? There is no fact here against which it needs to be compared. The meaning is that this is how one ought to act. Someone who says that "murder is forbidden" is a correct claim and still wonders whether murder is really forbidden simply does not know what he is talking about.
Okay, now I understand. As an aside, let me ask: can normative claims be proven?
Exactly like any other claim. On the basis of axioms, of course.
Hello, master, I wasn't able to understand why this entails/implies that if something is true then there is an obligation to follow it.