Devotion to the Truth is the Hallmark of Morality
My wife forwarded me a piece from Epoch Times that had as a header a quote from Ayn Rand:
“Devotion to the truth is the hallmark of morality; there is no greater, nobler, more heroic form of devotion than the act of a man who assumes the responsibility of thinking.”
In other words, those who are focused on the truth - what I define as "the way things really are and really work" - those who are determined to get at the reality of things as much as possible in every circumstance - are moral individuals, while those who have priorities other than truth - any of the myriad evils that corrupt the unregenerate human soul - lust for power and wealth being preeminent among them - are not moral people.
Morality good, immorality bad.
Why is this so? Because in the absence of truth - when immorality - anything other than truth - rules the day - all things become possible, including this:
- and this:
This is in fact precisely why those who aspire to unlimited power - those who wish all things to become possible to them - are of necessity the dedicated enemies of truth.
Truth imposes limits.
Truth and morality are synonymous - two facets of the same diamond.
Rand's observation called to mind my own oft-repeated axiom intended, in the absence of perfect information, in a darkened, miasmic world permeated high and low with deceit and corruption, to provide helpful focus in efforts to get at the truth:
The credibility of WHAT is argued is directly a function of HOW it is argued
Find the truth in the methodology of argument. The truth cuts its own way and can be argued for in an honest and open manner that does not insult the intelligence of those it seeks to persuade. Deceit cannot be so argued.
It then occurred to me that implicit in these observations are two separate issues, and two distinct challenges each of us face in today's decadent world. One is the challenge of getting at objective truth itself - the way things really are and really work - an immutable reality that is independent of anyone's opinion of or relationship to it, the impersonal, unforgiving truth of things that will grind you to powder under its juggernaut wheels if you don't get it right. The other is the unavoidable need to assess the morality of those around us, especially those whose morality, or lack of it, will have direct impact on our well-being and that of our loved ones.
It seems to me, if you stop and think about it, pretty much everything we are confronted with in today's rotten world boils down to these two challenges - first, how we choose to position ourselves in relation to objective truth, and then understanding how those around us who impact our lives orient themselves to it.
The key to both challenges - one inner, one outer - in my view lies in what I call "the methodology of argument". The premise here, as expressed in my little maxim, is that no matter what the subject at hand - and whether the debate is within the quiet confines of one’s own soul or outside amid a worldly cacophony - there is a clearly recognizable methodology of argument that leads to the truth - a disciplined, honest, systematic way of thinking and reasoning that tends to reveal things as they really are and really work.
The Scientific Method, a way of organizing human thought with the objective of getting at the truth, is probably the best summation of this kind of truth-oriented critical thinking. This methodology, applicable in every area of human knowledge, is characterized by such things as the free and uncensored flow of information, careful, systematic examination of and response to all arguments, open discussion where all views, pro and con, are invited and given a fair hearing, and broad publishing of opposing views - all with the appeal of reason and the objective of getting at the truth.
As the father of a friend put it, "In the absence of controversy, the truth cannot be honed." The same principle is expressed in the Chinese saying, “True gold isn’t afraid of the fiery furnace.”
At the same time, there are sundry methodologies of argument that do not have truth as their objective, and, for those possessed of some minimal degree of intellectual, moral and spiritual perception - eyes to see and ears to hear - are also instantly recognizable for what they are. Among other things, these forms of argument will be recognized for their propagandistic nature, their efforts to suppress pertinent information and opposing views, attempts to frighten, badger, cajole or even coerce their targets into submission, refusal to respond to the substance of opposing arguments, and launching personal attacks on those who disagree with them.
We are today surrounded by critical issues - some with life-or-death ramifications - that are characterized by both kinds of argument.
Interestingly, whether we like it or not, whether we choose to or not, each of us will confront and make choices regarding these two moral challenges. Inexorably, personally, we will, one way or another, for good or ill, orient ourselves to absolute, objective truth, and prosper or suffer accordingly, and, one way or another, we will position ourselves, for better or worse, in relation to those whose morality or immorality will impact our lives.
You can run, but you can't hide.
Right vs. wrong, truth vs. lies, reality vs. fantasy, justice vs. injustice, light vs. darkness, law vs. lawlessness, good vs. evil, God vs. the Godless...
Time to pick a side. You will, one way or another...
If you can be fooled, you will be.
These are the times that try men's souls.
Torquemada