Lately I have become aware that most of my questions about "truth" are really related to questions about the honest truth rather than the factual truth. They are questions like: should I share "the truth" or keep it secret? and is it okay to lie to others in various situations? and also do I have the right to demand "the truth" from others? "Truth" in this context is different from the "truth" of the logical truth table or the "truth" of hard science.

Interestingly, the word "lies" only applies to the honest truth context. The word "false" can be used in either.

There is definitely a difference but I am having difficulty articulating it. I am interested in how other people will describe this difference.

I think it is primarily a grammatical difference so maybe one of the analytics among us can provide some elegant statements of the difference between factual truth and honest truth.

Whether you should share the honest truth is indeed a tough question. I bet that most of us agree that honesty is a rule of thumb. Let's call "honest" truth a belief that is justified for you. You think someone is committing adultery, for instance. Or you think that someone is lying, in the usual senes of intentionally misrepresenting their personally justified belief. Let's say you know your son cheated on a test but that this cheating got him into a good school. Do you omit to tell the authorities? Is this a lie? Let's say you find out you are dying but you don't want to bring anyone down. You tell your daughter, who is on her honeymoon, that the doctor says you're fine, for altruistic reasons. I would say that as far as moral judgment is concerned, the details are everything. Even then, some are more puritanical about honesty than others.

A right to free speech is a right to demand the truth (You can demand it, ask for it passionately. That's pretty much it.). A right to another's truth is something else. We have to distinguish between legal rights and ideal ethical rights, I think. This too is a case by case scenario. If someone knows that the well is poisoned, and doesn't share this, it's close to murder. If someone witnesses a crime but tells police they didn't out of fear of retribution, this is something else.

I think the word "truth" is especially context-dependent as far as its meanings go. I like that you distinguished between its more popular uses.

__________________
http://onanismo11.blogspot.com/

I would, but I don't understand the difference you have in mind. Examples would help a great deal.

For example,
I'm talking about the difference between these two questions:

Are you being honest?
and
Do you have scientific evidence to back up what you are saying?

Maybe I should not have called it "factual truth" but rather "justified truth". "Factual truth" sounds pretty clumsy.

Justified truth vs. Honest truth.

That helps my own understanding a lot to have changed that word.

Someone could be honest about a fact, just as someone could lie about a fact. And I'm sure many of your 'honest truths' are also 'justified truths'.

You're really going to have to give some examples demonstrating how these two are mutually exclusive (if you're trying to say they are), and further detail what sort of distinction you're trying to make. It's very, very unclear.

__________________
Forum Links: Rules | User Control Panel | Video Tutorials | Blogs | Social Groups | FAQs

I still don't understand honest fact or honest truth. Maybe you have in mind being truthful. That is, saying what you believe is true. But I still don't see what you are getting at.

I think maybe he's getting at a distinction between truths which correspond with reality (fact), as opposed to truths which are preferential (like someone loosely saying, "It's true X icecream flavor is the best").

I'm not sure, though. Hopefully he responds soon, as I'm lost as well.

__________________
Forum Links: Rules | User Control Panel | Video Tutorials | Blogs | Social Groups | FAQs

I think that posters have an obligation to write so that readers don't have to wonder what it is they are saying. One thing people should not do is use terms they have invented, and then give no explanation of what they mean. Like, "honest truth". If you make up a term, then you should explain what the term means.

Maybe this will help.

It is possible to imagine that "honest truth" and "justified truth" are synonymous terms. For example if we anthropomorphasize the world then we can construct the following conflation of the honest and the justified:

[Provided the world is honest with us, our beliefs about that world are justified. But sometimes the world lies to us and in these cases the beliefs are not justified.

We could also imagine that our senses are honest or dishonest with us.]

Otherwise what I am calling a justified or factual truth is not synonymous with an honest truth.

(Feeling your hate kennethamy and it is hilarious.. Keep it coming.)


Here's the example again. I added the word "types"

I'm talking about the difference between these two types of questions:

Are you being honest?
and
Do you have scientific evidence to back up what you are saying?

What hate is that? Why not just define "honest truth" for us. I suppose that "justified truth" is only, truth that is justified.Am I wrong? And it really would help if you could give us at least one example of honest truth, and even, maybe, one example of justified truth, so we can find out that we agree. An example of a justified truth is that Mars is the fourth planet. Isn't that right? That Mars is the fourth planet is justified, and it is also true. So that Mars is the fourth planet is a justified truth. Do you agree. If you agree, then all you have to do is to give us an example of an honest truth. Then, if we agree, then you can go ahead and say whatever you like about justified truth and honest truth. Sound like a plan?