why is telling the truth important essay

• Why Truthtelling Is Important

Besides emulating the character of God, truthtelling is critical for a flourishing society. Therefore, except in rare circumstances, God mandates it. Though God’s command would be a sufficient motivation, theologians and philosophers have identified other reasons as well.

• Authentic Communication Requires Truthtelling

Truthtelling is essential for authentic communication to occur, and makes genuine interaction between people possible. That is, if truth were not expected, it would not be long before communication would entirely break down. Imagine what it would be like living in a society in which no one expected the truth. How could a person discern what is accurate and what is a falsehood? On what basis could a person make important decisions if there was no expectation of the truth? Life would be chaotic without the norm of honesty.

This is essentially the view of the philosopher Immanuel Kant, and the principle of universalizability of truthtelling (though he would not support the notion given here that there are exceptions to the universal norm). Kant argued that this principle was the test of a valid moral principle, and used truthtelling as one of his primary illustrations. He insisted that for a norm to be legitimate, it must be universalizable—applicable to everyone. One of his illustrations envisioned what might happen if no one accepted the norm in question. He correctly argued that without a universal norm of truthtelling, the basis for communication would be in jeopardy, and a society in which this was not a norm would not be functional. [1] This is recognized by the fact that virtually every civilization has some kind of norm that promotes truthtelling and prohibits deception. [2]

• Trust and Cooperation Require Truthtelling

Truthtelling builds trust and civil cooperation among human beings. Trust is critical for a prosperous society, and being a person of one’s word establishes trust and trustworthiness. [1] The Mosaic Law underscored this in Deuteronomy 25:15, connecting honest dealings with Israel’s prosperity in the land. “You shall have only a full and honest weight; you shall have only a full and honest measure, so that your days may be long in the land that the Lord your God is giving you” (also see Leviticus 19:36). Similarly Proverbs brings out the connection between trustworthiness and social harmony. Proverbs 3:29 emphasizes that trust among neighbors is what enables them to live in peace, not fearing harm from one’s neighbor. Further, Proverbs emphasize that trustworthiness brings healing to both relationships and communities (Prov. 13:17, 25:13). Adam Smith was very clear that honest dealings and trustworthiness were critical for a properly functioning market system. Cultures that are given to corruption are often in the most impoverished parts of the world, since it is more difficult and risky to do business in cultures in which the level of trust is low. Similarly, companies in which there is a culture of distrust typically have higher costs of doing business, since they require costly regimens of oversight. They also have intangible costs, as employees tend to be more reluctant to “go the extra mile” for their employer and tend to be less eager to embrace change and less committed to their work.

• Human Dignity Requires Truthtelling

Truthtelling treats people with dignity. To tell someone the truth is a measure of respect that is missing when someone is lied to.

The Scriptures illustrate this with the Genesis account of Jacob and his service to Laban (Genesis 29-30). Jacob works seven years for the right to marry Rachel and after the years of service are complete, Laban deceives Jacob and substitutes his less desirable daughter Leah as Jacob’s bride. Jacob is justifiably outraged at being deceived and treated with such disrespect (Gen. 29:25). Jacob returns the disrespect to Laban in Genesis 30 when he deceives Laban with respect to the flocks that Jacob is tending for Laban, separating out the stronger flocks for himself and leaving the weaker ones for Laban (Gen. 30:42).

Similarly in 2 Kings 12, when it came to the money for the repair of the temple, there were certain workmen who were so trustworthy that the overseers of the repairs did not need an accounting of the money they spent for the repairs. Because they were honest, they were treated with dignity and trust by the king and by the priests in charge of temple repair (also 2 Kings 22:7). This is also borne out by the proverb that warns a person, “Well meant are the wounds a friend inflicts, but profuse are the kisses of an enemy” (Proverbs 27:6). The enemy who multiplies kisses is the one who showers a person with false flattery, deceiving the person into the illusion of friendship and trust, when in reality, he is the enemy. Here, deception treats the person being deceived as a pawn to be manipulated for the deceiver’s own selfish purposes, not as someone with dignity who is deserving of respect. Disrespect also comes through in, “A lying tongue hates its victims; and a flattering mouth works ruin” (Prov. 26:28; also Prov. 26:18-19, 24, 26).

The right of a person to make his or her own autonomous decisions is based on having accurate information, so much so that people often and understandably feel violated and disrespected when they are deceived. A person’s autonomy is weakened when they are deceived. This is evident in the example of Jacob and Laban. Jacob’s autonomy to marry the woman of his choice was completely undermined by Laban’s deception, since Jacob would never have married Leah if left entirely to his own choice (Genesis 29:17-20). It is further evident in Jacob’s reciprocal deception of Laban, since Laban would not have managed the flocks to his obvious financial disadvantage had he not been deceived so effectively by Jacob (Gen. 30:42-43).

Immanuel Kant, Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals , tr. James W. Ellington, (Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing, 1993, original, 1785), 30-36. See also, Kant’s essay, “On a Supposed Right to Tell Lies from Altruistic Motives,” ibid.

See C.S. Lewis, The Abolition of Man (New York: Macmillan, 1943). See especially the appendix for a listing of the virtues in common to most of the world’s major civilizations. There are rare exceptions to this—a few cultures hold treachery and deceit as virtues. See for example, Don Richardson, Peace Child: An Unforgettable Story of Primitive Jungle Treachery , 4th edition (Ventura, California: Regal, 2005).

For more on this, see Francis Fukuyama, Trust: The Social Virtues and the Creation of Prosperity (New York: Free Press, 1995).

Popular Content

Calling & Vocation (Overview)

Explore what the Bible says about God's calling and your work.

God’s Purposes for Your Work - Tom Lutz

We explore what the Bible has to say about the purpose of your work with guest Tom Lutz.

What Does the Bible Say About Wealth and Provision? (Overview)

The Bible offers guidance for a Christian view of wealth and how wealth can be used for God's redemptive purposes.

How to Make the Right Decision (Devotional)

Biblical decision-making principles for tough situations at work.

10 Key Points About Work in the Bible Every Christian Should Know

10 key points from the Bible give a foundation for Christians asking what the Bible says about our work.

Table of Contents

• Truthtelling in the Bible
• Truthtelling is the Norm in the Bible
• Exceptions to Truthtelling in the Bible
• Truthtelling in the Workplace
• Financial Statements Must Tell the Truth
• There May Be Exceptions to Truthtelling in the Workplace
• Puffery/Exaggeration
• When Someone Has No Right to the Truth
• Deception to Obtain Information You Have a Right to Know
• Information You Have No Right to Know
• Social Implications of Protecting Information Others Have No Right to Know
• Conclusions About Truth & Deception
• Key Biblical Texts on Truth & Deception

Every resource on our site was made possible through the financial support of people like you. With your gift of any size, you’ll enable us to continue equipping Christians with high-quality biblically-based content.

• truth and deception

Contributors: Scott Rae Adopted by the Theology of Work Project Board October 3, 2012. Image by Used under license from Veer . Used by permission.

Author: Theology of Work Project

Theology of Work Project Online Materials by Theology of Work Project, Inc. is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License . Based on a work at www.theologyofwork.org

You are free to share (to copy, distribute and transmit the work), and remix (to adapt the work) for non-commercial use only, under the condition that you must attribute the work to the Theology of Work Project, Inc., but not in any way that suggests that it endorses you or your use of the work.

© 2012 by the Theology of Work Project, Inc.

Unless otherwise noted, the Scripture quotations contained herein are from the New Revised Standard Version Bible, Copyright © 1989, Division of Christian Education of the National Council of the Churches of Christ in the U.S.A., and are used by permission. All rights reserved.

• Skip to main content
• Skip to secondary menu
• Skip to primary sidebar
• Skip to footer

A Plus Topper

Improve your Grades

Essay on Truth | Truth Essay for Students and Children in English

February 13, 2024 by Prasanna

Essay on Truth:  The term truth can be defined as the property according to reality or fact. Truth is attributed to things that aim to represent reality or otherwise correspond to it with propositions, beliefs, and declarative sentences.

The concept of truth is a completely subjective topic, and it varies from person to person. Truth is usually held in contrast to falsity. The idea of truth is debated and discussed in different contexts, including science, art, philosophy, and theology.

You can also find more  Essay Writing  articles on events, persons, sports, technology and many more.

Long and Short Essays on Truth for Students and Kids in English

We provide students with essay samples on a long Truth essay of 500 words and a short essay of 150 words on the same topic for reference.

Long Essay on Truth 500 Words in English

Long Essay on Truth is usually given to classes 7, 8, 9, and 10.

For centuries, there has been a conflict between what is right and what is wrong. Many conservatives still believe that truth is absolute reality, and there is no falsity involved. However, others tend to disagree who believe that truth is relative – it is an individual’s perception of beliefs and decisions.

For this reason, among individuals, truth differs through their contrasting opinions. However, truth is something that everyone believes to be correct. Hence it greatly depends on what is true in the minds of people. On the other hand, the truth spoken with a bad intention can be worse than a lie. Therefore truth is a statement or expression that corresponds with reality and happiness.

Today’s society places a high value on truth and the person who speaks the truth. Truth serves as a foundation of a fair and just society. In court, witnesses are required to swear to tell the truth – in this way, and justice can be delivered. Most modern religions have an opinion on the matter, and they place a high value on the principles of truthfulness. Broadly, there are two aspects of truthfulness: being true to others and being true to oneself. The two are not wholly the same thing; however, they are closely linked.

Truthful people understand themselves better. They know their strengths and weaknesses, and their successes and failures do not deceive them. Truth helps people in expressing their true selves and showcasing who they are. It helps them in being accurate in their descriptions of themselves and others and meeting any commitments or promises that one makes.

Truth matters, and it is important both to an individual and society as a whole as an individual being truthful means that one can grow and mature by learning from their mistakes. For society, truthfulness helps in building social bonds. At the same time, lying and hypocrisy has an adverse effect and break those bonds. There are two possible ways of not telling the truth -firstly by not providing all the information. Some people refrain from becoming overly personal, even if it is the truth. It depends on the context and whether the people need to know about the details. Some people even stop themselves from sharing anything at all.

Providing false information is wrong. Some people tend to lie to get themselves out of a situation or not hurt anyone’s feelings. However, in some scenarios, it becomes necessary to lie. Just like any other quality, in truthfulness finding the balance is essential. One should neither overplay nor underplay their weaknesses or their virtues. It is as bad to pretend that one is less good in something than they are as to exaggerate about their abilities.

It is important to live and act following one’s values. Being truthful to oneself is vital as one cannot live in line with their values if they keep pretending to themselves that they are something else. Being truthful helps individuals be honest about themselves, allowing them to live a life that reflects it.

Short Essay on Truth 150 Words in English

Short Essay on Truth is usually given to classes 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6.

Truth is defined as something that is following reality. Truth can be relative to a person and dominated by an individual’s subjective thoughts and believes. Truth is the purity that helps in differentiating between right and wrong. The ‘absolute truth’ is regardless of what one thinks and believes in.

Truth is what corresponds with the available facts and pieces of evidence. Truth does not change just because we learn something about it. However, it is not good to always tell the truth. If the main purpose of telling the truth is to hurt someone, it is then considered to be terrible than the most terrible lie. This is why many people keep in mind other people’s sentiments and beliefs before telling the truth. Sometimes, not telling the truth doesn’t necessarily mean someone has to lie. It can also be keeping from them a few details that they don’t need to know.

10 Lines on Truth in English

• Being truthful is vital in life because it brings happiness and builds strong trust bonds with people.
• Truth is subjective and is relatively different for every person.
• Truth coincides with facts and reality.
• Truth is a statement that never changes, no matter how people feel about it.
• Truth can be very complicated sometimes, and various people interpret it differently.
• Truth is the reality and the actions without any filter or edits.
• Telling the truth and accepting it are two completely different things.
• It is easier to tell a lie, but truth has its beauty and depth.
• The lie’s path is easy and short, whereas the truth is long-lived and helps achieve sincerity.
• The one who follows the path of truth always ends up happy, contented, and successful.

FAQ’s on Truth Essay

Question 1. Is truth an important value of life?

Answer: Truth serves as the building block of the qualities of life like morality, equality, justice, peace, love, security, freedom, spirituality, and even survival.

Question 2. Is it okay to lie sometimes?

Answer: Even though it is always right to stick to the truth, sometimes the truth can be harsh and hurt others’ sentiments and feelings. So, sometimes to refrain from hurting someone, it’s okay to lie.

Question 3.  How can one tell which is the truth?

Answer: Truth is the reality that is following the facts and shreds of evidence.

• Picture Dictionary
• English Speech
• English Slogans
• English Letter Writing
• English Essay Writing
• English Textbook Answers
• Types of Certificates
• ICSE Solutions
• Selina ICSE Solutions
• ML Aggarwal Solutions
• HSSLive Plus One
• HSSLive Plus Two
• Kerala SSLC
• Distance Education

Why is truth-telling so important? Our research shows meaningful reconciliation cannot occur without it

Research Associate, Deakin University

Professor of Race Relations, Deakin University

Disclosure statement

Vanessa Barolsky received funding to conduct research on community truth-telling from Reconciliation Australia, Deakin University and the Centre for Inclusive and Resilient Societies.

Yin Paradies receives funding to conduct research on community truth-telling from Reconciliation Australia, Deakin University and the Centre for Inclusive and Resilient Societies.

Deakin University provides funding as a member of The Conversation AU.

View all partners

This article mentions ongoing colonial violence towards Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, and contains references that feature antiquated language.

Truth-telling is a key demand in the Uluru Statement and is seen as a vital step for both the Voice to Parliament and a Treaty. However, there has been ongoing debate as to whether historical injustices against First Nations peoples need to be addressed today.

Wiradjuri and Wailwan lawyer Teela Reid posed a question in a 2020 essay, is Australia ready to Gari Yala (speak truth) and reckon with its past?

We recently conducted a study to investigate this question by looking at First Nations community truth-telling practices. Our study found these communities have shown significant leadership in truth-telling, often without resources or support. Importantly, they have invited non-Indigenous people to also take part in truth-telling.

Truth-telling can take the form of memorial and commemorative events, repatriation of remains and cultural artefacts, the renaming of places, and the creation of public artworks and healing sites. A recent example is the Yoorrook Justice Commission’s truth-telling commission. Yoorrook released the truth-telling report this week, providing 46 recommendations for reforms into Victoria’s justice and child protection systems.

We found when non-Indigenous people participated in truth-telling with First Nations communities, it helped build a deeper shared understanding of the past and the achievements of First Nations peoples. This is why truth-telling is a collective social responsibility and non-Indigenous Australians are crucial participants.

But there is still much work to do. Many important historical events and First Nations achievements remain largely unrecognised. Sustained funding and support and the recognition of Australia’s difficult historical truths are crucial.

Read more: First Nations people have made a plea for 'truth-telling'. By reckoning with its past, Australia can finally help improve our future

Our research findings

Our research focused on documenting community truth-telling that reclaimed First Nations sovereignty and self-determination, as well as recognising colonial violence. We did in-depth investigations through 25 case studies, including ten in which we held yarning interviews with community organisers. These interviews helped shed new light on rich and diverse ways to engage with the truths of colonial history.

In the MacArthur region of New South Wales, reconciliation group Winga Myamly worked to make sure the 1816 Appin massacre on Dharawal Country is recognised and commemorated annually .

In the massacre, at least 14 (likely more) Aboriginal men, women and children were killed by members of a British Army regiment. The regiment chased the group to nearby cliffs at Cataract Gorge where many jumped to their deaths.

The 2019 commemoration brought together Dharawal Elder Aunty Glenda Chalker, a descendent of Giribunger, one of the survivors of the massacre, and Sandy Hamilton, descended from Stephen Partridge, who served with the regiment that carried out the attack.

In Portland, Victoria, a towering gum leaf sculpture, Mayapa Weeyn (meaning “make fire”) was erected near the site of the Convincing Ground massacre . This is where between 20 and 200 members of the Kilcarer Gunditj clan were killed by British whalers.

The sculpture recognises all 59 Gunditjmara clans, many of whom were killed during the Eumeralla Wars that followed the Convincing Ground massacre. Gunditjmara Elder Walter Saunders, who designed the sculpture, spent two years building it and talking with local residents in an informal process of truth-telling.

In Tasmania, the Mannalargenna Day Festival commemorates Pairrebeenne/Trawlwoolway leader Mannalargenna. Mannalargenna tried to negotiate to save the lives of Aboriginal people in Tasmania who had been devastated by the Black War during the 1830s.

Our study found truth-telling is more effective when it occurs through immersive experiences. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander cultural practices, such as smoking ceremonies, walking on Country, storytelling and personal engagements with survivors, contributed to healing, dialogue and a deeper shared understanding of history.

Through these events Indigenous people deepened their connections to community, history and Country and non-Indigenous people learned about these connections from them. The increasing attendance at events such as the Appin massacre memorial, the Mannalargenna Day Festival and similar commemorations is evidence of the impact of this type of truth-telling.

Read more: 'Why didn't we know?' is no excuse. Non-Indigenous Australians must listen to the difficult historical truths told by First Nations people

Why is truth-telling important?

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples have long called for Australia’s history to be told truthfully. The local truth-telling activities we have documented are examples of how communities have responded to this desire. They emphasise the importance of supporting communities to tell their stories, rather than government directing how truth-telling occurs.

While truth-telling does not guarantee reconciliation, the participants in our study stressed that meaningful reconciliation cannot occur without it. They emphasised the importance of reconciliation between First Nations and non-Indigenous communities because for some people these relationships have never existed, or are in need of repair.

Truth-telling is also crucial for political and social transformation. For example, the Queensland government is using truth-telling to help inform the path to Treaty. In Victoria, the Yoorrook Justice Commission is investigating historic and ongoing injustices experienced by First Nations peoples, alongside ongoing Treaty negotiations.

Read more: What is NAIDOC week? How did it start and what does it celebrate?

Community truth-telling can demonstrate the power of Indigenous identity and self-determination. It can also counter past attempts to erase Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples from Australian history.

Truth-telling highlights the crucial roles and contributions of First Nations peoples. Their acts of bravery and sacrifice, resistance against colonialism and contributions to communities.

Although some local governments have played a key role in supporting truth-telling, more support for local initiatives is required. National proposals, such as a national recognition of Mabo Day and a formal remembrance for frontier conflicts, have the potential to create a better environment for truth-telling.

• Stolen Generations
• Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples
• truth-telling
• Voice to parliament
• First Nations people

Head of School, School of Arts & Social Sciences, Monash University Malaysia

Chief Operating Officer (COO)

Clinical Teaching Fellow

Data Manager

Director, Social Policy

Essay Service Examples Philosophy Truth

Essay on Why Is It Important to Tell the Truth

• Proper editing and formatting
• Free revision, title page, and bibliography
• Flexible prices and money-back guarantee

Our writers will provide you with an essay sample written from scratch: any topic, any deadline, any instructions.

Cite this paper

Related essay topics.

Get your paper done in as fast as 3 hours, 24/7.

Related articles

Most popular essays

• Perspective

From telling a friend that their dish is delicious, to falsely blaming absences on a busy...

1. The book describes post-truth as 'Relating to or denoting circumstances in which objective...

Even telling the littlest lie can get you in the most trouble in the future, yes at the time you...

The amount of deaths that obesity and the diseases that come from being obese or overweight is...

• Social Media

Now a days sources of data from online social media may be consist of some data which are noisy...

• Personal Life

Truth, the property of sentences, assertions, beliefs, thoughts, or propositions in metaphysics...

Since time immemorial efforts have been made to devise methods of detecting falsehoods. For the...

• Human Nature

Truth vs reality, a war between fact and perception. the nature of truth to me can be slippery, it...

The effect that lying has on our moral can change our lives. People would call you names, they...

Join our 150k of happy users

• Get original paper written according to your instructions
• Save time for what matters most

Fair Use Policy

EduBirdie considers academic integrity to be the essential part of the learning process and does not support any violation of the academic standards. Should you have any questions regarding our Fair Use Policy or become aware of any violations, please do not hesitate to contact us via [email protected].

We are here 24/7 to write your paper in as fast as 3 hours.

Provide your email, and we'll send you this sample!

By providing your email, you agree to our Terms & Conditions and Privacy Policy .

Say goodbye to copy-pasting!

Get custom-crafted papers for you.

Enter your email, and we'll promptly send you the full essay. No need to copy piece by piece. It's in your inbox!

• Games & Quizzes
• History & Society
• Science & Tech
• Biographies
• Animals & Nature
• Geography & Travel
• Arts & Culture
• On This Day
• One Good Fact
• New Articles
• Lifestyles & Social Issues
• Philosophy & Religion
• Politics, Law & Government
• World History
• Health & Medicine
• Browse Biographies
• Birds, Reptiles & Other Vertebrates
• Bugs, Mollusks & Other Invertebrates
• Environment
• Fossils & Geologic Time
• Entertainment & Pop Culture
• Sports & Recreation
• Visual Arts
• Demystified
• Image Galleries
• Infographics
• Top Questions
• Britannica Kids
• Saving Earth
• Space Next 50
• Student Center
• Introduction

The correspondence theory

Coherence and pragmatist theories, tarski and truth conditions.

• Deflationism

Our editors will review what you’ve submitted and determine whether to revise the article.

• Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy - Truth
• Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy - The Identity Theory of Truth
• Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy - The Revision Theory of Truth
• Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy - The Coherence Theory of Truth
• Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy - The Deflationary Theory of Truth
• Table Of Contents

truth , in metaphysics and the philosophy of language , the property of sentences, assertions, beliefs , thoughts, or propositions that are said, in ordinary discourse, to agree with the facts or to state what is the case.

Truth is the aim of belief; falsity is a fault. People need the truth about the world in order to thrive . Truth is important. Believing what is not true is apt to spoil people’s plans and may even cost them their lives. Telling what is not true may result in legal and social penalties. Conversely, a dedicated pursuit of truth characterizes the good scientist, the good historian, and the good detective. So what is truth, that it should have such gravity and such a central place in people’s lives?

The classic suggestion comes from Aristotle (384–322 bce ): “To say of what is that it is, or of what is not that it is not, is true.” In other words, the world provides “what is” or “what is not,” and the true saying or thought corresponds to the fact so provided. This idea appeals to common sense and is the germ of what is called the correspondence theory of truth. As it stands, however, it is little more than a platitude and far less than a theory. Indeed, it may amount to merely a wordy paraphrase, whereby, instead of saying “that’s true” of some assertion, one says “that corresponds with the facts.” Only if the notions of fact and correspondence can be further developed will it be possible to understand truth in these terms.

Unfortunately, many philosophers doubt whether an acceptable explanation of facts and correspondence can be given. Facts, as they point out, are strange entities. It is tempting to think of them as structures or arrangements of things in the world. However, as the Austrian-born philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein observed, structures have spatial locations, but facts do not. The Eiffel Tower can be moved from Paris to Rome, but the fact that the Eiffel Tower is in Paris cannot be moved anywhere. Furthermore, critics urge, the very idea of what the facts are in a given case is nothing apart from people’s sincere beliefs about the case, which means those beliefs that people take to be true. Thus, there is no enterprise of first forming a belief or theory about some matter and then in some new process stepping outside the belief or theory to assess whether it corresponds with the facts. There are, indeed, processes of checking and verifying beliefs, but they work by bringing up further beliefs and perceptions and assessing the original in light of those. In actual investigations, what tells people what to believe is not the world or the facts but how they interpret the world or select and conceptualize the facts.

Starting in the mid-19th century, this line of criticism led some philosophers to think that they should concentrate on larger theories, rather than sentences or assertions taken one at a time. Truth, on this view, must be a feature of the overall body of belief considered as a system of logically interrelated components—what is called the “web of belief.” It might be, for example, an entire physical theory that earns its keep by making predictions or enabling people to control things or by simplifying and unifying otherwise disconnected phenomena. An individual belief in such a system is true if it sufficiently coheres with, or makes rational sense within, enough other beliefs; alternatively, a belief system is true if it is sufficiently internally coherent . Such were the views of the British idealists , including F.H. Bradley and H.H. Joachim, who, like all idealists, rejected the existence of mind-independent facts against which the truth of beliefs could be determined ( see also realism: realism and truth ).

Yet coherentism too seems inadequate, since it suggests that human beings are trapped in the sealed compartment of their own beliefs, unable to know anything of the world beyond. Moreover, as the English philosopher and logician Bertrand Russell pointed out, nothing seems to prevent there being many equally coherent but incompatible belief systems. Yet at best only one of them can be true.

Some theorists have suggested that belief systems can be compared in pragmatic or utilitarian terms. According to this idea, even if many different systems can be internally coherent, it is likely that some will be much more useful than others. Thus, one can expect that, in a process akin to Darwinian natural selection , the more useful systems will survive while the others gradually go extinct. The replacement of Newtonian mechanics by relativity theory is an example of this process. It was in this spirit that the 19th-century American pragmatist philosopher Charles Sanders Peirce said:

The opinion which is fated to be ultimately agreed to by all who investigate, is what we mean by the truth, and the object represented in this opinion is the real.

In effect, Peirce’s view places primary importance on scientific curiosity , experimentation, and theorizing and identifies truth as the imagined ideal limit of their ongoing progress. Although this approach may seem appealingly hard-headed, it has prompted worries about how a society, or humanity as a whole, could know at a given moment whether it is following the path toward such an ideal. In practice it has opened the door to varying degrees of skepticism about the notion of truth. In the late 20th century philosophers such as Richard Rorty advocated retiring the notion of truth in favour of a more open-minded and open-ended process of indefinite adjustment of beliefs. Such a process, it was felt, would have its own utility , even though it lacked any final or absolute endpoint.

The rise of formal logic (the abstract study of assertions and deductive arguments) and the growth of interest in formal systems (formal or mathematical languages) among many Anglo-American philosophers in the early 20th century led to new attempts to define truth in logically or scientifically acceptable terms. It also led to a renewed respect for the ancient liar paradox (attributed to the ancient Greek philosopher Epimenides ), in which a sentence says of itself that it is false, thereby apparently being true if it is false and false if it is true. Logicians set themselves the task of developing systems of mathematical reasoning that would be free of the kinds of self-reference that give rise to paradoxes such as that of the liar. However, this proved difficult to do without at the same time making some legitimate proof procedures impossible. There is good self-reference (“All sentences, including this, are of finite length”) and bad self-reference (“This sentence is false”) but no generally agreed-upon principle for distinguishing them.

These efforts culminated in the work of the Polish-born logician Alfred Tarski , who in the 1930s showed how to construct a definition of truth for a formal or mathematical language by means of a theory that would assign truth conditions (the conditions in which a given sentence is true) to each sentence in the language without making use of any semantic terms, notably including truth, in that language. Truth conditions were identified by means of “T-sentences.” For example, the English-language T-sentence for the German sentence Schnee ist weiss is: “Schnee ist weiss” is true if and only if snow is white. A T-sentence says of some sentence (S) in the object language (the language for which truth is being defined) that S is true if and only if…, where the ellipsis is replaced by a translation of S into the language used to construct the theory (the metalanguage ). Since no metalanguage translation of any S (in this case, snow is white ) will contain the term true, Tarski could claim that each T-sentence provides a “partial definition” of truth for the object language and that their sum total provides the complete definition.

While the technical aspects of Tarski’s work were much admired and have been much discussed, its philosophical significance remained unclear, in part because T-sentences struck many theorists as less than illuminating . But the weight of philosophical opinion gradually shifted, and eventually this platitudinous appearance was regarded as a virtue and indeed as indicative of the whole truth about truth. The idea was that, instead of staring at the abstract question “What is truth?,” philosophers should content themselves with the particular question “What does the truth of S amount to?”; and for any well-specified sentence, a humble T-sentence will provide the answer.

• Postmodernism

The pursuit of truth is often thought to be "intrinsically" valuable. Scientists and philosophers, who eschew religious rationales for their life's work, take the pursuit of truth to be obviously a worthwhile enterprise. But what's so great about truth? Sure, it's good to know what's for lunch, or the nature of the disease that plagues you, but is there any intrinsic or instrumental value in knowing how far away the farthest stars are? Or whether Milton's greatest works were written while he had a headache? Or what the next layer of basic particles are like? Truth telling on Philosophy Talk with Simon Blackburn, author of  Truth: A Guide.

Listening Notes

What's so valuable about truth? Ken thinks that the value of truth is obvious. Having true beliefs help us act so as to satisfy our desires. John points out that sometimes the truth can be harmful, such as knowing where drugs are being sold. There are a lot of truths that are irrelevant or trivial. There are also depressing truths. Ken thinks that you can't separate truth from believing because when we believe something, we take it to be true. Ken introduces the guest, Simon Blackburn, professor at Cambridge. John asks Blackburn to explain the nature of truth. Blackburn explains minimalism about truth, which says that there is no general answer about truth. The correspondence theory of truth says that there is some fact that makes a judgment true. However, there is no higher-order verification of this judgment. Another view is the pragmatist theory which says that the truth is valuable because it is useful.

What is the postmodernists' problem with truth? Blackburn says that the general idea goes back to Nietzsche and it is that our judgments and beliefs are formed and shaped by various forces beyond our control. Ken says that we would get around this if we had some method of tracking the truth. Blackburn says that the correspondence theory of truth works great when we are working with a straightforward representation of the world that we understand. How do we discern truth from falsehood? Blackburn thinks that is a skill that requires a lot of practice.

Some truths hurt us and some falsehoods are comforting. Should we always seek out truth for its own sake? There are a bunch of useless truths, such as the composition of dirt on Mars. Blackburn thinks that the useful falsehood is a hard idea to dispel. According to many psychologists, most people think they are about 15% smarter or good-looking than they actually are, and that keeps many people from being depressed. Nietzsche was moved to his relativism by perspectivism, which says that we view the world from our own perspective. Blackburn doesn't think that perspectivism leads to relativism because the visual metaphor breaks down.  

• Roving Philosophical Report  (Seek to 05:20): Polly Stryker asks several people whether we should always tell the truth.

Get Philosophy Talk

Sunday at 11am (Pacific) on  KALW 91.7 FM , San Francisco, and rebroadcast on many other stations nationwide

Full episode downloads via Apple Music and abbreviated episodes (Philosophy Talk Starters) via Apple Podcasts , Spotify , and Stitcher

Unlimited Listening

Buy the episode.

Related Blogs

Does truth matter, related resources.

Web Resources

• The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy entry on the correspondence theory of truth
• The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy entry on the deflationary theory of truth
• The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy entry on the revisionary theory of truth
• Laurence BonJour's essay "Truth and Correspondence"
• The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy entry on truth
• The Wikipedia entry on truth
• An introductory website on truth
• An excerpt from Emile Durkheim's Pragmatism and the Question of Truth
• Simon Blackburn's Truth: A Guide
• Michael Lynch's Why Truth Matters
• The Oxford Readings in Philosophy series Truth
• Felipe Fernandez-Arnesto's Truth: A History and a Guide for the Perplexed
• Richard Kirkham's Theories of Truth
• Michael Lynch's Nature of Truth
• William Alston's A Realist Conception of Truth
• Michael Devitt's Realism and Truth
• Scott Soames's Understanding Truth
• Paul Horwich's Truth
• Simon Blackburn's Dictionary of Philosophy

Comments (8)

Saturday, November 25, 2023 -- 5:46 PM

paper writer https://www.resellerratings.com/store/PaperWriter as a service in the realm of academic assistance, is often sought after by students needing help with essay writing and other assignments. It is commonly appreciated for its professional approach to handling diverse writing tasks and the quality of work it delivers. Users frequently mention the expertise of the writers and the platform's ability to meet various academic standards and deadlines. However, it's important for students to remember the significance of using Paper Writer in an ethical and responsible manner. While such services can provide valuable support, they should be used primarily as a guide or a reference to enhance personal learning and ensure adherence to the principles of academic integrity as prescribed by educational institutions.

Log in or register to post comments

Tuesday, January 16, 2024 -- 11:07 PM

Pinup Canada . Immerse yourself in the allure of Pin up, Aviator, and Bananza—games perfectly suited for the Pinup Canada community. Amplify your excitement with Pinup Casino, your ultimate destination for thrilling gameplay. Join now for a personalized experience tailored for the average player, where the magic of Pin up seamlessly merges with the essence of Pinup Canada, promising endless fun with every spin and click.

Thursday, February 1, 2024 -- 11:57 AM

It is I natural to understand that academic work requires time, effort and focus. Writing essays has often been challenging for me due to the need for research, structuring the material, and clear argumentation. However, there is always a way out. Using nursing school papers that I found from a trusted resource helped me overcome many challenges. Agree, the documents of the nursing school contain various reports, statistical data, documents on educational and methodological work, career guidance programs, as well as materials related to professional practice and the training of future medical specialists, therefore, in my opinion, the expert who helped me understand all the intricacies of academic work gave me the necessary knowledge base that I needed in my future work.

Thursday, March 14, 2024 -- 12:53 PM

With its classic silhouette and rugged elegance, the Best Flight Gear Aviator Brown Leather Jacket exudes timeless appeal. Whether you're a history enthusiast, aviation aficionado, or fashion connoisseur, this jacket is sure to make a statement wherever you go. Wear it flight gear aviator brown leather jacket pride and channel the courage and adventurous spirit of the aviators who came before you.

Monday, March 25, 2024 -- 10:18 PM

Discover the game-changing potential of our! This groundbreaking technology is your ultimate defense against online threats and fraud. With its unparalleled accuracy and speed, our AI detector essayshark tools ensures that your digital assets remain secure at all times. From identifying malicious activities to flagging suspicious behavior, it works tirelessly to keep your platform safe and compliant. Say goodbye to manual monitoring and hello to automated protection. Trust in our to safeguard your business, reputation, and peace of mind. Stay ahead of the curve with the most advanced detection technology available. Try it today and experience the difference!

Tuesday, April 16, 2024 -- 1:12 AM

Lerenjack Is offering up to 60% off upto and an extra $30 off with the code SAVE30 Visit marlboro jacket leather

Thursday, May 2, 2024 -- 12:41 AM

Are you looking for an online assignment writing service in USA? Don't Worry! Online Experts provides USA students with the best service at affordable prices as an excellent support system. Whenever students need the best in the business to help them with their assignments, their Assignment Help USA service has always been the default choice. Their experts will quickly resolve all your academic problems so that you don't have to worry about anything. Additionally, they aim to help you reach your full potential so that you can succeed academically.One of the challenges they faced was that students often found it difficult to contact their team for assistance because we were not nearby. To solve this problem, they have assignment help in USA centers throughout USA. In USA, students can get help from the best local writers at any time.

Friday, June 7, 2024 -- 12:53 AM

Truth is like a compass, guiding us through life's twists and turns with honesty and clarity. I really appreciate your writing skills; this blog is truly informative. Your ability to convey knowledge with clarity is commendable. Also check out this Beetlejuice Beetlejuice Suit to upgrade your style game!

• Create new account
• Request new password

Upcoming Shows

Summer Reading List 2024

Righteous Rage

What Is Gender?

Listen to the preview.

• Table of Contents
• Random Entry
• Chronological
• Editorial Information
• About the SEP
• Editorial Board
• How to Cite the SEP
• Special Characters
• Advanced Tools
• Support the SEP
• PDFs for SEP Friends
• Make a Donation
• SEPIA for Libraries
• Entry Contents

Bibliography

Academic tools.

• Friends PDF Preview
• Author and Citation Info
• Back to Top

Truth is one of the central subjects in philosophy. It is also one of the largest. Truth has been a topic of discussion in its own right for thousands of years. Moreover, a huge variety of issues in philosophy relate to truth, either by relying on theses about truth, or implying theses about truth.

It would be impossible to survey all there is to say about truth in any coherent way. Instead, this essay will concentrate on the main themes in the study of truth in the contemporary philosophical literature. It will attempt to survey the key problems and theories of current interest, and show how they relate to one-another. A number of other entries investigate many of these topics in greater depth. Generally, discussion of the principal arguments is left to them. The goal of this essay is only to provide an overview of the current Theories. Many of the papers mentioned in this essay can be found in the anthologies edited by Blackburn and Simmons (1999) and Lynch (2001b). There are a number of book-length surveys of the topics discussed here, including Burgess and Burgess (2011), Kirkham (1992), and Künne (2003). Also, a number of the topics discussed here, and many further ones, are surveyed at more length in papers in Glanzberg (2018).

The problem of truth is in a way easy to state: what truths are, and what (if anything) makes them true. But this simple statement masks a great deal of controversy. Whether there is a metaphysical problem of truth at all, and if there is, what kind of theory might address it, are all standing issues in the theory of truth. We will see a number of distinct ways of answering these questions.

1.1 The correspondence theory

1.1.1 the origins of the correspondence theory, 1.1.2 the neo-classical correspondence theory, 1.2 the coherence theory, 1.3 pragmatist theories, 2.1 sentences as truth-bearers, 2.2 convention t, 2.3 recursive definition of truth, 2.4 reference and satisfaction, 3.1 correspondence without facts, 3.2 representation and correspondence, 3.3 facts again, 3.4 truthmakers, 4.1 realism and truth, 4.2 anti-realism and truth, 4.3 anti-realism and pragmatism, 4.4 truth pluralism, 5.1 the redundancy theory, 5.2 minimalist theories, 5.3 other aspects of deflationism, 6.1 truth-bearers, 6.2 truth and truth conditions, 6.3 truth conditions and deflationism, 6.4 truth and the theory of meaning, 6.5 the coherence theory and meaning, 6.6 truth and assertion, other internet resources, related entries, 1. the neo-classical theories of truth.

Much of the contemporary literature on truth takes as its starting point some ideas which were prominent in the early part of the 20th century. There were a number of views of truth under discussion at that time, the most significant for the contemporary literature being the correspondence, coherence, and pragmatist theories of truth.

These theories all attempt to directly answer the nature question : what is the nature of truth? They take this question at face value: there are truths, and the question to be answered concerns their nature. In answering this question, each theory makes the notion of truth part of a more thoroughgoing metaphysics or epistemology. Explaining the nature of truth becomes an application of some metaphysical system, and truth inherits significant metaphysical presuppositions along the way.

The goal of this section is to characterize the ideas of the correspondence, coherence and pragmatist theories which animate the contemporary debate. In some cases, the received forms of these theories depart from the views that were actually defended in the early 20th century. We thus dub them the ‘neo-classical theories’. Where appropriate, we pause to indicate how the neo-classical theories emerge from their ‘classical’ roots in the early 20th century.

Perhaps the most important of the neo-classical theories for the contemporary literature is the correspondence theory. Ideas that sound strikingly like a correspondence theory are no doubt very old. They might well be found in Aristotle or Aquinas. When we turn to the late 19th and early 20th centuries where we pick up the story of the neo-classical theories of truth, it is clear that ideas about correspondence were central to the discussions of the time. In spite of their importance, however, it is strikingly difficult to find an accurate citation in the early 20th century for the received neo-classical view. Furthermore, the way the correspondence theory actually emerged will provide some valuable reference points for the contemporary debate. For these reasons, we dwell on the origins of the correspondence theory in the late 19th and early 20th centuries at greater length than those of the other neo-classical views, before turning to its contemporary neo-classical form. For an overview of the correspondence theory, see David (2018).

The basic idea of the correspondence theory is that what we believe or say is true if it corresponds to the way things actually are – to the facts. This idea can be seen in various forms throughout the history of philosophy. Its modern history starts with the beginnings of analytic philosophy at the turn of the 20th century, particularly in the work of G. E. Moore and Bertrand Russell.

Let us pick up the thread of this story in the years between 1898 and about 1910. These years are marked by Moore and Russell’s rejection of idealism. Yet at this point, they do not hold a correspondence theory of truth. Indeed Moore (1899) sees the correspondence theory as a source of idealism, and rejects it. Russell follows Moore in this regard. (For discussion of Moore’s early critique of idealism, where he rejects the correspondence theory of truth, see Baldwin (1991). Hylton (1990) provides an extensive discussion of Russell in the context of British idealism. An overview of these issues is given by Baldwin (2018).)

In this period, Moore and Russell hold a version of the identity theory of truth . They say comparatively little about it, but it is stated briefly in Moore (1899; 1902) and Russell (1904). According to the identity theory, a true proposition is identical to a fact. Specifically, in Moore and Russell’s hands, the theory begins with propositions, understood as the objects of beliefs and other propositional attitudes. Propositions are what are believed, and give the contents of beliefs. They are also, according to this theory, the primary bearers of truth. When a proposition is true, it is identical to a fact, and a belief in that proposition is correct. (Related ideas about the identity theory and idealism are discussed by McDowell (1994) and further developed by Hornsby (2001).)

The identity theory Moore and Russell espoused takes truth to be a property of propositions. Furthermore, taking up an idea familiar to readers of Moore, the property of truth is a simple unanalyzable property. Facts are understood as simply those propositions which are true. There are true propositions and false ones, and facts just are true propositions. There is thus no “difference between truth and the reality to which it is supposed to correspond” (Moore, 1902, p. 21). (For further discussion of the identity theory of truth, see Baldwin (1991), Candlish (1999), Candlish and Damnjanovic (2018), Cartwright (1987), Dodd (2000), and the entry on the identity theory of truth .)

Moore and Russell came to reject the identity theory of truth in favor of a correspondence theory, sometime around 1910 (as we see in Moore, 1953, which reports lectures he gave in 1910–1911, and Russell, 1910b). They do so because they came to reject the existence of propositions. Why? Among reasons, they came to doubt that there could be any such things as false propositions, and then concluded that there are no such things as propositions at all.

Why did Moore and Russell find false propositions problematic? A full answer to this question is a point of scholarship that would take us too far afield. (Moore himself lamented that he could not “put the objection in a clear and convincing way” (1953, p. 263), but see Cartwright (1987) and David (2001) for careful and clear exploration of the arguments.) But very roughly, the identification of facts with true propositions left them unable to see what a false proposition could be other than something which is just like a fact, though false. If such things existed, we would have fact-like things in the world, which Moore and Russell now see as enough to make false propositions count as true. Hence, they cannot exist, and so there are no false propositions. As Russell (1956, p. 223) later says, propositions seem to be at best “curious shadowy things” in addition to facts.

As Cartwright (1987) reminds us, it is useful to think of this argument in the context of Russell’s slightly earlier views about propositions. As we see clearly in Russell (1903), for instance, he takes propositions to have constituents. But they are not mere collections of constituents, but a ‘unity’ which brings the constituents together. (We thus confront the ‘problem of the unity of the proposition’.) But what, we might ask, would be the ‘unity’ of a proposition that Samuel Ramey sings – with constituents Ramey and singing – except Ramey bearing the property of singing? If that is what the unity consists in, then we seem to have nothing other than the fact that Ramey sings. But then we could not have genuine false propositions without having false facts.

As Cartwright also reminds us, there is some reason to doubt the cogency of this sort of argument. But let us put the assessment of the arguments aside, and continue the story. From the rejection of propositions a correspondence theory emerges. The primary bearers of truth are no longer propositions, but beliefs themselves. In a slogan:

A belief is true if and only if it corresponds to a fact .

Views like this are held by Moore (1953) and Russell (1910b; 1912). Of course, to understand such a theory, we need to understand the crucial relation of correspondence, as well as the notion of a fact to which a belief corresponds. We now turn to these questions. In doing so, we will leave the history, and present a somewhat more modern reconstruction of a correspondence theory. (For more on facts and proposition in this period, see Sullivan and Johnston (2018).)

The correspondence theory of truth is at its core an ontological thesis: a belief is true if there exists an appropriate entity – a fact – to which it corresponds. If there is no such entity, the belief is false.

Facts, for the neo-classical correspondence theory, are entities in their own right. Facts are generally taken to be composed of particulars and properties and relations or universals, at least. The neo-classical correspondence theory thus only makes sense within the setting of a metaphysics that includes such facts. Hence, it is no accident that as Moore and Russell turn away from the identity theory of truth, the metaphysics of facts takes on a much more significant role in their views. This perhaps becomes most vivid in the later Russell (1956, p. 182), where the existence of facts is the “first truism.” (The influence of Wittgenstein’s ideas to appear in the Tractatus (1922) on Russell in this period was strong, and indeed, the Tractatus remains one of the important sources for the neo-classical correspondence theory. For more recent extensive discussions of facts, see Armstrong (1997) and Neale (2001).)

Consider, for example, the belief that Ramey sings. Let us grant that this belief is true. In what does its truth consist, according to the correspondence theory? It consists in there being a fact in the world, built from the individual Ramey, and the property of singing. Let us denote this \(\langle\) Ramey , Singing \(\rangle\). This fact exists. In contrast, the world (we presume) contains no fact \(\langle\) Ramey , Dancing \(\rangle\). The belief that Ramey sings stands in the relation of correspondence to the fact \(\langle\) Ramey , Singing \(\rangle\), and so the belief is true.

What is the relation of correspondence? One of the standing objections to the classical correspondence theory is that a fully adequate explanation of correspondence proves elusive. But for a simple belief, like that Ramey sings, we can observe that the structure of the fact \(\langle\) Ramey , Singing \(\rangle\) matches the subject-predicate form of the that -clause which reports the belief, and may well match the structure of the belief itself.

So far, we have very much the kind of view that Moore and Russell would have found congenial. But the modern form of the correspondence theory seeks to round out the explanation of correspondence by appeal to propositions . Indeed, it is common to base a correspondence theory of truth upon the notion of a structured proposition . Propositions are again cast as the contents of beliefs and assertions, and propositions have structure which at least roughly corresponds to the structure of sentences. At least, for simple beliefs like that Ramey sings, the proposition has the same subject predicate structure as the sentence. (Proponents of structured propositions, such as Kaplan (1989), often look to Russell (1903) for inspiration, and find unconvincing Russell’s reasons for rejecting them.)

With facts and structured propositions in hand, an attempt may be made to explain the relation of correspondence. Correspondence holds between a proposition and a fact when the proposition and fact have the same structure, and the same constituents at each structural position. When they correspond, the proposition and fact thus mirror each-other. In our simple example, we might have:

Propositions, though structured like facts, can be true or false. In a false case, like the proposition that Ramey dances, we would find no fact at the bottom of the corresponding diagram. Beliefs are true or false depending on whether the propositions which are believed are.

We have sketched this view for simple propositions like the proposition that Ramey sings. How to extend it to more complex cases, like general propositions or negative propositions, is an issue we will not delve into here. It requires deciding whether there are complex facts, such as general facts or negative facts, or whether there is a more complex relation of correspondence between complex propositions and simple facts. (The issue of whether there are such complex facts marks a break between Russell (1956) and Wittgenstein (1922) and the earlier views which Moore (1953) and Russell (1912) sketch.)

According to the correspondence theory as sketched here, what is key to truth is a relation between propositions and the world, which obtains when the world contains a fact that is structurally similar to the proposition. Though this is not the theory Moore and Russell held, it weaves together ideas of theirs with a more modern take on (structured) propositions. We will thus dub it the neo-classical correspondence theory. This theory offers us a paradigm example of a correspondence theory of truth.

The leading idea of the correspondence theory is familiar. It is a form of the older idea that true beliefs show the right kind of resemblance to what is believed. In contrast to earlier empiricist theories, the thesis is not that one’s ideas per se resemble what they are about. Rather, the propositions which give the contents of one’s true beliefs mirror reality, in virtue of entering into correspondence relations to the right pieces of it.

In this theory, it is the way the world provides us with appropriately structured entities that explains truth. Our metaphysics thus explains the nature of truth, by providing the entities needed to enter into correspondence relations.

For more on the correspondence theory, see David (1994, 2018) and the entry on the correspondance theory of truth .

Though initially the correspondence theory was seen by its developers as a competitor to the identity theory of truth, it was also understood as opposed to the coherence theory of truth.

We will be much briefer with the historical origins of the coherence theory than we were with the correspondence theory. Like the correspondence theory, versions of the coherence theory can be seen throughout the history of philosophy. (See, for instance, Walker (1989) for a discussion of its early modern lineage.) Like the correspondence theory, it was important in the early 20th century British origins of analytic philosophy. Particularly, the coherence theory of truth is associated with the British idealists to whom Moore and Russell were reacting.

Many idealists at that time did indeed hold coherence theories. Let us take as an example Joachim (1906). (This is the theory that Russell (1910a) attacks.) Joachim says that:

Truth in its essential nature is that systematic coherence which is the character of a significant whole (p. 76).

We will not attempt a full exposition of Joachim’s view, which would take us well beyond the discussion of truth into the details of British idealism. But a few remarks about his theory will help to give substance to the quoted passage.

Perhaps most importantly, Joachim talks of ‘truth’ in the singular. This is not merely a turn of phrase, but a reflection of his monistic idealism. Joachim insists that what is true is the “whole complete truth” (p. 90). Individual judgments or beliefs are certainly not the whole complete truth. Such judgments are, according to Joachim, only true to a degree. One aspect of this doctrine is a kind of holism about content, which holds that any individual belief or judgment gets its content only in virtue of being part of a system of judgments. But even these systems are only true to a degree, measuring the extent to which they express the content of the single ‘whole complete truth’. Any real judgment we might make will only be partially true.

To flesh out Joachim’s theory, we would have to explain what a significant whole is. We will not attempt that, as it leads us to some of the more formidable aspects of his view, e.g., that it is a “process of self-fulfillment” (p. 77). But it is clear that Joachim takes ‘systematic coherence’ to be stronger than consistency. In keeping with his holism about content, he rejects the idea that coherence is a relation between independently identified contents, and so finds it necessary to appeal to ‘significant wholes’.

As with the correspondence theory, it will be useful to recast the coherence theory in a more modern form, which will abstract away from some of the difficult features of British idealism. As with the correspondence theory, it can be put in a slogan:

A belief is true if and only if it is part of a coherent system of beliefs.

To further the contrast with the neo-classical correspondence theory, we may add that a proposition is true if it is the content of a belief in the system, or entailed by a belief in the system. We may assume, with Joachim, that the condition of coherence will be stronger than consistency. With the idealists generally, we might suppose that features of the believing subject will come into play.

This theory is offered as an analysis of the nature of truth, and not simply a test or criterion for truth. Put as such, it is clearly not Joachim’s theory (it lacks his monism, and he rejects propositions), but it is a standard take on coherence in the contemporary literature. (It is the way the coherence theory is given in Walker (1989), for instance. See also Young (2001) for a recent defense of a coherence theory.) Let us take this as our neo-classical version of the coherence theory. The contrast with the correspondence theory of truth is clear. Far from being a matter of whether the world provides a suitable object to mirror a proposition, truth is a matter of how beliefs are related to each-other.

The coherence theory of truth enjoys two sorts of motivations. One is primarily epistemological. Most coherence theorists also hold a coherence theory of knowledge; more specifically, a coherence theory of justification. According to this theory, to be justified is to be part of a coherent system of beliefs. An argument for this is often based on the claim that only another belief could stand in a justification relation to a belief, allowing nothing but properties of systems of belief, including coherence, to be conditions for justification. Combining this with the thesis that a fully justified belief is true forms an argument for the coherence theory of truth. (An argument along these lines is found in Blanshard (1939), who holds a form of the coherence theory closely related to Joachim’s.)

The steps in this argument may be questioned by a number of contemporary epistemological views. But the coherence theory also goes hand-in-hand with its own metaphysics as well. The coherence theory is typically associated with idealism. As we have already discussed, forms of it were held by British idealists such as Joachim, and later by Blanshard (in America). An idealist should see the last step in the justification argument as quite natural. More generally, an idealist will see little (if any) room between a system of beliefs and the world it is about, leaving the coherence theory of truth as an extremely natural option.

It is possible to be an idealist without adopting a coherence theory. (For instance, many scholars read Bradley as holding a version of the identity theory of truth. See Baldwin (1991) for some discussion.) However, it is hard to see much of a way to hold the coherence theory of truth without maintaining some form of idealism. If there is nothing to truth beyond what is to be found in an appropriate system of beliefs, then it would seem one’s beliefs constitute the world in a way that amounts to idealism. (Walker (1989) argues that every coherence theorist must be an idealist, but not vice-versa.)

The neo-classical correspondence theory seeks to capture the intuition that truth is a content-to-world relation. It captures this in the most straightforward way, by asking for an object in the world to pair up with a true proposition. The neo-classical coherence theory, in contrast, insists that truth is not a content-to-world relation at all; rather, it is a content-to-content, or belief-to-belief, relation. The coherence theory requires some metaphysics which can make the world somehow reflect this, and idealism appears to be it. (A distant descendant of the neo-classical coherence theory that does not require idealism will be discussed in section 6.5 below.)

For more on the coherence theory, see Walker (2018) and the entry on the coherence theory of truth .

A different perspective on truth was offered by the American pragmatists. As with the neo-classical correspondence and coherence theories, the pragmatist theories go with some typical slogans. For example, Peirce is usually understood as holding the view that:

Truth is the end of inquiry.

(See, for instance Hartshorne et al., 1931–58, §3.432.) Both Peirce and James are associated with the slogan that:

Truth is satisfactory to believe.

James (e.g., 1907) understands this principle as telling us what practical value truth has. True beliefs are guaranteed not to conflict with subsequent experience. Likewise, Peirce’s slogan tells us that true beliefs will remain settled at the end of prolonged inquiry. Peirce’s slogan is perhaps most typically associated with pragmatist views of truth, so we might take it to be our canonical neo-classical theory. However, the contemporary literature does not seem to have firmly settled upon a received ‘neo-classical’ pragmatist theory.

In her reconstruction (upon which we have relied heavily), Haack (1976) notes that the pragmatists’ views on truth also make room for the idea that truth involves a kind of correspondence, insofar as the scientific method of inquiry is answerable to some independent world. Peirce, for instance, does not reject a correspondence theory outright; rather, he complains that it provides merely a ‘nominal’ or ‘transcendental’ definition of truth (e.g Hartshorne et al., 1931–58, §5.553, §5.572), which is cut off from practical matters of experience, belief, and doubt (§5.416). (See Misak (2004) for an extended discussion.)

This marks an important difference between the pragmatist theories and the coherence theory we just considered. Even so, pragmatist theories also have an affinity with coherence theories, insofar as we expect the end of inquiry to be a coherent system of beliefs. As Haack also notes, James maintains an important verificationist idea: truth is what is verifiable. We will see this idea re-appear in section 4.

For more on pragmatist theories of truth, see Misak (2018). James’ views are discussed further in the entry on William James . Peirce’s views are discussed further in the entry on Charles Sanders Peirce .

2. Tarski’s theory of truth

Modern forms of the classical theories survive. Many of these modern theories, notably correspondence theories, draw on ideas developed by Tarski.

In this regard, it is important to bear in mind that his seminal work on truth (1935) is very much of a piece with other works in mathematical logic, such as his (1931), and as much as anything this work lays the ground-work for the modern subject of model theory – a branch of mathematical logic, not the metaphysics of truth. In this respect, Tarski’s work provides a set of highly useful tools that may be employed in a wide range of philosophical projects. (See Patterson (2012) for more on Tarski’s work in its historical context.)

Tarski’s work has a number of components, which we will consider in turn.

In the classical debate on truth at the beginning of the 20th century we considered in section 1, the issue of truth-bearers was of great significance. For instance, Moore and Russell’s turn to the correspondence theory was driven by their views on whether there are propositions to be the bearers of truth. Many theories we reviewed took beliefs to be the bearers of truth.

In contrast, Tarski and much of the subsequent work on truth takes sentences to be the primary bearers of truth. This is not an entirely novel development: Russell (1956) also takes truth to apply to sentence (which he calls ‘propositions’ in that text). But whereas much of the classical debate takes the issue of the primary bearers of truth to be a substantial and important metaphysical one, Tarski is quite casual about it. His primary reason for taking sentences as truth-bearers is convenience, and he explicitly distances himself from any commitment about the philosophically contentious issues surrounding other candidate truth-bearers (e.g., Tarski, 1944). (Russell (1956) makes a similar suggestion that sentences are the appropriate truth-bearers “for the purposes of logic” (p. 184), though he still takes the classical metaphysical issues to be important.)

We will return to the issue of the primary bearers of truth in section 6.1. For the moment, it will be useful to simply follow Tarski’s lead. But it should be stressed that for this discussion, sentences are fully interpreted sentences, having meanings. We will also assume that the sentences in question do not change their content across occasions of use, i.e., that they display no context-dependence. We are taking sentences to be what Quine (1960) calls ‘eternal sentences’.

In some places (e.g., Tarski, 1944), Tarski refers to his view as the ‘semantic conception of truth’. It is not entirely clear just what Tarski had in mind by this, but it is clear enough that Tarski’s theory defines truth for sentences in terms of concepts like reference and satisfaction, which are intimately related to the basic semantic functions of names and predicates (according to many approaches to semantics). For more discussion, see Woleński (2001).

Let us suppose we have a fixed language \(\mathbf{L}\) whose sentences are fully interpreted. The basic question Tarski poses is what an adequate theory of truth for \(\mathbf{L}\) would be. Tarski’s answer is embodied in what he calls Convention T :

An adequate theory of truth for \(\mathbf{L}\) must imply, for each sentence \(\phi\) of \(\mathbf{L}\)

\(\ulcorner \phi \urcorner\) is true if and only if \(\phi\).

(We have simplified Tarski’s presentation somewhat.) This is an adequacy condition for theories, not a theory itself. Given the assumption that \(\mathbf{L}\) is fully interpreted, we may assume that each sentence \(\phi\) in fact has a truth value. In light of this, Convention T guarantees that the truth predicate given by the theory will be extensionally correct , i.e., have as its extension all and only the true sentences of \(\mathbf{L}\).

Convention T draws our attention to the biconditionals of the form

\(\ulcorner \ulcorner \phi \urcorner\) is true if and only if \(\phi \urcorner\),

which are usually called the Tarski biconditionals for a language \(\mathbf{L}\).

Tarski does not merely propose a condition of adequacy for theories of truth, he also shows how to meet it. One of his insights is that if the language \(\mathbf{L}\) displays the right structure, then truth for \(\mathbf{L}\) can be defined recursively. For instance, let us suppose that \(\mathbf{L}\) is a simple formal language, containing two atomic sentences ‘snow is white’ and ‘grass is green’, and the sentential connectives \(\vee\) and \(\neg\).

In spite of its simplicity, \(\mathbf{L}\) contains infinitely many distinct sentences. But truth can be defined for all of them by recursion.

• ‘Snow is white’ is true if and only if snow is white.
• ‘Grass is green’ is true if and only if grass is green.
• \(\ulcorner \phi \vee \psi \urcorner\) is true if and only if \(\ulcorner \phi \urcorner\) is true or \(\ulcorner \psi \urcorner\) is true.
• \(\ulcorner \neg \phi \urcorner\) is true if and only if it is not the case that \(\ulcorner \phi \urcorner\) is true.

This theory satisfies Convention T.

This may look trivial, but in defining an extensionally correct truth predicate for an infinite language with four clauses, we have made a modest application of a very powerful technique.

Tarski’s techniques go further, however. They do not stop with atomic sentences. Tarski notes that truth for each atomic sentence can be defined in terms of two closely related notions: reference and satisfaction . Let us consider a language \(\mathbf{L}'\), just like \(\mathbf{L}\) except that instead of simply having two atomic sentences, \(\mathbf{L}'\) breaks atomic sentences into terms and predicates. \(\mathbf{L}'\) contains terms ‘snow’ and ‘grass’ (let us engage in the idealization that these are simply singular terms), and predicates ‘is white’ and ‘is green’. So \(\mathbf{L}'\) is like \(\mathbf{L}\), but also contains the sentences ‘Snow is green’ and ‘Grass is white’.)

We can define truth for atomic sentences of \(\mathbf{L}'\) in the following way.

• ‘Snow’ refers to snow.
• ‘Grass’ refers to grass.
• \(a\) satisfies ‘is white’ if and only if \(a\) is white.
• \(a\) satisfies ‘is green’ if and only if \(a\) is green.
• For any atomic sentence \(\ulcorner t\) is \(P \urcorner\): \(\ulcorner t\) is \(P \urcorner\) is true if and only if the referent of \(\ulcorner t \urcorner\) satisfies \(\ulcorner P\urcorner\).

One of Tarski’s key insights is that the apparatus of satisfaction allows for a recursive definition of truth for sentences with quantifiers , though we will not examine that here. We could repeat the recursion clauses for \(\mathbf{L}\) to produce a full theory of truth for \(\mathbf{L}'\).

Let us say that a Tarskian theory of truth is a recursive theory, built up in ways similar to the theory of truth for \(\mathbf{L}'\). Tarski goes on to demonstrate some key applications of such a theory of truth. A Tarskian theory of truth for a language \(\mathbf{L}\) can be used to show that theories in \(\mathbf{L}\) are consistent. This was especially important to Tarski, who was concerned the Liar paradox would make theories in languages containing a truth predicate inconsistent.

For more, see Ray (2018) and the entries on axiomatic theories of truth , the Liar paradox , and Tarski’s truth definitions .

3. Correspondence revisited

The correspondence theory of truth expresses the very natural idea that truth is a content-to-world or word-to-world relation: what we say or think is true or false in virtue of the way the world turns out to be. We suggested that, against a background like the metaphysics of facts, it does so in a straightforward way. But the idea of correspondence is certainly not specific to this framework. Indeed, it is controversial whether a correspondence theory should rely on any particular metaphysics at all. The basic idea of correspondence, as Tarski (1944) and others have suggested, is captured in the slogan from Aristotle’s Metaphysics Γ 7.27, “to say of what is that it is, or of what is not that it is not, is true” (Ross, 1928). ‘What is’, it is natural enough to say, is a fact, but this natural turn of phrase may well not require a full-blown metaphysics of facts. (For a discussion of Aristotle’s views in a historical context, see Szaif (2018).)

Yet without the metaphysics of facts, the notion of correspondence as discussed in section 1.1 loses substance. This has led to two distinct strands in contemporary thinking about the correspondence theory. One strand seeks to recast the correspondence theory in a way that does not rely on any particular ontology. Another seeks to find an appropriate ontology for correspondence, either in terms of facts or other entities. We will consider each in turn.

Tarski himself sometimes suggested that his theory was a kind of correspondence theory of truth. Whether his own theory is a correspondence theory, and even whether it provides any substantial philosophical account of truth at all, is a matter of controversy. (One rather drastic negative assessment from Putnam (1985–86, p. 333) is that “As a philosophical account of truth, Tarski’s theory fails as badly as it is possible for an account to fail.”) But a number of philosophers (e.g., Davidson, 1969; Field, 1972) have seen Tarski’s theory as providing at least the core of a correspondence theory of truth which dispenses with the metaphysics of facts.

Tarski’s theory shows how truth for a sentence is determined by certain properties of its constituents; in particular, by properties of reference and satisfaction (as well as by the logical constants). As it is normally understood, reference is the preeminent word-to-world relation. Satisfaction is naturally understood as a word-to-world relation as well, which relates a predicate to the things in the world that bear it. The Tarskian recursive definition shows how truth is determined by reference and satisfaction, and so is in effect determined by the things in the world we refer to and the properties they bear. This, one might propose, is all the correspondence we need. It is not correspondence of sentences or propositions to facts; rather, it is correspondence of our expressions to objects and the properties they bear, and then ways of working out the truth of claims in terms of this.

This is certainly not the neo-classical idea of correspondence. In not positing facts, it does not posit any single object to which a true proposition or sentence might correspond. Rather, it shows how truth might be worked out from basic word-to-world relations. However, a number of authors have noted that Tarski’s theory cannot by itself provide us with such an account of truth. As we will discuss more fully in section 4.2, Tarski’s apparatus is in fact compatible with theories of truth that are certainly not correspondence theories.

Field (1972), in an influential discussion and diagnosis of what is lacking in Tarski’s account, in effect points out that whether we really have something worthy of the name ‘correspondence’ depends on our having notions of reference and satisfaction which genuinely establish word-to-world relations. (Field does not use the term ‘correspondence’, but does talk about e.g., the “connection between words and things” (p. 373).) By itself, Field notes, Tarski’s theory does not offer an account of reference and satisfaction at all. Rather, it offers a number of disquotation clauses , such as:

These clauses have an air of triviality (though whether they are to be understood as trivial principles or statements of non-trivial semantic facts has been a matter of some debate). With Field, we might propose to supplement clauses like these with an account of reference and satisfaction. Such a theory should tell us what makes it the case that the word ‘snow’ refer to snow. (In 1972, Field was envisaging a physicalist account, along the lines of the causal theory of reference.) This should inter alia guarantee that truth is really determined by word-to-world relations, so in conjunction with the Tarskian recursive definition, it could provide a correspondence theory of truth.

Such a theory clearly does not rely on a metaphysics of facts. Indeed, it is in many ways metaphysically neutral, as it does not take a stand on the nature of particulars, or of the properties or universals that underwrite facts about satisfaction. However, it may not be entirely devoid of metaphysical implications, as we will discuss further in section 4.1.

Much of the subsequent discussion of Field-style approaches to correspondence has focused on the role of representation in these views. Field’s own (1972) discussion relies on a causal relation between terms and their referents, and a similar relation for satisfaction. These are instances of representation relations. According to representational views, meaningful items, like perhaps thoughts or sentences or their constituents, have their contents in virtue of standing in the right relation to the things they represent. On many views, including Field’s, a name stands in such a relation to its bearer, and the relation is a causal one.

The project of developing a naturalist account of the representation relation has been an important one in the philosophy of mind and language. (See the entry on mental representation .) But, it has implications for the theory of truth. Representational views of content lead naturally to correspondence theories of truth. To make this vivid, suppose you hold that sentences or beliefs stand in a representation relation to some objects. It is natural to suppose that for true beliefs or sentences, those objects would be facts. We then have a correspondence theory, with the correspondence relation explicated as a representation relation: a truth bearer is true if it represents a fact.

As we have discussed, many contemporary views reject facts, but one can hold a representational view of content without them. One interpretation of Field’s theory is just that. The relations of reference and satisfaction are representation relations, and truth for sentences is determined compositionally in terms of those representation relations, and the nature of the objects they represent. If we have such relations, we have the building blocks for a correspondence theory without facts. Field (1972) anticipated a naturalist reduction of the representation via a causal theory, but any view that accepts representation relations for truth bearers or their constituents can provide a similar theory of truth. (See Jackson (2006) and Lynch (2009) for further discussion.)

Representational views of content provide a natural way to approach the correspondence theory of truth, and likewise, anti-representational views provide a natural way to avoid the correspondence theory of truth. This is most clear in the work of Davidson, as we will discuss more in section 6.5.

There have been a number of correspondence theories that do make use of facts. Some are notably different from the neo-classical theory sketched in section 1.1. For instance, Austin (1950) proposes a view in which each statement (understood roughly as an utterance event) corresponds to both a fact or situation, and a type of situation. It is true if the former is of the latter type. This theory, which has been developed by situation theory (e.g., Barwise and Perry, 1986), rejects the idea that correspondence is a kind of mirroring between a fact and a proposition. Rather, correspondence relations to Austin are entirely conventional. (See Vision (2004) for an extended defense of an Austinian correspondence theory.) As an ordinary language philosopher, Austin grounds his notion of fact more in linguistic usage than in an articulated metaphysics, but he defends his use of fact-talk in Austin (1961b).

In a somewhat more Tarskian spirit, formal theories of facts or states of affairs have also been developed. For instance, Taylor (1976) provides a recursive definition of a collection of ‘states of affairs’ for a given language. Taylor’s states of affairs seem to reflect the notion of fact at work in the neo-classical theory, though as an exercise in logic, they are officially \(n\)-tuples of objects and intensions .

There are more metaphysically robust notions of fact in the current literature. For instance, Armstrong (1997) defends a metaphysics in which facts (under the name ‘states of affairs’) are metaphysically fundamental. The view has much in common with the neo-classical one. Like the neo-classical view, Armstrong endorses a version of the correspondence theory. States of affairs are truthmakers for propositions, though Armstrong argues that there may be many such truthmakers for a given proposition, and vice versa. (Armstrong also envisages a naturalistic account of propositions as classes of equivalent belief-tokens.)

Armstrong’s primary argument is what he calls the ‘truthmaker argument’. It begins by advancing a truthmaker principle , which holds that for any given truth, there must be a truthmaker – a “something in the world which makes it the case, that serves as an ontological ground, for this truth” (p. 115). It is then argued that facts are the appropriate truthmakers.

In contrast to the approach to correspondence discussed in section 3.1, which offered correspondence with minimal ontological implications, this view returns to the ontological basis of correspondence that was characteristic of the neo-classical theory.

For more on facts, see the entry on facts .

The truthmaker principle is often put as the schema:

If \(\phi\), then there is an \(x\) such that necessarily, if \(x\) exists, then \(\phi\).

(Fox (1987) proposed putting the principle this way, rather than explicitly in terms of truth.)

The truthmaker principle expresses the ontological aspect of the neo-classical correspondence theory. Not merely must truth obtain in virtue of word-to-world relations, but there must be a thing that makes each truth true. (For one view on this, see Merricks (2007).)

The neo-classical correspondence theory, and Armstrong, cast facts as the appropriate truthmakers. However, it is a non-trivial step from the truthmaker principle to the existence of facts. There are a number of proposals in the literature for how other sorts of objects could be truthmakers; for instance, tropes (called ‘moments’, in Mulligan et al., 1984). Parsons (1999) argues that the truthmaker principle (presented in a somewhat different form) is compatible with there being only concrete particulars.

As we saw in discussing the neo-classical correspondence theory, truthmaker theories, and fact theories in particular, raise a number of issues. One which has been discussed at length, for instance, is whether there are negative facts . Negative facts would be the truthmakers for negated sentences. Russell (1956) notoriously expresses ambivalence about whether there are negative facts. Armstrong (1997) rejects them, while Beall (2000) defends them. (For more discussion of truthmakers, see Cameron (2018) and the papers in Beebee and Dodd (2005).)

4. Realism and anti-realism

The neo-classical theories we surveyed in section 1 made the theory of truth an application of their background metaphysics (and in some cases epistemology). In section 2 and especially in section 3, we returned to the issue of what sorts of ontological commitments might go with the theory of truth. There we saw a range of options, from relatively ontologically non-committal theories, to theories requiring highly specific ontologies.

There is another way in which truth relates to metaphysics. Many ideas about realism and anti-realism are closely related to ideas about truth. Indeed, many approaches to questions about realism and anti-realism simply make them questions about truth.

In discussing the approach to correspondence of section 3.1, we noted that it has few ontological requirements. It relies on there being objects of reference, and something about the world which makes for determinate satisfaction relations; but beyond that, it is ontologically neutral. But as we mentioned there, this is not to say that it has no metaphysical implications. A correspondence theory of truth, of any kind, is often taken to embody a form of realism .

The key features of realism, as we will take it, are that:

• The world exists objectively, independently of the ways we think about it or describe it.
• Our thoughts and claims are about that world.

(Wright (1992) offers a nice statement of this way of thinking about realism.) These theses imply that our claims are objectively true or false, depending on how the world they are about is. The world that we represent in our thoughts or language is an objective world. (Realism may be restricted to some subject-matter, or range of discourse, but for simplicity, we will talk about only its global form.)

It is often argued that these theses require some form of the correspondence theory of truth. (Putnam (1978, p. 18) notes, “Whatever else realists say, they typically say that they believe in a ‘correspondence theory of truth’.”) At least, they are supported by the kind of correspondence theory without facts discussed in section 3.1, such as Field’s proposal. Such a theory will provide an account of objective relations of reference and satisfaction, and show how these determine the truth or falsehood of what we say about the world. Field’s own approach (1972) to this problem seeks a physicalist explanation of reference. But realism is a more general idea than physicalism. Any theory that provides objective relations of reference and satisfaction, and builds up a theory of truth from them, would give a form of realism. (Making the objectivity of reference the key to realism is characteristic of work of Putnam, e.g., 1978.)

Another important mark of realism expressed in terms of truth is the property of bivalence . As Dummett has stressed (e.g., 1959; 1976; 1983; 1991), a realist should see there being a fact of the matter one way or the other about whether any given claim is correct. Hence, one important mark of realism is that it goes together with the principle of bivalence : every truth-bearer (sentence or proposition) is true or false. In much of his work, Dummett has made this the characteristic mark of realism, and often identifies realism about some subject-matter with accepting bivalence for discourse about that subject-matter. At the very least, it captures a great deal of what is more loosely put in the statement of realism above.

Both the approaches to realism, through reference and through bivalence, make truth the primary vehicle for an account of realism. A theory of truth which substantiates bivalence, or builds truth from a determinate reference relation, does most of the work of giving a realistic metaphysics. It might even simply be a realistic metaphysics.

We have thus turned on its head the relation of truth to metaphysics we saw in our discussion of the neo-classical correspondence theory in section 1.1. There, a correspondence theory of truth was built upon a substantial metaphysics. Here, we have seen how articulating a theory that captures the idea of correspondence can be crucial to providing a realist metaphysics. (For another perspective on realism and truth, see Alston (1996). Devitt (1984) offers an opposing view to the kind we have sketched here, which rejects any characterization of realism in terms of truth or other semantic concepts.)

In light of our discussion in section 1.1.1, we should pause to note that the connection between realism and the correspondence theory of truth is not absolute. When Moore and Russell held the identity theory of truth, they were most certainly realists. The right kind of metaphysics of propositions can support a realist view, as can a metaphysics of facts. The modern form of realism we have been discussing here seeks to avoid basing itself on such particular ontological commitments, and so prefers to rely on the kind of correspondence-without-facts approach discussed in section 3.1. This is not to say that realism will be devoid of ontological commitments, but the commitments will flow from whichever specific claims about some subject-matter are taken to be true.

For more on realism and truth, see Fumerton (2002) and the entry on realism .

It should come as no surprise that the relation between truth and metaphysics seen by modern realists can also be exploited by anti-realists. Many modern anti-realists see the theory of truth as the key to formulating and defending their views. With Dummett (e.g., 1959; 1976; 1991), we might expect the characteristic mark of anti-realism to be the rejection of bivalence.

Indeed, many contemporary forms of anti-realism may be formulated as theories of truth, and they do typically deny bivalence. Anti-realism comes in many forms, but let us take as an example a (somewhat crude) form of verificationism. Such a theory holds that a claim is correct just insofar as it is in principle verifiable , i.e., there is a verification procedure we could in principle carry out which would yield the answer that the claim in question was verified.

So understood, verificationism is a theory of truth. The claim is not that verification is the most important epistemic notion, but that truth just is verifiability. As with the kind of realism we considered in section 4.1, this view expresses its metaphysical commitments in its explanation of the nature of truth. Truth is not, to this view, a fully objective matter, independent of us or our thoughts. Instead, truth is constrained by our abilities to verify, and is thus constrained by our epistemic situation. Truth is to a significant degree an epistemic matter, which is typical of many anti-realist positions.

As Dummett says, the verificationist notion of truth does not appear to support bivalence. Any statement that reaches beyond what we can in principle verify or refute (verify its negation) will be a counter-example to bivalence. Take, for instance, the claim that there is some substance, say uranium, present in some region of the universe too distant to be inspected by us within the expected lifespan of the universe. Insofar as this really would be in principle unverifiable, we have no reason to maintain it is true or false according to the verificationist theory of truth.

Verificationism of this sort is one of a family of anti-realist views. Another example is the view that identifies truth with warranted assertibility. Assertibility, as well as verifiability, has been important in Dummett’s work. (See also works of McDowell, e.g., 1976 and Wright, e.g., 1976; 1982; 1992.)

Anti-realism of the Dummettian sort is not a descendant of the coherence theory of truth per se . But in some ways, as Dummett himself has noted, it might be construed as a descendant – perhaps very distant – of idealism. If idealism is the most drastic form of rejection of the independence of mind and world, Dummettian anti-realism is a more modest form, which sees epistemology imprinted in the world, rather than the wholesale embedding of world into mind. At the same time, the idea of truth as warranted assertibility or verifiability reiterates a theme from the pragmatist views of truth we surveyed in section 1.3.

Anti-realist theories of truth, like the realist ones we discussed in section 4.1, can generally make use of the Tarskian apparatus. Convention T, in particular, does not discriminate between realist and anti-realist notions of truth. Likewise, the base clauses of a Tarskian recursive theory are given as disquotation principles, which are neutral between realist and anti-realist understandings of notions like reference. As we saw with the correspondence theory, giving a full account of the nature of truth will generally require more than the Tarskian apparatus itself. How an anti-realist is to explain the basic concepts that go into a Tarskian theory is a delicate matter. As Dummett and Wright have investigated in great detail, it appears that the background logic in which the theory is developed will have to be non-classical.

For more on anti-realism and truth, see Shieh (2018) and the papers in Greenough and Lynch (2006) and the entry on realism .

Many commentators see a close connection between Dummett’s anti-realism and the pragmatists’ views of truth, in that both put great weight on ideas of verifiability or assertibility. Dummett himself stressed parallels between anti-realism and intuitionism in the philosophy of mathematics.

Another view on truth which returns to pragmatist themes is the ‘internal realism’ of Putnam (1981). There Putnam glosses truth as what would be justified under ideal epistemic conditions. With the pragmatists, Putnam sees the ideal conditions as something which can be approximated, echoing the idea of truth as the end of inquiry.

Putnam is cautious about calling his view anti-realism, preferring the label ‘internal realism’. But he is clear that he sees his view as opposed to realism (‘metaphysical realism’, as he calls it).

Davidson’s views on truth have also been associated with pragmatism, notably by Rorty (1986). Davidson has distanced himself from this interpretation (e.g., 1990), but he does highlight connections between truth and belief and meaning. Insofar as these are human attitudes or relate to human actions, Davidson grants there is some affinity between his views and those of some pragmatists (especially, he says, Dewey).

Another view that has grown out of the literature on realism and anti-realism, and has become increasingly important in the current literature, is that of pluralism about truth. This view, developed in work of Lynch (e.g. 2001b; 2009) and Wright (e.g. 1992; 1999), proposes that there are multiple ways for truth bearers to be true. Wright, in particular, suggests that in certain domains of discourse what we say is true in virtue of a correspondence-like relation, while in others it is its true in virtue of a kind of assertibility relation that is closer in spirit to the anti-realist views we have just discussed.

Such a proposal might suggest there are multiple concepts of truth, or that the term ‘true’ is itself ambiguous. However, whether or not a pluralist view is committed to such claims has been disputed. In particular, Lynch (2001b; 2009) develops a version of pluralism which takes truth to be a functional role concept. The functional role of truth is characterized by a range of principles that articulate such features of truth as its objectivity, its role in inquiry, and related ideas we have encountered in considering various theories of truth. (A related point about platitudes governing the concept of truth is made by Wright (1992).) But according to Lynch, these display the functional role of truth. Furthermore, Lynch claims that on analogy with analytic functionalism, these principles can be seen as deriving from our pre-theoretic or ‘folk’ ideas about truth.

Like all functional role concepts, truth must be realized, and according to Lynch it may be realized in different ways in different settings. Such multiple realizability has been one of the hallmarks of functional role concepts discussed in the philosophy of mind. For instance, Lynch suggests that for ordinary claims about material objects, truth might be realized by a correspondence property (which he links to representational views), while for moral claims truth might be manifest by an assertibility property along more anti-realist lines.

For more on pluralism about truth, see Pedersen and Lynch (2018) and the entry on pluralist theories of truth .

5. Deflationism

We began in section 1 with the neo-classical theories, which explained the nature of truth within wider metaphysical systems. We then considered some alternatives in sections 2 and 3, some of which had more modest ontological implications. But we still saw in section 4 that substantial theories of truth tend to imply metaphysical theses, or even embody metaphysical positions.

One long-standing trend in the discussion of truth is to insist that truth really does not carry metaphysical significance at all. It does not, as it has no significance on its own. A number of different ideas have been advanced along these lines, under the general heading of deflationism .

Deflationist ideas appear quite early on, including a well-known argument against correspondence in Frege (1918–19). However, many deflationists take their cue from an idea of Ramsey (1927), often called the equivalence thesis :

\(\ulcorner \ulcorner \phi \urcorner\) is true \(\urcorner\) has the same meaning as \(\phi\).

(Ramsey himself takes truth-bearers to be propositions rather than sentences. Glanzberg (2003b) questions whether Ramsey’s account of propositions really makes him a deflationist.)

This can be taken as the core of a theory of truth, often called the redundancy theory . The redundancy theory holds that there is no property of truth at all, and appearances of the expression ‘true’ in our sentences are redundant, having no effect on what we express.

The equivalence thesis can also be understood in terms of speech acts rather than meaning:

To assert that \(\ulcorner \phi \urcorner\) is true is just to assert that \(\phi\).

This view was advanced by Strawson (1949; 1950), though Strawson also argues that there are other important aspects of speech acts involving ‘true’ beyond what is asserted. For instance, they may be acts of confirming or granting what someone else said. (Strawson would also object to my making sentences the bearers of truth.)

In either its speech act or meaning form, the redundancy theory argues there is no property of truth. It is commonly noted that the equivalence thesis itself is not enough to sustain the redundancy theory. It merely holds that when truth occurs in the outermost position in a sentence, and the full sentence to which truth is predicated is quoted, then truth is eliminable. What happens in other environments is left to be seen. Modern developments of the redundancy theory include Grover et al. (1975).

The equivalence principle looks familiar: it has something like the form of the Tarski biconditionals discussed in section 2.2. However, it is a stronger principle, which identifies the two sides of the biconditional – either their meanings or the speech acts performed with them. The Tarski biconditionals themselves are simply material biconditionals.

A number of deflationary theories look to the Tarski biconditionals rather than the full equivalence principle. Their key idea is that even if we do not insist on redundancy, we may still hold the following theses:

• For a given language \(\mathbf{L}\) and every \(\phi\) in \(\mathbf{L}\), the biconditionals \(\ulcorner \ulcorner \phi \urcorner\) is true if and only if \(\phi \urcorner\) hold by definition (or analytically, or trivially, or by stipulation …).
• This is all there is to say about the concept of truth.

We will refer to views which adopt these as minimalist . Officially, this is the name of the view of Horwich (1990), but we will apply it somewhat more widely. (Horwich’s view differs in some specific respects from what is presented here, such as predicating truth of propositions, but we believe it is close enough to what is sketched here to justify the name.)

The second thesis, that the Tarski biconditionals are all there is to say about truth, captures something similar to the redundancy theory’s view. It comes near to saying that truth is not a property at all; to the extent that truth is a property, there is no more to it than the disquotational pattern of the Tarski biconditionals. As Horwich puts it, there is no substantial underlying metaphysics to truth. And as Soames (1984) stresses, certainly nothing that could ground as far-reaching a view as realism or anti-realism.

If there is no property of truth, or no substantial property of truth, what role does our term ‘true’ play? Deflationists typically note that the truth predicate provides us with a convenient device of disquotation . Such a device allows us to make some useful claims which we could not formulate otherwise, such as the blind ascription ‘The next thing that Bill says will be true’. (For more on blind ascriptions and their relation to deflationism, see Azzouni, 2001.) A predicate obeying the Tarski biconditionals can also be used to express what would otherwise be (potentially) infinite conjunctions or disjunctions, such as the notorious statement of Papal infallibility put ‘Everything the Pope says is true’. (Suggestions like this are found in Leeds, 1978 and Quine, 1970.)

Recognizing these uses for a truth predicate, we might simply think of it as introduced into a language by stipulation . The Tarski biconditionals themselves might be stipulated, as the minimalists envisage. One could also construe the clauses of a recursive Tarskian theory as stipulated. (There are some significant logical differences between these two options. See Halbach (1999) and Ketland (1999) for discussion.) Other deflationists, such as Beall (2005) or Field (1994), might prefer to focus here on rules of inference or rules of use, rather than the Tarski biconditionals themselves.

There are also important connections between deflationist ideas about truth and certain ideas about meaning. These are fundamental to the deflationism of Field (1986; 1994), which will be discussed in section 6.3. For an insightful critique of deflationism, see Gupta (1993).

For more on deflationism, see Azzouni (2018) and the entry on the deflationary theory of truth .

6. Truth and language

One of the important themes in the literature on truth is its connection to meaning, or more generally, to language. This has proved an important application of ideas about truth, and an important issue in the study of truth itself. This section will consider a number of issues relating truth and language.

There have been many debates in the literature over what the primary bearers of truth are. Candidates typically include beliefs, propositions, sentences, and utterances. We have already seen in section 1 that the classical debates on truth took this issue very seriously, and what sort of theory of truth was viable was often seen to depend on what the bearers of truth are.

In spite of the number of options under discussion, and the significance that has sometimes been placed on the choice, there is an important similarity between candidate truth-bearers. Consider the role of truth-bearers in the correspondence theory, for instance. We have seen versions of it which take beliefs, propositions, or interpreted sentences to be the primary bearers of truth. But all of them rely upon the idea that their truth-bearers are meaningful , and are thereby able to say something about what the world is like. (We might say that they are able to represent the world, but that is to use ‘represent’ in a wider sense than we saw in section 3.2. No assumptions about just what stands in relations to what objects are required to see truth-bearers as meaningful.) It is in virtue of being meaningful that truth-bearers are able to enter into correspondence relations. Truth-bearers are things which meaningfully make claims about what the world is like, and are true or false depending on whether the facts in the world are as described.

Exactly the same point can be made for the anti-realist theories of truth we saw in section 4.2, though with different accounts of how truth-bearers are meaningful, and what the world contributes. Though it is somewhat more delicate, something similar can be said for coherence theories, which usually take beliefs, or whole systems of beliefs, as the primary truth-bearers. Though a coherence theory will hardly talk of beliefs representing the facts, it is crucial to the coherence theory that beliefs are contentful beliefs of agents, and that they can enter into coherence relations. Noting the complications in interpreting the genuine classical coherence theories, it appears fair to note that this requires truth-bearers to be meaningful, however the background metaphysics (presumably idealism) understands meaning.

Though Tarski works with sentences, the same can be said of his theory. The sentences to which Tarski’s theory applies are fully interpreted, and so also are meaningful. They characterize the world as being some way or another, and this in turn determines whether they are true or false. Indeed, Tarski needs there to be a fact of the matter about whether each sentence is true or false (abstracting away from context dependence), to ensure that the Tarski biconditionals do their job of fixing the extension of ‘is true’. (But note that just what this fact of the matter consists in is left open by the Tarskian apparatus.)

We thus find the usual candidate truth-bearers linked in a tight circle: interpreted sentences, the propositions they express, the belief speakers might hold towards them, and the acts of assertion they might perform with them are all connected by providing something meaningful. This makes them reasonable bearers of truth. For this reason, it seems, contemporary debates on truth have been much less concerned with the issue of truth-bearers than were the classical ones. Some issues remain, of course. Different metaphysical assumptions may place primary weight on some particular node in the circle, and some metaphysical views still challenge the existence of some of the nodes. Perhaps more importantly, different views on the nature of meaning itself might cast doubt on the coherence of some of the nodes. Notoriously for instance, Quineans (e.g., Quine, 1960) deny the existence of intensional entities, including propositions. Even so, it increasingly appears doubtful that attention to truth per se will bias us towards one particular primary bearer of truth.

For more on these issues, see King (2018).

There is a related, but somewhat different point, which is important to understanding the theories we have canvassed.

The neo-classical theories of truth start with truth-bearers which are already understood to be meaningful, and explain how they get their truth values. But along the way, they often do something more. Take the neo-classical correspondence theory, for instance. This theory, in effect, starts with a view of how propositions are meaningful. They are so in virtue of having constituents in the world, which are brought together in the right way. There are many complications about the nature of meaning, but at a minimum, this tells us what the truth conditions associated with a proposition are. The theory then explains how such truth conditions can lead to the truth value true , by the right fact existing .

Many theories of truth are like the neo-classical correspondence theory in being as much theories of how truth-bearers are meaningful as of how their truth values are fixed. Again, abstracting from some complications about meaning, this makes them theories both of truth conditions and truth values . The Tarskian theory of truth can be construed this way too. This can be seen both in the way the Tarski biconditionals are understood, and how a recursive theory of truth is understood. As we explained Convention T in section 2.2, the primary role of a Tarski biconditional of the form \(\ulcorner \ulcorner \phi \urcorner\) is true if and only if \(\phi \urcorner\) is to fix whether \(\phi\) is in the extension of ‘is true’ or not. But it can also be seen as stating the truth conditions of \(\phi\). Both rely on the fact that the unquoted occurrence of \(\phi\) is an occurrence of an interpreted sentence, which has a truth value, but also provides its truth conditions upon occasions of use.

Likewise, the base clauses of the recursive definition of truth, those for reference and satisfaction, are taken to state the relevant semantic properties of constituents of an interpreted sentence. In discussing Tarski’s theory of truth in section 2, we focused on how these determine the truth value of a sentence. But they also show us the truth conditions of a sentence are determined by these semantic properties. For instance, for a simple sentence like ‘Snow is white’, the theory tells us that the sentence is true if the referent of ‘Snow’ satisfies ‘white’. This can be understood as telling us that the truth conditions of ‘Snow is white’ are those conditions in which the referent of ‘Snow’ satisfies the predicate ‘is white’.

As we saw in sections 3 and 4, the Tarskian apparatus is often seen as needing some kind of supplementation to provide a full theory of truth. A full theory of truth conditions will likewise rest on how the Tarskian apparatus is put to use. In particular, just what kinds of conditions those in which the referent of ‘snow’ satisfies the predicate ‘is white’ are will depend on whether we opt for realist or anti-realist theories. The realist option will simply look for the conditions under which the stuff snow bears the property of whiteness; the anti-realist option will look to the conditions under which it can be verified, or asserted with warrant, that snow is white.

There is a broad family of theories of truth which are theories of truth conditions as well as truth values. This family includes the correspondence theory in all its forms – classical and modern. Yet this family is much wider than the correspondence theory, and wider than realist theories of truth more generally. Indeed, virtually all the theories of truth that make contributions to the realism/anti-realism debate are theories of truth conditions. In a slogan, for many approaches to truth, a theory of truth is a theory of truth conditions.

Any theory that provides a substantial account of truth conditions can offer a simple account of truth values: a truth-bearer provides truth conditions, and it is true if and only if the actual way things are is among them. Because of this, any such theory will imply a strong, but very particular, biconditional, close in form to the Tarski biconditionals. It can be made most vivid if we think of propositions as sets of truth conditions. Let \(p\) be a proposition, i.e., a set of truth conditions, and let \(a\) be the ‘actual world’, the condition that actually obtains. Then we can almost trivially see:

\(p\) is true if and only if \(a \in p\).

This is presumably necessary. But it is important to observe that it is in one respect crucially different from the genuine Tarski biconditionals. It makes no use of a non-quoted sentence, or in fact any sentence at all. It does not have the disquotational character of the Tarski biconditionals.

Though this may look like a principle that deflationists should applaud, it is not. Rather, it shows that deflationists cannot really hold a truth-conditional view of content at all. If they do, then they inter alia have a non-deflationary theory of truth, simply by linking truth value to truth conditions through the above biconditional. It is typical of thoroughgoing deflationist theories to present a non-truth-conditional theory of the contents of sentences: a non-truth-conditional account of what makes truth-bearers meaningful. We take it this is what is offered, for instance, by the use theory of propositions in Horwich (1990). It is certainly one of the leading ideas of Field (1986; 1994), which explore how a conceptual role account of content would ground a deflationist view of truth. Once one has a non-truth-conditional account of content, it is then possible to add a deflationist truth predicate, and use this to give purely deflationist statements of truth conditions. But the starting point must be a non-truth-conditional view of what makes truth-bearers meaningful.

Both deflationists and anti-realists start with something other than correspondence truth conditions. But whereas an anti-realist will propose a different theory of truth conditions, a deflationists will start with an account of content which is not a theory of truth conditions at all. The deflationist will then propose that the truth predicate, given by the Tarski biconditionals, is an additional device, not for understanding content, but for disquotation. It is a useful device, as we discussed in section 5.3, but it has nothing to do with content. To a deflationist, the meaningfulness of truth-bearers has nothing to do with truth.

It has been an influential idea, since the seminal work of Davidson (e.g., 1967), to see a Tarskian theory of truth as a theory of meaning. At least, as we have seen, a Tarskian theory can be seen as showing how the truth conditions of a sentence are determined by the semantic properties of its parts. More generally, as we see in much of the work of Davidson and of Dummett (e.g., 1959; 1976; 1983; 1991), giving a theory of truth conditions can be understood as a crucial part of giving a theory of meaning. Thus, any theory of truth that falls into the broad category of those which are theories of truth conditions can be seen as part of a theory of meaning. (For more discussion of these issues, see Higginbotham (1986; 1989) and the exchange between Higginbotham (1992) and Soames (1992).)

A number of commentators on Tarski (e.g., Etchemendy, 1988; Soames, 1984) have observed that the Tarskian apparatus needs to be understood in a particular way to make it suitable for giving a theory of meaning. Tarski’s work is often taken to show how to define a truth predicate. If it is so used, then whether or not a sentence is true becomes, in essence, a truth of mathematics. Presumably what truth conditions sentences of a natural language have is a contingent matter, so a truth predicate defined in this way cannot be used to give a theory of meaning for them. But the Tarskian apparatus need not be used just to explicitly define truth. The recursive characterization of truth can be used to state the semantic properties of sentences and their constituents, as a theory of meaning should. In such an application, truth is not taken to be explicitly defined, but rather the truth conditions of sentences are taken to be described. (See Heck, 1997 for more discussion.)

Inspired by Quine (e.g., 1960), Davidson himself is well known for taking a different approach to using a theory of truth as a theory of meaning than is implicit in Field (1972). Whereas a Field-inspired representational approach is based on a causal account of reference, Davidson (e.g., 1973) proposes a process of radical interpretation in which an interpreter builds a Tarskian theory to interpret a speaker as holding beliefs which are consistent, coherent, and largely true.

This led Davidson (e.g. 1986) to argue that most of our beliefs are true – a conclusion that squares well with the coherence theory of truth. This is a weaker claim than the neo-classical coherence theory would make. It does not insist that all the members of any coherent set of beliefs are true, or that truth simply consists in being a member of such a coherent set. But all the same, the conclusion that most of our beliefs are true, because their contents are to be understood through a process of radical interpretation which will make them a coherent and rational system, has a clear affinity with the neo-classical coherence theory.

In Davidson (1986), he thought his view of truth had enough affinity with the neo-classical coherence theory to warrant being called a coherence theory of truth, while at the same time he saw the role of Tarskian apparatus as warranting the claim that his view was also compatible with a kind of correspondence theory of truth.

In later work, however, Davidson reconsidered this position. In fact, already in Davidson (1977) he had expressed doubt about any understanding of the role of Tarski’s theory in radical interpretation that involves the kind of representational apparatus relied on by Field (1972), as we discussed in sections 3.1 and 3.2. In the “Afterthoughts” to Davidson (1986), he also concluded that his view departs too far from the neo-classical coherence theory to be named one. What is important is rather the role of radical interpretation in the theory of content, and its leading to the idea that belief is veridical. These are indeed points connected to coherence, but not to the coherence theory of truth per se. They also comprise a strong form of anti-representationalism. Thus, though he does not advance a coherence theory of truth, he does advance a theory that stands in opposition to the representational variants of the correspondence theory we discussed in section 3.2.

For more on Davidson, see Glanzberg (2013) and the entry on Donald Davidson .

The relation between truth and meaning is not the only place where truth and language relate closely. Another is the idea, also much-stressed in the writings of Dummett (e.g., 1959), of the relation between truth and assertion. Again, it fits into a platitude:

Truth is the aim of assertion.

A person making an assertion, the platitude holds, aims to say something true.

It is easy to cast this platitude in a way that appears false. Surely, many speakers do not aim to say something true. Any speaker who lies does not. Any speaker whose aim is to flatter, or to deceive, aims at something other than truth.

The motivation for the truth-assertion platitude is rather different. It looks at assertion as a practice, in which certain rules are constitutive . As is often noted, the natural parallel here is with games, like chess or baseball, which are defined by certain rules. The platitude holds that it is constitutive of the practice of making assertions that assertions aim at truth. An assertion by its nature presents what it is saying as true, and any assertion which fails to be true is ipso facto liable to criticism, whether or not the person making the assertion themself wished to have said something true or to have lied.

Dummett’s original discussion of this idea was partially a criticism of deflationism (in particular, of views of Strawson, 1950). The idea that we fully explain the concept of truth by way of the Tarski biconditionals is challenged by the claim that the truth-assertion platitude is fundamental to truth. As Dummett there put it, what is left out by the Tarski biconditionals, and captured by the truth-assertion platitude, is the point of the concept of truth, or what the concept is used for. (For further discussion, see Glanzberg, 2003a and Wright, 1992.)

Whether or not assertion has such constitutive rules is, of course, controversial. But among those who accept that it does, the place of truth in the constitutive rules is itself controversial. The leading alternative, defended by Williamson (1996), is that knowledge, not truth, is fundamental to the constitutive rules of assertion. Williamson defends an account of assertion based on the rule that one must assert only what one knows.

For more on truth and assertion, see the papers in Brown and Cappelen (2011) and the entry on assertion .

• Alston, William P., 1996, A Realist Conception of Truth , Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
• Armstrong, David M., 1997, A World of States of Affairs , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Austin, J. L., 1950, “Truth”, Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society (Supplementary Volume), 24: 111–129. Reprinted in Austin (1961a).
• –––, 1961a, Philosophical Papers , Oxford: Clarendon Press. Edited by J. O. Urmson and G. J. Warnock.
• –––, 1961b, “Unfair to facts”, in Philosophical Papers , J. O. Urmson and G. J. Warnock (eds.), Oxford: Clarendon Press, 102–122.
• Azzouni, Jody, 2001, “Truth via anaphorically unrestricted quantifiers”, Journal of Philosophical Logic , 30: 329–354.
• –––, 2018, “Deflationist truth”, in M. Glanzberg (ed.) 2018, 477–502.
• Baldwin, Thomas, 1991, “The identity theory of truth”, Mind , 100: 35–52.
• –––, 2018, “Truth in British idealism and its analytic critics”, in M. Glanzberg (ed.) 2018, 125–149.
• Barwise, Jon and Perry, John, 1986, Situations and Attitudes , Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
• Beall, Jc, 2000, “On truthmakers for negative truths”, Australasian Journal of Philosophy , 78: 264–268.
• –––, 2005, “Transparent disquotationalism”, in Deflationism and Paradox , Jc Beall and B. Armour-Garb (eds.), Oxford: Oxford University Press, 7–22.
• Beebee, Helen and Dodd, Julian (eds.), 2005, Truthmakers: The Contemporary Debate , Oxford: Clarendon Press.
• Blackburn, Simon and Simmons, Keith (eds.), 1999, Truth , Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Blanshard, Brand, 1939, The Nature of Thought , London: George Allen and Unwin.
• Brown, Jessica and Cappelen, Herman (eds.), 2011, Assertion: New Philosophical Essays , Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Burgess, Alexis G. and Burgess, John P. (eds.), 2011, Truth , Princeton: Princeton University Press.
• Cameron, Ross P., 2018, “Truthmakers”, in M. Glanzberg (ed.) 2018, 333–354.
• Candlish, Stewart, 1999, “Identifying the identity theory of truth”, Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society , 99: 233–240.
• Candlish, Stewart and Damnjanovic, Nic, 2018, “The identity theory of truth”, in M. Glanzberg (ed.) 2018, 255–282.
• Cartwright, Richard, 1987, “A neglected theory of truth”, in Philosophical Essays , Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 71–93.
• David, Marian, 1994, Correspondence and Disquotation , Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• –––, 2001, “Truth as identity and truth as correspondence”, in The Nature of Truth , M. P. Lynch (ed.), Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 683–704.
• –––, 2018, “The correspondence theory of truth”, in M. Glanzberg (ed.) 2018, 238–258.
• Davidson, Donald, 1967, “Truth and meaning”, Synthese , 17: 304–323. Reprinted in Davidson (1984).
• –––, 1969, “True to the facts”, Journal of Philosophy , 66: 748–764. Reprinted in Davidson (1984).
• –––, 1973, “Radical interpretation”, Dialectica , 27: 313–328. Reprinted in Davidson (1984).
• –––, 1977, “Reality without reference”, Dialectica , 31: 247–253. Reprinted in Davidson (1984).
• –––, 1984, Inquiries into Truth and Interpretation , Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• –––, 1986, “A coherence theory of truth and knowledge”, in Truth and Interpretation , E. Lepore (ed.), Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 307–319. Reprinted with afterthoughts in Davidson (2001).
• –––, 1990, “The structure and content of truth”, Journal of Philosophy , 87: 279–328. Reprinted in revised form in Davidson (2005).
• –––, 2001, Subjective, Intersubjective, Objective , Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• –––, 2005, Truth and Predication , Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
• Devitt, Michael, 1984, Realism and Truth , Oxford: Blackwell.
• Dodd, Julian, 2000, An Identity Theory of Truth , New York: St. Martin’s Press.
• Dummett, Michael, 1959, “Truth”, Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society , 59: 141–162. Reprinted in Dummett (1978).
• –––, 1976, “What is a theory of meaning? (II)”, in Truth and Meaning , G. Evans and J. McDowell (eds.), Oxford: Clarendon Press. Reprinted in Dummett (1993).
• –––, 1978, Truth and Other Enigmas , Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
• –––, 1983, “Language and truth”, in Approaches to Language , Roy Harris (ed.), Oxford: Pergamon, 95–125. Reprinted in Dummett (1993).
• –––, 1991, The Logical Basis of Metaphysics , Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
• –––, 1993, The Seas of Language , Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Etchemendy, John, 1988, “Tarski on truth and logical consequence”, Journal of Philosophical Logic , 43: 51–79.
• Field, Hartry, 1972, “Tarski’s theory of truth”, Journal of Philosophy , 69: 347–375.
• –––, 1986, “The deflationary conception of truth”, in Fact, Science and Value , C. Wright and G. MacDonald (eds.), Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 55–117.
• –––, 1994, “Deflationist views of meaning and content”, Mind , 103: 249–285.
• Fox, John, 1987, “Truthmaker”, Australasian Journal of Philosophy , 65: 188–207.
• Frege, Gottlob, 1918–19, “Der gedanke”, Beiträge zur Philosophie des deutschen Idealismus , 1: 58–77. Translated by P. Geach and R. H. Stoothoff as “Thoughts” in Frege (1984).
• –––, 1984, Collected Papers on Mathematics, Logic, and Philosophy , Oxford: Basil Blackwell. Edited by B. McGuiness.
• Fumerton, Richard, 2002, Realism and the Correspondence Theory of Truth , New York: Rowman and Littlefield.
• Glanzberg, Michael, 2003a, “Against truth-value gaps”, in Liars and Heaps , Jc Beall (ed.), Oxford: Oxford University Press, 151–194.
• –––, 2003b, “Minimalism and paradoxes”, Synthese , 135: 13–36.
• –––, 2013, “The concept of truth”, in Companion to Donald Davidson , E. Lepore and K. Ludwig (eds.), Boston: Wiley-Blackwell, in press.
• ––– (ed.), 2018, The Oxford Handbook of Truth , Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Greenough, Patrick and Lynch, Michael P. (eds.), 2006, Truth and Realism , Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Grover, Dorothy L., Kamp, Joseph L., and Belnap, Nuel D., 1975, “A prosentential theory of truth”, Philosophical Studies , 27: 73–125.
• Gupta, Anil, 1993, “A critique of deflationism”, Philosophical Topics , 21: 57–81.
• Haack, Susan, 1976, “The pragmatist theory of truth”, British Journal for the Philosophy of Science , 27: 231–249.
• Halbach, Volker, 1999, “Disquotationalism and infinite conjunctions”, Mind , 108: 1–22.
• Hartshorne, C., Weiss, P., and Burks, A. W. (eds.), 1931–58, The Collected Papers of Charles Sanders Peirce , vol. 1–8, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
• Heck, Richard, 1997, “Tarski, truth, and semantics”, Philosophical Review , 106: 533–554.
• Higginbotham, James, 1986, “Linguistic theory and Davidson’s program in semantics”, in Truth and Interpretation , E. Lepore (ed.), Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 29–48.
• Higginbotham, James, 1989, “Knowledge of reference”, in Reflections on Chomsky , A. George (ed.), Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 153–174.
• –––, 1992, “Truth and understanding”, Philosophical Studies , 65: 3–16.
• Hornsby, Jennifer, 2001, “Truth: The identity theory”, in The Nature of Truth , M. P. Lynch (ed.), Cambridge: MIT Press, 663–681.
• Horwich, Paul, 1990, Truth , Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
• Hylton, Peter, 1990, Russell, Idealism and the Emergence of Analytic Philosophy , Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Jackson, Frank, 2006, “Representation, truth and realism”, The Monist , 89: 50–62.
• James, William, 1907, “Pragmatism’s conception of truth”, in Pragmatism , New York: Longmans, 197–236.
• Joachim, H. H., 1906, The Nature of Truth , Oxford: Clarendon Press.
• Kaplan, David, 1989, “Demonstratives”, in Themes From Kaplan , J. Almog, J. Perry, and H. Wettstein (eds.), Oxford: Oxford University Press, 481–563. First publication of a widely circulated manuscript dated 1977.
• Ketland, Jeffrey, 1999, “Deflationism and Tarski’s paradise”, Mind , 108: 69–94.
• King, Jeffrey C., 2018, “Propositions and truth-bearers”, in M. Glanzberg (ed.) 2018, 307–332.
• Kirkham, Richard L., 1992, Theories of Truth: A Critical Introduction , Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
• Künne, Wolfgang, 2003, Conceptions of Truth , Oxford: Clarendon Press.
• Lackey, Douglas (ed.), 1973, Essays in Analysis , New York: George Braziller.
• Leeds, Stephen, 1978, “Theories of reference and truth”, Erkenntnis , 13: 111–129.
• Lynch, Michael P., 2001a, “A functionalist theory of truth”, in The Nature of Truth , M. P. Lynch (ed.), Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 723–749.
• ––– (ed.), 2001b, The Nature of Truth: Classical and Contemporary Perspectives , Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
• –––, 2009, Truth as One and Many , Oxford: Clarendon Press.
• McDowell, John, 1976, “Truth-conditions, bivalence, and verificationism”, in Truth and Meaning , G. Evans and J. McDowell (eds.), Oxford: Clarendon Press, 42–66.
• –––, 1994, Mind and World , Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
• Merricks, Trenton, 2007, Truth and Ontology , Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Misak, Cheryl J., 2004, Truth and the End of Inquiry , Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• –––, 2018, “The pragmatist theory of truth”, in M. Glanzberg (ed.) 2018, 283–303.
• Moore, George Edward, 1899, “The nature of judgment”, Mind , 8: 176–193.
• –––, 1902, “Truth”, in Dictionary of Philosophy and Psychology , J. M. Baldwin (ed.), London: Macmillan, vol. 2, 716–718.
• –––, 1953, Some Main Problems of Philosophy , London: George Allen and Unwin.
• Mulligan, Kevin, Simons, Peter, and Smith, Barry, 1984, “Truth-makers”, Philosophy and Phenomenological Research , 44: 287–321.
• Neale, Stephen, 2001, Facing Facts , Oxford: Clarendon Press.
• Parsons, Josh, 1999, “There is no ‘truthmaker’ argument against nominalism”, Australasian Journal of Philosophy , 77: 325–334.
• Patterson, Douglas, 2012, Alfred Tarski: Philosophy of Language and Logic , New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
• Pedersen, Nikolaj J. L. L. and Lynch, Michael P., 2018, “Truth pluralism”, in M. Glanzbberg (ed.) 2018, 543–575.
• Putnam, Hilary, 1978, Meaning and the Moral Sciences , London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
• –––, 1981, Reason, Truth and History , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• –––, 1985–86, “A comparison of something with something else”, New Literary History , 17: 61–79. Reprinted in Putnam (1994).
• –––, 1994, Words and Life , Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
• Quine, W. V. O., 1960, Word and Object , Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
• –––, 1970, Philosophy of Logic , Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
• Ramsey, Frank P., 1927, “Facts and propositions”, Aristotelian Society Supp. Vol. , 7: 153–170. Reprinted in Ramsey (1931).
• –––, 1931, The Foundations of Mathematics and Other Logical Essays , London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
• Ray, Greg, 2018, “Tarski on the concept of truth”, in M. Glanzberg (ed.) 2018, 695–717.
• Rorty, Richard, 1986, “Pragmatism, Davidson and truth”, in Truth and Interpretation , E. Lepore (ed.), Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 333–355.
• Ross, W. D. (ed.), 1928, The Works of Aristotle Translated into English , Oxford: Clarendon Press, second edn.
• Russell, Bertrand, 1903, Principles of Mathematics , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, first edn.
• –––, 1904, “Meinong’s theory of complexes and assumptions I, II, III”, Mind , 13: 204–219, 336–354, 509–524. Reprinted in Lackey (1973).
• –––, 1910a, “The monistic theory of truth”, in Philosophical Essays , London: George Allen and Unwin, 131–146.
• –––, 1910b, “On the nature of truth and falsehood”, in Philosophical Essays , London: George Allen and Unwin, 147–159.
• –––, 1912, The Problems of Philosophy , London: Oxford University Press.
• –––, 1956, “The philosophy of logical atomism”, in Logic and Knowledge , R. C. Marsh (ed.), London: George Allen and Unwin, 177–281. Originally published in The Monist in 1918.
• Shieh, Sanford, 2018, “Truth, objectivity, and realism”, in M. Glanzberg (ed.) 2018, 433–476.
• Soames, Scott, 1984, “What is a theory of truth?”, Journal of Philosophy , 81: 411–429.
• –––, 1992, “Truth, meaning, and understanding”, Philosophical Studies , 65: 17–35.
• Strawson, Peter F., 1949, “Truth”, Analysis , 9: 83–97.
• –––, 1950, “Truth”, Aristotelian Society Supp. Vol. , 24. Reprinted in Strawson (1971).
• –––, 1971, Logico-Linguistic Papers , London: Methuen.
• Sullivan, Peter and Johnston, Colin, 2018, “Judgments, facts, and propositions”, in M. Glanzberg (ed.) 2018, 150–192.
• Szaif, Jan, 2018, “Plato and Aristotle on truth and falsehood”, in M. Glanzberg (ed.) 2018, 9–49.
• Tarski, Alfred, 1931, “Sur les ensembles définissables de nombres réels. I.”, Fundamenta Mathematicae , 17: 210–239. References are to the translation by J. H. Woodger as “On definable sets of real numbers. I” in Tarski (1983).
• –––, 1935, “Der Wahrheitsbegriff in den formalisierten Sprachen”, Studia Philosophica , 1: 261–405. References are to the translation by J. H. Woodger as “The concept of truth in formalized languages” in Tarski (1983).
• –––, 1944, “The semantic conception of truth”, Philosophy and Phenomenological Research , 4: 341–375.
• –––, 1983, Logic, Semantics, Metamathematics , Indianapolis: Hackett, second edn. Edited by J. Corcoran with translations by J. H. Woodger.
• Taylor, Barry, 1976, “States of affairs”, in Truth and Meaning , G. Evans and J. McDowell (eds.), Oxford: Clarendon Press, 263–284.
• Vision, Gerald, 2004, Veritas: The Correspondence Theory and Its Critics , Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
• Walker, Ralph C. S., 1989, The Coherence Theory of Truth , London: Routledge.
• –––, 2018, “The coherence theory of truth”, in M. Glanzberg (ed.) 2018, 219–237.
• Williamson, Timothy, 1996, “Knowing and asserting”, Philosophical Review , 104: 489–523.
• Wittgenstein, Ludwig, 1922, Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus , New York: Harcourt, Brace and Co.
• Woleński, Jan, 2001, “In defense of the semantic definition of truth”, Synthese , 126: 67–90.
• Wright, Crispin, 1976, “Truth-conditions and criteria”, Aristotelian Society Supp. Vol. , 50: 217–245. Reprinted in Wright (1993).
• –––, 1982, “Anti-realist semantics: The role of criteria”, in Idealism: Past and Present , G. Vesey (ed.), Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 225–248. Reprinted in Wright (1993).
• –––, 1992, Truth and Objectivity , Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
• –––, 1993, Realism, Meaning and Truth , Oxford: Blackwell, second edn.
• –––, 1999, “Truth: A traditional debate reviewed”, Canadian Journal of Philosophy , 24: 31–74
• Young, James O., 2001, “A defense of the coherence theory of truth”, Journal of Philosophical Research , 26: 89–101.

How to cite this entry . Preview the PDF version of this entry at the Friends of the SEP Society . Look up topics and thinkers related to this entry at the Internet Philosophy Ontology Project (InPhO). Enhanced bibliography for this entry at PhilPapers , with links to its database.

[Please contact the author with suggestions.]

Davidson, Donald | facts | James, William | liar paradox | Peirce, Charles Sanders | realism | Tarski, Alfred: truth definitions | truth: axiomatic theories of | truth: coherence theory of | truth: correspondence theory of | truth: deflationism about | truth: identity theory of | truth: pluralist theories of

Acknowledgments

Thanks to Josh Parsons for advice on metaphysics, and to Jc Beall, Justin Khoo, Jason Stanley, Paul Teller, and an anonymous referee for very helpful comments on earlier drafts.

Copyright © 2018 by Michael Glanzberg < michael . glanzberg @ philosophy . rutgers . edu >

• Accessibility

Support SEP

Mirror sites.

View this site from another server:

• Info about mirror sites

The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy is copyright © 2023 by The Metaphysics Research Lab , Department of Philosophy, Stanford University

Library of Congress Catalog Data: ISSN 1095-5054

• PERSONAL SKILLS
• Living Well, Living Ethically

Truthfulness

Search SkillsYouNeed:

Personal Skills:

• A - Z List of Personal Skills
• Personal Development
• Career Management Skills
• Creative Thinking Skills
• Personal Skills for the Mind
• Emotional Intelligence
• Stress and Stress Management
• Anger and Aggression
• Assertiveness

New Edition for 2024

The Skills You Need Guide to Life: Living Well, Living Ethically

• A Framework for Learning to Live Well
• Goodness: Learning to Use Your ‘Moral Compass’
• Coping Skills
• Perseverance
• Developing and Improving Tolerance
• Developing Resilience
• Self-Control | Self-Mastery
• Courage | Being Brave
• Developing a Sense of Humour
• Friendliness
• Understanding Generosity
• Being Good Tempered
• Gratitude - Being Grateful
• Learn the Art of Appreciating the Little Things in Life
• Justice and Fairness
• Professional Ethics
• Ethical Consumption
• Planning for Death and Incapacity
• Understanding Sustainability
• Caring for Your Body

Subscribe to our FREE newsletter and start improving your life in just 5 minutes a day.

You'll get our 5 free 'One Minute Life Skills' and our weekly newsletter.

We'll never share your email address and you can unsubscribe at any time.

Society, especially Western society, places a high value on truth.

Truth is the foundation for a fair and just society. In court, we require witnesses to swear to tell ‘ the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth ’, because only that way can justice be delivered.

Most modern religions also have something to say on the matter, and it is clear that they place a high value on the principle of truthfulness.

But is truthfulness an outdated principle in modern times, or does it still have value?

Three things cannot be long hidden: the sun, the moon, and the truth.

I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life

- Jesus Christ

Two Types of Truth

There are two aspects of truthfulness: being true to yourself, and being true to others.

The two are not quite the same thing, although they are closely linked. Shakespeare, for example, suggested that someone who was true to themselves was unlikely to be false to others.

To thine own self be true, and it must follow, as night the day, that thou canst not then be false to any man.

- William Shakespeare

Truthful people will:

Understand themselves , and know their own strengths and weaknesses. They will not delude themselves about their successes or failures;

Present themselves in a way that shows who they really are. Their reputation will be founded on what they are and, whether in public or private, they will be the same;

Meet any commitments or promises that they make;

Be accurate in their descriptions of themselves or others , so that they do not mislead others.

The Importance of Truth

Truth matters, both to us as individuals and to society as a whole.

As individuals , being truthful means that we can grow and mature, learning from our mistakes.

For society , truthfulness makes social bonds, and lying and hypocrisy break them.

If you doubt this, consider what happens when you find out that someone has lied to you. You feel less inclined to trust them next time, and also less inclined to trust other people more generally.

Is it Ever Right not to Tell the Truth?

If I'd written all the truth I knew for the past ten years, about 600 people — including me — would be rotting in prison cells from Rio to Seattle today. Absolute truth is a very rare and dangerous commodity in the context of professional journalism.

Hunter S. Thompson

There are two possible ways not to tell the truth: not to provide any information, and to provide false information.

First, you do not need to tell everyone everything. Excessive sharing of personal information is not welcome, even if it is the truth. Context is all-important, and you have to consider whether people need and/or want to know.

Sometimes it is better not to say something.

You also need to be able to remain silent if someone has confided in you and asked you not to share the information further.

Under these circumstances, it is therefore appropriate not to tell all the truth.

However, is it right to provide false information or lie?

Is the ‘ right ’ answer to the question ‘ Does my bum look big in this? ’ ever ‘ yes ’?

Well, maybe, in the changing room, before ‘ this ’ is bought. But maybe not. The truthful person will think very carefully about the right answer to that question.

Truthfulness is important, but so is not hurting others. Truthfulness and tact must go hand in hand, because otherwise the truth may be unacceptable to those who hear it.

And consider a government agent. They may need to lie, or pretend to be something that they are not, for the sake of the greater good. But they may still be true to themselves if they believe in the importance of the greater good. At what point does the truth become more important?

That is a matter of personal conscience.

The truth is rarely pure and never simple.

Oscar Wilde

So there are some circumstances in which lying may be acceptable or necessary.

It is, however, never acceptable to lie in order to make yourself look better, or to avoid trouble that you have brought on yourself.

If you lie about yourself, or to avoid trouble, and people find out, they are unlikely to trust you again.

Finding the Balance

As with many other qualities, you need to find the balance in truthfulness: neither overplaying nor underplaying either your virtues or your weaknesses.

It is as bad to pretend that you are less good at something than you are, as to exaggerate about your abilities.

Teaching Children About Truthfulness

Teaching children about truthfulness is hard.

You want them to understand that it is important to tell the truth. But if they tell you that they drew on the wall, you are going to be quite cross. There is, therefore, a serious incentive to lie, and say that it was their sibling or a visitor.

You may therefore need to think about their incentives to confess, and make sure that they understand the value that you put on telling the truth. You will need to ensure that you demonstrate that, not just say it, by rewarding truth-telling in some way, even if you still need to punish the original misdeed.

Jo and her children had been helping to sort the donations cupboard at the school. There were some small toys in there, which the children really liked. Jo told them to leave the toys alone because they belonged to the school.

On the way home, Jo realised that both children had taken something from the box. She asked if they had done so. Both denied it. Not wishing to give them the wrong incentive, Jo thought carefully and then said,

“ If I find that you have taken something, I will be cross. But if you lie to me, and then I find that you have lied, I will be really, really cross. Did you take something? ”

Both children confessed that they had done so. Jo explained that was stealing, but because they had told her the truth, she gave them a choice: they could either return the toys that they had taken, or they could replace each one with another from home. Both children opted to do that.

Further Reading from Skills You Need

Looking after your physical and mental health is important. It is, however, not enough. Maslow’s famous hierarchy of needs suggests that most of us need more than that. We need to know that we are living our ‘best life’: that we are doing all we can to lead a ‘good life’ that we will not regret later on.

Based on some of our most popular content, this eBook will help you to live that life. It explains about the concepts of living well and ‘goodness’, together with how to develop your own ‘moral compass’.

A Last Word

It is important to live and act in line with your values.

Being truthful to yourself matters because you cannot live in line with your values if you are pretending to yourself that you are something else.

Truthfulness allows you to be honest about yourself to yourself, and to others, and to live a life which reflects that.

Continue to: A Framework for Living Well Balancing Politeness and Honesty

See also: Critical Thinking and Fake News Self Control, Self Mastery Developing Resilience

7 Reasons Why You Should Always Tell the Truth

Every moment of our lives, we have the option to either tell the complete truth or make up a bold-faced lie. Lies can cover true feelings, make it easier to get out of things we don’t want to do and make us look better. They can also hurt not just the person that we tell the lie to, but ourselves as well. A big reason to not lie is to avoid the downfall of getting caught. However, many will still wonder what the most important aspects of telling the truth are.

What are the reasons why you should always tell the truth? You should always tell the truth because :

• The Truth Will Always Come Out
• It Will Make Things Worse for You
• You Don’t Want to Lose Respect
• It Will Help Everyone Grow
• There’s a Bigger Issue That Needs Attention
• You’re Usually Lying to Yourself the Most
• Lying Holds You Back

Honesty is important because it can help get to the deeper meaning of any issues that are at hand. It can ensure you are confronting yourself so that you can continue on a path toward a growth mindset. When you’re honest with everyone, it might be hard at the time, but eventually, things will get better, rather than a lie where things could actually end up getting worse.

The truth is always going to be there, and a lie is a choice made to avoid this. We’re going to help you better understand why you should always tell the truth, starting with the most important reason of all.

#1: The Truth Will Always Come Out

We’ve been taught since we were kids that the truth was always the right choice, even when it might have been hard. As adults, we might not always reflect on the real reasons why lying is the worst choice. Lying is bad because (Carey, 2008):

• It hurts other people
• It is deceptive
• It creates more issues
• It is bad for your health

“The truth will always come out in the end” is a common saying, but it isn’t always, well, the truth.

Imagine a girl who tells her parents she’s going to a friend’s house when really, she’s going to meet up with a boy that she was forbidden to date. They ask her the next day if she had fun at her friend’s house, and she replies, “Yeah, we watched a movie together.” Fifty years later, both of her parents have passed away, and not once did she ever reveal the truth. They lived a long and happy life, and not once did the daughter’s falsehood cause any conflict in the family.

On one hand, it’s safe to say her lie was never revealed. On the other hand, maybe her father had noticed but didn’t mind, keeping it hidden from his wife who would have caused a huge fight. The daughter never knew about this truth either.

We can’t say for certain whether the truth will always come out or not, but we can know that there will always be a possibility of the truth coming out. It is the person who holds this truth who has the most power over what will or will not be revealed.

It can sometimes be easier to keep a secret yourself rather than trusting others to do the same. Think of how easily secrets can spread. How many of those secrets have been lies?

Then what are you to do? Share the truth and be branded a liar, or change reality to suit the false information? Create more lies to cover up any loopholes in the first?

The possibility of a lie coming out can be the most challenging part. The fear over the exposure finally coming to the surface can engulf a happy mind and cause immense stress.

Consider those who confess to crimes after not being able to live with the secrecy. Sometimes the lie can become the reality to the point that people don’t even realize their dishonesty anymore.

It’s best to avoid the lies because not doing so means you never know what’s going to happen in the end. You might dig yourself into a deep hole by not sharing the reality and getting lost in the cover-ups.

#2: It Will Make Things Worse for You

Lying is something that is thought to be the most hurtful to the person who receives the lie. In reality, the liar is the one who will end up hurting the longer they keep up their facade.

Sometimes we lie because we think we’re protecting ourselves. We envision a terrible outcome from what could happen if we were to share the truth. In order to avoid that, it can be easy for many people to want to turn to the lie as a form of protection.

Unfortunately, this will only hurt the one who spills the deceit from their mouths.

It can start first by affecting your mental health. When you tell a lie, you are instantly putting yourself in a stressful situation. Sometimes it feels like you’re going to be fine in the end, and that’s why you lie. But really, you are causing more worry in your mind. You’re creating a focal point for anxiety to fester and blossom.

Anxiety can take a huge toll on not just your mental health but also your physical health. You might grind your teeth. Perhaps you pick at your fingers or at scabs on your face.

Some people even pull out their hair when they are under an intense amount of stress. It can affect you internally. You might feel sick to your stomach or have constant headaches from the anxiety.

It’s not necessarily the lie that will automatically begin manifesting itself through physical ailments; it’s the stressful life that can be created once a lie is told.

To see more ways that stress, fear, and anxiety can negatively affect your overall health, check out the video below:

Lying can also affect your sleep. You might have trouble getting to bed and falling asleep at a certain time because worried thoughts over the lie are consuming your brain.

If your sleep is messed up, then this will also negatively affect your overall health. You might struggle to pay attention and focus at work. Maybe the stress from everything is causing you to overeat or skip the gym. Whatever might be going on in your life, if we are not properly managing our mental health, it will reflect on our physical health much more than you would ever be able to imagine.

You will lower your self-esteem and lack confidence if you are constantly worried about a lie coming to the surface. It can make you very defensive. It can create this sort of blockage to any kind of criticism or comment that can be taken as something used against you.

When you are holding on to a lie, then that means that you are protecting something. There is a morsel of truth that you are desperately trying to cover up.

When you are acting in defense against that, this will show in other people. Somebody might make a completely unrelated comment to you, but your brain connects it back to the lie that you’re covering up, and this leads to a stressful thought. Then you believe that the other person might be out to get you.

It makes it hard for us to be ourselves because our true self is the person that knows the lie. The person that everybody else knows is the one who is living that lie.

It can be really hard to be comfortable with yourself and have high self-esteem when you’re so terrified about the truth coming to the surface.

#3: You Don’t Want to Lose Respect

Some lies are going to be bigger than others. When a friend asks, “Do I look fat in this dress?” you might lie a bit because you don’t want to hurt her feelings. When someone asks, “Can you help me move this weekend?” you might say that you’re busy with something else to avoid the extra labor.

When considering bigger lies that might end up hurting someone else in the process, you’ll want to consider filling out this chart below to determine if the lie is really going to be worth it in the end. It might seem like the lie is better, but really, it might just be easier at that moment.

Trust is one of the most important things you can have in a relationship. If there is no trust, then there is no dependency that others will want to rely on. There is no agreement between the two people that they can depend on the other person. Trust isn’t something that always is discussed upfront with others. Most of the time, we just have this underlying understanding with another person where we know that we can count on them to support us or keep a secret.

As soon as you show the other person that you have lied just one time, it can destroy that trust. They will start to wonder, “If they lied about that, what else might they have lied about?”

Lies are like things buried under the sand. You usually don’t know that you are walking on top of something when you’re strolling along the beach. As soon as one tiny little protrusion sticks up from the surface, you can pull it up to see that something giant has been hidden under there all along.

While you might have only lied just one time, that still doesn’t assure the other person of anything. You might beg and plead with them letting them know that truly, deeply, you only lied once. They might even forgive you for that lie, but they will still struggle to believe if that really was the only lie that you’ve told. They can forever wonder if you are still hiding something bigger. Other people will also question if you even told the entire truth about the lie, or if you just gave them a glimpse at something deeper that you tried to cover up.

A lie isn’t just a lie. It’s not just a sentence, a hidden object, a secret passed between others. It is an action. It is a lifestyle choice. It’s not just the lie that is hard to accept. Others will struggle after you’ve lied to them because they won’t know if there are other parts of yourself that you have hidden.

If you’re good at lying about where you were the night before, maybe you’re also good at lying about whether or not you truly love them.

Lying can really mess with a person’s head. It can make them doubt you and everything that they know to be true.

More people will be able to tell if you are lying than you’d think. You might have thought you got away with a lie, but maybe the other person is just not as great at confrontation. They could seemingly accept the false information that you fed to them, but perhaps they already know the truth anyway.

This video shows how easy it is to see if someone is lying:

It’s a reminder that even though someone won’t blatantly call you out when you’re lying, they can still likely pick up on the half-truth you’re sharing. Don’t risk someone losing respect for you because of a lie. Take an honest way to ensure your relationships will continue in the right direction.

#4: It Will Help Everyone Grow

A lie is something that is told usually to cover up an issue. Nobody lies just for fun. Perhaps there is that individual who lies about having more money, nicer things, and greater experiences than other people. But still, there is an underlying issue there.

When we begin to choose the truth over a lie, that is when people will actually be able to grow rather than focusing on trying to bury the actual issue.

Lying can just make things worse. It can destroy trust in a relationship and ruin the bond that two people have managed to create. Telling the truth is important because it will help everybody to grow. When you learn how to properly express your feelings and share those with other people, it creates a closer connection.

Perhaps you decide to lie to your significant other and tell them that you’re not upset after you’ve had a fight. Maybe you are still harboring some resentment, but you don’t feel like talking about it or getting into an argument, so you just tell them that it’s all good now.

Unfortunately, this just causes that to fester inside of you. Your significant other isn’t going to be reflecting on this issue anymore. They’ve moved on now because they think that you’re fine. The issue might come up again and you have to go through this experience all over. If you had told the truth from the start, it could have helped show the significant other your perspective, giving them the opportunity to grow from it.

In reality, we need to confront that issue so that you can share it with the other person and come to a healthier conclusion in the end rather than just saying, “I’m fine,” when you’re actually suffering.

You can talk things out and get to a place where both of you can grow. The issue that many people have is that they don’t know how to effectively communicate with others. In order to properly share your feelings and discuss the truth in a way that won’t cause an explosive issue, you have to check in with how you are sharing your words.

Let them know why you decided to lie. Don’t just reveal the lie and have them suddenly blame you for that. You want to approach the topic to get to the root of the issue. These are a few phrases that you can say in order to help smooth over a conversation and keep it civil so that the both of you end up growing closer together in the end, rather than letting a lie tear you apart (Smith, 2017).

It’s better to approach the topic by sharing the “why” and also stating that you didn’t tell the truth rather than blatantly saying, “I lied.” It’s never going to be easy, but open and honest communication is essential for a healthy relationship and a happy life.

#5: There’s a Bigger Issue That Needs Attention

Truth is like a seed. When you lie, you bury that seed deep into the ground, but that truth is going to continue to grow and grow. It might take it a while to get to the surface, but eventually, it will. Once it is at the surface, it has likely collected to become even bigger than it would have been if you just would have planted the seed of truth at the surface from the start.

Lying only continues to cover up something that needs to be confronted. Imagine that you have an infected cut on your arm. You can put a Band-Aid on it, but if you are not properly caring for that infection, it’s going to spread to every part of your body.

A lie is like a Band-Aid on top of an infected wound. It might make everything seem like it is okay, but there is a deeper issue going on. A common lie we have is that we tell our friends, our family, or whoever we are closest to that we are fine and that we are happy when we actually are not.

It’s important that we begin to confront the truth to address these underlying issues and help everyone grow along the way.

To further explore this topic, this video is a great one that gets into the details of the psychology of lying:

#6: You’re Usually Lying to Yourself the Most

We lie to other people because we don’t want the truth to come out. In reality, we are lying to ourselves the most. We are talking to our own brains and convincing them of a truth that is not real. You can lie to your coworkers, to your friends, and to the person that you share a bed with every night, but the person that we end up lying to more than anyone else will always be ourselves.

Oftentimes, this issue is something that deals directly with yourself. Perhaps you lie to other people about how much you enjoy your job. Maybe you continue to go on about how great it is, always talking about the fun work parties, the many benefits, and your huge paycheck. Other people might not really care whether or not you like your job. They have their own lives going on, and while they are happy for you, it really doesn’t concern them one way or another.

You might continue to talk about this as a way to validate your own perspective.

After a while, it’s not even about convincing other people that you’re happy; instead, it’s about convincing yourself.

The more that somebody talks about something and has to validate it to others, usually, the more that they have to validate it to themselves.

When you want to lie, you have to look deep inside yourself and ask if there is a truth you are trying to keep from your own mind (Kornet, 1997).

#7: Lying Holds You Back

For all of the other reasons that we discussed above, lying is only going to hold you back. It’s going to make you sick because you’ll think about how the truth is going to come out. It’s going to make things worse for you because it could lead to stress and anxiety. People might lose respect, and you can destroy relationships.

You might cover up the actual issue that needs to be addressed.

The truth is hard. It can be scary, and it can be messy. However, the truth can also help release us from the restrictions we’ve placed with the lie.

Life is all about growing and becoming a better person tomorrow than the one that you were yesterday.

Lying is going to keep you stuck in that mindset that you had when you began the actual lie. Lying is like a weighted chain that keeps you trapped to the ground. You will be stationary, whereas truth can help you actually grow. You can continue to pretend like everything is fine and nothing is wrong by creating lie after lie after lie.

Or you can tell the truth, the first time, deal with all those messy consequences, and then put that behind you as you move on. A lie is like taking the hard emotion or that challenging issue and putting it in your back pocket.

It might not be right in front of you, but it will always be right behind you. It will always be there with you. Only the truth can be left behind. Yes, the truth could negatively impact you for a month or even a year at a time. However, it will eventually help to release you.

For example, imagine a husband and wife who have been together for five years. They had a great relationship at the start but unfortunately, things have gotten messy.

They’re constantly fighting and neither one really wants to be with the other person. However, they continue to lie to themselves and pretend as though everything is good because they have a young child, and they are too afraid to be alone. They continue to live unhappy for the next 15 years. Eventually, one of them cheats on the other. Everything gets messy, and they divorce.

They could have revealed the truth 15 years ago and released themselves from that situation.

They might have gotten a divorce, and it would have been ugly for a year or so. It was messy, they fought, and their families were upset. It did put a little pressure on the child. However, after two years, everything settled down, and they are all completely happy. They’ve each remarried and started a brand-new life with people that they truly love.

The child is thriving because they have two different homes filled with people who love them. It was messy, and it was awful for those two years, but now it is better than it ever could have been in the other situation where they were miserable for those 15 years.

The truth can be bad, but lying will always be worse.

Related Questions

To lie or not to lie is a dilemma we might often find ourselves in. It’s a good topic to explore more of, so check out these further questions to get the most out of your perspective on lying.

Is it lying if I don’t say anything at all?

You might wonder if you avoid responding to a question rather than telling a lie, is that being dishonest? That can be dependent on the situation. If the truth is unnecessary, like an employer asking why you left your last job, you can gloss over the truth and say you were let go, but you don’t have to go into the dirty details of how you were fired for showing up late three times in one week. Question who you are hurting by hiding the truth. Anytime the truth is intentionally hidden, it is dishonesty. It’s ok to not get too deep into the details of a situation, but when someone is intentionally seeking out the truth and it is intentionally hidden, that can be just as bad as lying.

Will, there ever be a time when telling a lie is good? You might find yourself in a situation where lying is going to help others. Perhaps you’re working in a bank and a robber comes in, so you lie and say you’re the only one there to protect coworkers in the back. Maybe bullies in school are asking something personal and you lie to make sure they don’t attack you or a friend. If the lie will protect someone’s life or health, you might consider lying. Eventually, you will want to share the truth, but safety is important, so it’s ok to make sure you are protecting others. There are a few serious situations where a lie could help act as a defense, but for the most part, it’s best, to be honest.

S.Y.H Staff is a collection of writers whose purpose is to provide the best value and information on the article's content.

Recent Posts

5 Ways to Declutter Your Soul and Clear Your Mind

The world might be more organized and streamlined now with the introduction of digital technology and all its benefits. But, paradoxically, it has also become more chaotic for much the same...

How to Say No Politely and Effectively Without Making Excuses

In a world where our thinking is dominated by what is appropriate, we worry about how to maintain the status quo of “you scratch my back, I’ll scratch yours.” This can make us feel obliged to...

Notice: All forms on this website are temporarily down for maintenance. You will not be able to complete a form to request information or a resource. We apologize for any inconvenience and will reactivate the forms as soon as possible.

What Is Truth and Why Does it Matter?

• June 10, 2004

The Old and New Testament terms for truth are, respectively, emet and alethia . The meaning of these terms and, more generally, a biblical conception of truth are broad and multifaceted: fidelity, moral rectitude, being real, being genuine, faithfulness, having veracity, being complete. Two aspects of the biblical conception of truth appear to be primary: faithfulness and conformity to fact. The latter appears to involve a correspondence theory of truth (see below). Arguably, the former may presuppose a correspondence theory. Thus, faithfulness may be understood as a person’s actions corresponding to the person’s assertions or promises, and a similar point could be made about genuineness, moral rectitude and so forth.

There are hundreds of passages that explicitly ascribe truth to propositions in a correspondence sense. Thus, God says “I, the Lord, speak the truth; I declare what is right” (Isaiah 45:19). Also, there are numerous passages that explicitly contrast true propositions with falsehoods. Repeatedly, the Old Testament warns against false prophets whose words do not correspond to reality (for example Deuteronomy 18:22: “If what a prophet proclaims in the name of the Lord does not take place or come true, that is a message the Lord has not spoken”), and the ninth commandment warns against bearing false testimony, that is, testimony that fails to correspond to what actually happened (Exodus 20:16).

What is the correspondence theory of truth?

In its simplest form, the correspondence theory of truth says that a proposition is true just in case it corresponds to reality, when what it asserts to be the case is the case. More generally, truth obtains when a truth bearer stands in an appropriate correspondence relation to a truth maker:

truth bearer => correspondence relation => truth maker

First, what is a truth bearer? What kind of thing can bear truth? The thing that is either true or false is not a sentence, but a proposition. A proposition is the content of a sentence. For example, “It is raining” and “Es regnet” are two different sentences that express the same proposition. A sentence is a sense perceptible string of markings (such as the consonants and vowels on this page) or sounds (such as those made speaking, in normal conversation) formed according to a set of syntactical rules; it is a grammatically well-formed string of spoken or written sounds or marks. A sentence can rightfully be called true only if its content is true, only if it expresses a true proposition.

What about truth makers? What is it that makes a proposition true? The best answer is: facts. A fact is some real state of affairs in the world, a way the world actually is. For example, grass’s being green, an electron’s having a negative charge and God’s being all-loving are all facts. Consider the proposition Mark has black hair . This proposition is true just in case a specific fact (namely, Mark’s having black hair) actually obtains in the real world. A state of affairs “makes” the propositional content of a statement true only if that state of affairs actually is the way the proposition represents it to be. If a proposition represents Mark’s having black hair, then Mark’s actually having black hair makes that proposition true. If, however, a proposition represents Marks’s having blonde or blue hair, then Mark’s actually having black hair makes that proposition false . Suppose Sally says, “Mark has black hair.” It’s important to note that Mark’s having black hair makes the content of Sally’s statement true even if Sally is blind and cannot tell whether or not it is true . In fact, Mark’s having black hair makes it true even if Sally does not believe it, even if she thinks she was lying when she said that Mark’s hair was black. Reality makes propositions true or false. A proposition is not made true by someone’s thinking or expressing it, and it is not made true by our ability to determine that it is true. Put differently, evidence allows us tell if a proposition is true or false, but reality (the way the world is) is what makes a proposition true or false.

Our study of truth bearers has already taken us into the topic of the correspondence relation. Correspondence is a two-placed relation between a proposition and a relevant fact (see the diagram above). A two-placed relation is one that requires two things before it can hold. For example, “larger than” is a two-placed relation. If we have a desk and a book, and if the desk is bigger than, larger than, the book, the “larger than” relation holds between the desk and the book. “Next to” is also a two-placed relation; if we have a car and a house, and the car is to the side of, next to, the house, the “next to” relation holds between the car and the house. Similarly, the correspondence relation holds between two things — a proposition and a relevant fact — just in case the proposition matches, conforms to, corresponds with the fact. If we have the proposition Mark has black hair, then, if Mark’s hair is actually black, the correspondence relation holds between the proposition and Mark’s having black hair.

Why believe the correspondence theory?

What reasons can be given for accepting the correspondence theory of truth? Two main arguments have been advanced for the correspondence theory, one descriptive and one dialectical.

The descriptive argument focuses on a careful description and presentation of specific cases to see what can be learned from them about truth. As an example, consider the case of Joe and Frank. While in his office, Joe receives a call from the university bookstore saying that a specific book he had ordered — Richard Swinburne’s The Evolution of the Soul — has arrived and is waiting for him. At this point, a new mental state occurs in Joe’s mind — namely, the though that Swinburne’s The Evolution of the Soul is in the bookstore.

Now Joe, being aware of the content of the thought, becomes aware of two things closely related to it: the nature of the thought’s object (Swinburne’s book being in the bookstore) and certain steps that would help him determine the truth of the thought. For example, Joe knows that swimming in the Pacific Ocean would not help him determine the truth of the thought. Rather, he knows that he must take a series of steps that will bring him to a specific building and look in certain places for Swinburne’s book in the university bookstore.

So Joe starts out for the bookstore, all the while being guided by the proposition Swinburne’s book on the soul is in the bookstore . Along the way, his friend Frank joins him, though Joe does not tell Frank where he is going or why. They arrive at the store and both see Swinburne’s book there. At that moment, Joe and Frank simultaneously have the same experience — the experience of seeing Swinburne’s book The Evolution of the Soul . But Joe has a second experience not possessed by Frank. Joe experiences that the thought he had in his office matched, corresponded with, an actual state of affairs. He is able to compare his thought with its object and “see,” be directly aware, that the thought was true. In this case, Joe actually experiences the correspondence relation itself and truth itself becomes an object of his awareness.

As in this scenario, the descriptive argument for the correspondence theory of truth makes its case ostensively, by pointing to instances of the correspondence relationship in our everyday lives.

The dialectical argument asserts that those who advance alternative theories of truth or who simply reject the correspondence theory actually presuppose it in their own assertions, especially when they present arguments for their views or defend them against critics. Sometimes this argument is stated in the form of a dilemma: Those who reject the correspondence theory either take their own utterances to be true in the correspondence sense or they do not. If they take their utterances to be true in the correspondence sense, then those utterances are self-defeating — they run into the same problems as the English sentence “I can’t say anything in English.” If, on the other hand, they don’t take their utterances to be true, then there is no reason to accept them, because to accept them is, after all, to accept them as true .

The dialectical argument shows that those who reject the correspondence theory of truth (either directly or indirectly) rely on the correspondence relationship to do so.

Why does this matter?

We have looked at what the correspondence theory of truth. Truth is when things really are the way one thinks them to be. We have also examined two reasons for accepting the correspondence theory of truth. But does any of this discussion really matter? You bet it does. According to the correspondence theory, truth is what puts us in contact with reality — not just physical, material aspects of reality, but spiritual and moral as well. And reality can be a pretty brutal thing. One philosopher said that reality is what you bump up against when your beliefs are false!

Why, then, does truth matter? Because ideas have consequences, and false ideas generally have bad consequences. Truth should be the rails on which we all live our lives. Because truth puts us in touch with reality, it removes us from a self-serving, destructive fantasy world of our own creation, and it leads to a life of well-being and flourishing.

Truth, in other words, is prerequisite both to accountability and success. Sometimes the truth hurts, but in the end, it is the only way to navigate reality.

Copyright 2004 J.P. Moreland. All rights reserved.

References [ + ]

Share This Post:

About the author.

J.P. Moreland is distinguished professor of philosophy at Talbot School of Theology and director of Eidos Christian Center. He has contributed to over 40 books, including Love Your God With All Your Mind and over 60 journal articles. Dr. Moreland also co-authored The Lost Virtue of Happiness: Discovering the Disciplines of the Good Life .

Related Content

Shedding the Façade of Shame

June 7, 2024

Vulnerability may be scary, but it’s a necessary step in pushing past fear to authentic connection.

How to Pray Specific Scriptures Over Your Circumstances

May 27, 2024

By praying God’s own words and claiming His promises, our prayers are guaranteed to be more effective.

I Want to Be a Better Person

May 15, 2024

I want so much to be a better person. I make efforts to be better, then get exhausted and stop and then go back to worrying and try again. It’s a sad cycle.

Mandisa: An Example of Praise

May 7, 2024

Those who live with vulnerability and a tender heart in the public eye open themselves up to both admiration and ridicule. But Mandisa persistently praised through the pain.

The Cross: Crucial in Worship

May 6, 2024

It’s not enough to sing songs about God’s love that produce warm feelings in our hearts. We need to remember the reality of Christ crucified.

4 Reasons to Memorize Scripture This Year

May 1, 2024

I’m determined to memorize larger chunks of Scripture. I want God’s Word infused deep down into my life more than anything.

Test Resources

TOEFL® Resources by Michael Goodine

Sample toefl essay – should we always tell the truth, the question.

Do you agree or disagree with the following statement? Sometimes it is better to be dishonest with people than to always tell them the truth. Use specific reasons and details to support your answer.

Special Offer: TOEFL Essay Evaluation and Scoring

You can now sign up to have your practice essays evaluated and scored by the author of this web page.  It’s a great way to learn how you will do before test day and how you can best prepare for the test. Sign up today .

The Sample Essay

         Maintaining healthy relationships can be very difficult in today’s world, and there are many aspects of our interactions with others that we need to worry about.  In my opinion, there are times when it is better to not tell the truth to others. I feel this way for two reasons, which I will explore in the following essay.

          First of all, telling small lies can sometimes motivate the people we care about to excel. Humans are very competitive and want to be the best at whatever task they have been assigned. Whether they are involved in an athletic event or taking a test at school, they feel more motivated if they think it is possible that they will achieve an impressive result.  In cases like these, sometimes lying about their potential can encourage them to perform well. My own experience is a compelling example of this. Last year, my husband signed up for a marathon in our city. I knew that he would struggle to even finish the event, but I wanted him to feel confident about his ability. Accordingly, when he asked me for my opinion, I lied and said that he had a chance of finishing in the top ten. This gave him a lot of confidence and he dedicated himself to training for the marathon.  Even though he did not win the race, my small lie was enough to maintain his motivation both before and during the race. Had I told him what I really thought, he might have given up altogether.

         Secondly, being honest all of the time can lead to high levels of anxiety. If we tell unpleasant truths, we may spend days or hours worrying about the possible consequences of what we have revealed.  For instance, last week a colleague asked me what I thought of her new hairstyle. I was honest, and said that I thought it looked terrible. Though she did not express any anger at my remarks, I could see that she was really hurt by what I said. As a result of this, I spent the rest of the day worrying that I had jeopardized our friendship. My emotional state greatly reduced my productivity that day, and I am still a bit nervous that my colleague will hold a grudge against me. Had I simply said that her hair looked wonderful, I could have avoided all of these feelings.

        In conclusion, I believe that there are times when it is best to not tell the truth to others. This is because lies can motivate people to perform well, and because always being honest can sometimes cause personal turmoil. (438 words)

TOEFL Essay Templates

Sample TOEFL Speaking Answers

TOEFL Speaking Templates

TOEFL Reading Samples

Sign up for express essay evaluation today!

Submit your practice essays for evaluation by the author of this website.  Get feedback on grammar, structure, vocabulary and more.  Learn how to score better on the TOEFL.  Feedback in 48 hours.

Sign Up Today

24/7 writing help on your phone

To install StudyMoose App tap and then “Add to Home Screen”

Navigating Truth in Medicine: Ethical Dilemmas and Patient Welfare

Save to my list

Remove from my list

Defining Truth

The doctor's dilemma.

Importance of Truth-Telling

Medical ethics and balancing truth, consequences of deception, maintaining patient welfare.

Navigating Truth in Medicine: Ethical Dilemmas and Patient Welfare. (2016, Dec 08). Retrieved from https://studymoose.com/the-importance-of-truth-telling-essay

"Navigating Truth in Medicine: Ethical Dilemmas and Patient Welfare." StudyMoose , 8 Dec 2016, https://studymoose.com/the-importance-of-truth-telling-essay

StudyMoose. (2016). Navigating Truth in Medicine: Ethical Dilemmas and Patient Welfare . [Online]. Available at: https://studymoose.com/the-importance-of-truth-telling-essay [Accessed: 8 Jun. 2024]

"Navigating Truth in Medicine: Ethical Dilemmas and Patient Welfare." StudyMoose, Dec 08, 2016. Accessed June 8, 2024. https://studymoose.com/the-importance-of-truth-telling-essay

"Navigating Truth in Medicine: Ethical Dilemmas and Patient Welfare," StudyMoose , 08-Dec-2016. [Online]. Available: https://studymoose.com/the-importance-of-truth-telling-essay. [Accessed: 8-Jun-2024]

StudyMoose. (2016). Navigating Truth in Medicine: Ethical Dilemmas and Patient Welfare . [Online]. Available at: https://studymoose.com/the-importance-of-truth-telling-essay [Accessed: 8-Jun-2024]

• Navigating Ethical Dilemmas: Dentist Autonomy vs. Patient Preferences Pages: 4 (1142 words)
• Ethical Dilemmas of Therapeutic Cloning in Medicine Pages: 9 (2578 words)
• Navigating Ethical Dilemmas in Financial Management at Stuart & Co. Pages: 10 (2796 words)
• Navigating Ethical Dilemmas in Modern Healthcare Pages: 6 (1740 words)
• Navigating Ethical Dilemmas in the Workplace Pages: 3 (684 words)
• Ethical Dilemmas Unveiled: Navigating the Complex Terrain of Justifying Stealing in Extreme Circumstances Pages: 2 (569 words)
• Ethical Problems and Ethical Dilemmas Pages: 8 (2151 words)
• Ethical Decision Making Model: Guiding Principles for Ethical Dilemmas Pages: 2 (600 words)
• Traditional Medicine: A Historical Perspective and Modern Dilemmas Pages: 4 (956 words)
• Navigating Ethical Boundaries in Medicine Pages: 2 (550 words)

👋 Hi! I’m your smart assistant Amy!

Don’t know where to start? Type your requirements and I’ll connect you to an academic expert within 3 minutes.

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• Malays J Med Sci
• v.25(3); 2018 May

The Ethics of Truth-Telling in Health-Care Settings

Can a lie be justified if it saves a human life or a community, or if another great evil is avoided? The article proposes that health professionals need not always tell the truth, depending on situation; but, this does not refute the significance of telling the truth. It also elucidates the value of telling the truth, and the challenges for telling the whole truth. Two prominent theories of ethics, Deontological and Consequentialism are deliberated, together with the integration of examples to illustrate main areas of interest.

Introduction

The truth hurts, as most people say. Yet while honesty has always been understood as the best policy, it has also played a role in the temptation to lie. Health professionals are expected to always tell the truth to their patients simply because it is the right thing to do. Still, arguably, if they were to examine their work every day, there are demands in which the truth is not always a definite matter. This brings us to the question: Is there a special moral duty and obligation for health professionals to always tell their patients the truth, or are there situations where some degree of dishonesty may be justifiable to avoid more serious harm to a patient? If there are reasons for not telling the truth, what are they? When could incomplete disclosure be justified, and under what circumstances? In the past, where the value of not doing harm (non-maleficence) was so strong, lying to the patient was considered acceptable whereby the arguments maintained that health professionals’ primary moral obligation was to help and not cause harm to patients. Therefore, lying was generally accepted, and news that is perceived as causing stress was withheld to avoid for what is judged as the best interest of the patient. Today, many things have changed, and telling the truth has emerged among the most widely praised qualities of health professionals in contemporary biomedical ethics ( 1 ).

The Value of Truth-Telling in Health Care

One of the most pre-disposed values to being truthful is associated with respect for the patient as a person who is able to make decision. This is because, to determine a course of action and governance of care for a patient, the patient requires nothing less than truthful information. The provision of truthful information to patients is one way to enable them to make correct decisions which benefit their overall health. Without knowledge of the truth, it would be uncertain whether patients can make informed decisions and would lead to failure of health professionals to respect them as autonomous individuals. Lying is held to be a breach of the autonomy of the person, and this contradicts concepts such as patient empowerment, shared decision-making and patient-centred care. This is essentially significant to a health professional obtaining informed consent, whereby the potential risks involved in the proposed treatment and intervention need to be disclosed truthfully. To consent to any health intervention, a person requires sufficient and truthful information to make an informed and conscious choice; arguably, patients cannot make effective decisions without truthful information.

The second value is on duty and trust, whereby Kant ( 2 ), one of the leading Western philosophers, believed that everyone has a strict duty to tell the truth even if it might be harmful. He believed that lying could never be an excuse, as it was always harmful to a particular person or to mankind in general. If harm results from telling the truth in a compassionate manner, then it is an ‘accident’, but if harm results from a lie, then the liar is responsible. Kant further supposes that telling the truth is always a duty, whether it relates to the other’s right to know or results in innocent people being severely harmed. In other words, from a deontological point of view, competent patients should be told the truth regardless of the consequences. It can also be argued that, given the value of trust in any health professional–patient relationship, then such trust must be properly facilitated and fostered throughout patient care. This may not be possible if patients discovered that they have been deceived by health professionals who are otherwise trusted to not tell lies. Furthermore, while lying may be justified at times, its main effect soon becomes evident, that despite liars believing their actions to be benign and in good faith, those deceived may feel upset and wary ( 3 ).

The third value is the physical and psychological benefits of telling the truth. One of which is the positive benefits on the patient; those who are well informed tend to collaborate with health professionals and seek to be treated. This is based on the belief that once the patient knows their diagnosis and prognosis, they can tolerate the treatment and the pain more positively. Meanwhile, in the absence of disclosure, harm may result from not seeking treatment. We must not forget that telling rather than withholding information will allow a patient to plan their care, seek other opinions and put personal and financial affairs in order ( 4 ). Therefore, it is very difficult to think of a situation where lying can ever be acceptable in the therapeutic relationship. Moreover, honesty also helps protect the patient from overtreatment, which is neither kind nor beneficial ( 5 ). In terms of psychological benefit, knowing one’s prognosis and diagnosis is far less debilitating than worrying about the unknown because patients who are not given the opportunity to reveal their own fears and worries may be left anxious and convinced that they have the most horrible fate ahead ( 6 ). As a result, this avoidance of communication about the reality of a patient’s situation may actually expose the patient to considerable psychological distress. Concealment, once started, and even with good intentions, would probably have to be continued ( 7 ). There is some evidence to support the notion that informing patients the full truth about a life-threatening disease does not result in a greater incidence of anxiety, despair, sadness, depression, insomnia or fear ( 8 ). In fact, informed patients engage in better communication with health professionals, resulting in greater trust in the care provided. Furthermore, it is alleged that not informing patients of the natural course of their illnesses deprives them of what is called a ‘good death’ ( 9 ). If, for example, patients were made more miserable by being given information about their condition and risk of alternative treatment, if it is what the patients wish to know, then health professionals are morally obliged to tell them the truth.

The Challenge of Truth-Telling in Health Care

Respect for patient as a person to be told the truth may possibly contradict with a patient’s right not to know such truth. In some cases, patients prefer not to be told or have full information of their health conditions, of a serious diagnosis, but would rather wish a family member be informed ( 10 ). In other words, some are happy not to be given the unpleasant information and are happy to leave the decision making to the health professional or family. Autonomous individuals are free to use their autonomy as they see fit, even to delegate it when this seems right, or if they find themselves unwilling or unable to cope with the information ( 8 ). For example, an elderly patient who had just numerous blood tests, was exercising her right to making decision, by asking that the doctor discuss the results with her daughter. To force or exert the truthful information on someone who might not be ready to deal with the impact of the information can be seen as oblivious and possibly damage the relationship between the health professionals, the patient and the family. For example, deception to a depressed, tearful patient who is in need of comfort may actually promote greater respect for autonomy than the oblivious truth. Successful deception may possibly infringe the patient’s immediate autonomy but does not mean it fails to respect the patient’s overall autonomy ( 11 ). Therefore, would recognising this wish symbolise a violation or respect to the patient’s autonomy? In any health care codes of ethics, it is generally established that health professionals ought to respect their patients’ wishes and preferences. Yet, this respect of wishes is not just about the patient’s right to know, but extends to respect a patient’s right not to know. This suggests that while there is a compelling argument for safeguarding respect for individual autonomy in being truthful, there is robust evidence emerging that such notion is not always absolute, particularly when a patient does not wish to be told the truth or to possess truthful information about them.

In the earlier arguments, it is part of health professional’s duty to tell the truth. Given the duty of openness and honesty is increasingly recognised as critical in any health professional relationship with patients, there are some uncertainties to such duties. For example, in patients with conditions of cognitive deficit such as dementia, it remains debatable if they are entitled to be told the truth in the first place. Generally it is perceived as justifiable to withhold information from certain patients and not tell the truth to patients who appear incompetent in accepting the information, or who have cognitive defects ( 12 ). It can also be argued that telling the truth is only a prima facie obligation, in other words, when there is conflict with other obligations, one can override the other obligation ( 1 ). This is in particular relevant to the principles of beneficence and non-maleficence which are used to justify for not telling the truth to patients. Previous arguments perceive that telling lies may potentially lead to physical and psychological harm, but what if, by telling lies offer greater benefits to patient, than causing harm? Should we then promote beneficence instead whilst taking into account our primary duty not to harm patients? Consider the following case study ( 13 ). There was a car accident whereby a man was badly injured while the family have been killed. This badly injured man regains consciousness in a hospital bed and he is critically ill and fighting for his life after a road accident. If this man were to ask about his family as soon as he has regained consciousness, would lying to him be justified? It certainly be difficult to see how it makes moral sense to tell him the truth, that his wife and three other daughters have been killed, until his condition is no longer critical, and the news, at that point, is unlikely to risk his life, although it would be a different matter if he were about to die. Therefore, perhaps it is good to reflect that if illuminating the truth would cause harm and a lie is told with the clear intention of achieving good, then lying can sometimes be morally justified. This is also based on the consequentialism point of view, insisting that the decision to tell or not to tell the truth depends on the details of the clinical situation, and the doctor should decide which course of action might be least harmful in producing the best results for the patient ( 7 ). It is further argued that there is a difference between ‘telling the whole truth” and “giving a patient a true picture”. Since health professionals involve specialist knowledge, therefore to tell the client “the whole truth” about a particular condition, explaining the biochemistry, physiology, and histories of like conditions in other people, might not be pragmatic. It is also impossible to provide the patient with such knowledge particularly where there may be little time whilst proper understanding might require the patient to have considerable prior knowledge. To some extent, patients will vary in their ability to understand the complexity of medical information and of course, ‘the whole truth’ is usually an illusion ( 8 ). Giving the patient a ‘true picture’ about their condition or medical treatment is more pragmatic than telling them the whole truth, as inevitably, the most relevant points will be selected by the health professionals to tell the patients ( 13 ). Besides the truth can be ambiguous, situational and personal, and that telling the truth depends on how each of the health professionals define what ‘truth’ actually is.

Meanwhile, from a utilitarian’s perspective whereby the emphasis on the maximisation of the happiness and interests of all concerned, then perhaps not telling the truth is arguably justified in certain condition. For example, patients are not always necessarily told that novice doctors are performing treatments, nor are they informed of the risks associated with treatments performed by novice doctors. As greater benefits, via an increased physical knowledge from treatment, are achieved for a large number of future patients when a novice doctor practices a procedure. To disclose this would potentially discourage patient participation and reduce the learning of the profession, would impact on future practice and treatment outcomes ( 14 ). Another example is when a nurse, who puts medication to a patient’s food, is an elderly patient with cognitive impairment, being acutely disturbed and represents a significant risk of harm to them self or to others. Of course, the issue of covert administration of medication given to an autonomous individual against his or her will is both legally and ethically unacceptable ( 15 ). The presence or the true nature of the medication was denied because truthful disclosure would cause the patient to refuse the drug, which could result in a negative outcome with regards to the patient’s treatment. Therefore, could the benefit of giving, for example, a sedative outweigh the possible harm caused? Indeed, telling the patient the truth can sometimes appear to be more harmful to the patient and it may well be justified for the nurse to withhold information or even use benevolent deception ( 7 ).

The Best Way Forward

Whilst most health professionals are always keen to treat patient with honesty, they must also carefully recognise and reflect on the assumption that all patients wish to receive truthful information directly, particularly when patient preferences do indeed vary. The meaning of truth and acceptance of it means differently across cultures, which necessitates treating people sensitively and sharing information using excellent communication skills. Health professionals also ought to approach cases on an individual basis and handle them delicately through careful deliberation and dialogue with the patient, their family and other multidisciplinary professionals. In cases where the overall welfare and long-term autonomy of the patient may possibly be maximised by means of deception, then such action must be clearly documented with justifications, and the decision must be reviewed on a regular basis. In the context of dementia care, for example, health professionals should seek to understand their patients’ preferences and act according to their choices rather than routinely disclosing or concealing such information. Patients with dementia require affirmation because they are individual people who may neither fully understand nor remember the truth, which could be challenging for health professionals ( 16 ).

At the same time, health professionals must be cautious of giving too much (truthful) information, as it can be overwhelming for some, if not all. It is common for people to misinterpret or misjudge new or too much information given to them, and therefore, health professionals must take note of considerations to recognise factors that can affect patients’ responses to information given. All this is necessary so that health professionals are encouraged to avoid undermining the obligation to be honest and truthful and to ensure that robust strategies are in place to effectively deliver information. At the same time, as part of addressing the psychological needs of the patients, preserving hope is seen as essential for patients to carry on with their life as normally as possible, and this may occasionally be maintained through avoiding certain information.

The above case examples direct medical doctors to carefully consider and bridge the cultural context and dimension as a salient point. Not only is there a need for established good rapport with patients, but increased awareness and understanding of cultural differences in truth-telling also helps frame the ethics of truth-telling. Such cultural sensitivity allow doctors to respect and accept the patient’s values, religious and cultural beliefs, whilst at the same time echoed on the significance availability and benefits of appropriate psychosocial, spiritual and religious support mechanisms (for example, clinical psychologist or counsellor). This could be one of the positive approaches to provide great support in doctor-patient cross-cultural communication and decision-making, hence giving patients the best care possible.

Health professionals are expected to always tell the truth. This is based on the argument that, lying is wrong and disrespecting the person’s autonomy is not right. However, this may not necessarily be the case, as the ‘right not to know’ the truth, should as well be respected by them. In the discussion, it appears that the truth is an essential moral good, but, sometimes truth does come into conflict with other essential moral good like beneficence, nonmaleficence and autonomy. When conflict arises, a line ought to be drawn between respecting one’s autonomy for the truth of information and the promotion of the principles of beneficence and non-maleficence. Whilst physical and psychological implications of telling the truth to patients are addressed accordingly, it needs further consideration on both the harm of lies and the harm of telling the truth. Each patient nevertheless must be approached individually, and at a level that addressed his or her needs and interests. Hence, having considered the arguments where telling the truth stands in health care practice, health professionals may need not always tell the truth. These however necessitate them to not disregard the importance of telling the truth to patients and that in all situations, justification is needed before applying the notion of telling the truth.

Why Honesty Is Often Difficult

Telling the truth is important, even when it hurts..

Posted February 1, 2022 | Reviewed by Ekua Hagan

• What Is Stress?
• Find a therapist to overcome stress
• When feeling besieged, doing the right thing is even harder than usual. But it's no less important.
• Sometimes telling the truth is difficult, because it can mean sacrificing what one genuinely wants or needs.
• It's easy to convince oneself that a small lie is harmless, but cheating is a slippery slope.

By Angela Duckworth, Ph.D. This is the first in a two-part series on honesty.

“Could you describe a time when you told the truth and it hurt you?”

I wish I could say I came up with this interview question. It gets right to the heart of why honesty is often difficult, which is that telling the truth can mean sacrificing something you genuinely want or need.

But I’d be lying if I did.

The question comes courtesy of journalist David Brooks, who in turn gives credit to someone he ran into “who hires a lot of people.”

Right now, talking about honesty might feel old-fashioned. The pandemic and its ripple effects of anxiety and stress may seem like a license to prioritize our wants and needs over our oughts and shoulds. In particular, more than a few students and parents I’ve spoken with in recent months told me that until this crisis is behind us, it should be okay to cheat a little on homework and exams. And nationwide, reports of cheating at college since the advent of the pandemic have skyrocketed .

New research shows that, indeed, students who report higher levels of distress, sadness, and other negative emotions tend to adopt more generous attitudes toward plagiarism, which in turn predicts actually committing more plagiarism.

In other words, when you’re feeling besieged, doing the right thing is even harder than usual.

Yet I think it’s just as important. At Character Lab, we include honesty as a strength of heart, in the same family as kindness and gratitude . Like other strengths of heart, honesty helps us relate to other people in positive ways. But when it comes to forming judgments about other people, research suggests that nothing is more important than moral character.

It is perhaps for this reason that a student I know well went out of her way to show me her transcript from last semester. With pride, she pointed out her statistics grade—which was noticeably lower than the others. “It was an incredibly hard class,” she explained. “And so many students cheated, working together on the exams even though the professor told us not to. I did my own work. The grade sucks, but I did the right thing.”

Don’t underestimate the influence of stress on every aspect of behavior, including honesty. Decisions to do the right thing are more difficult when you feel like you’re struggling.

Do raise the topic of honesty with the young people in your life. Tell a story about a time when you told the truth and it hurt you—and perhaps a time when you failed to be truthful and regretted it. And be honest about being honest. It can be hard to hold fast to our principles—yet imperative that we try.

Angela Duckworth is the Rosa Lee and Egbert Chang Professor at the University of Pennsylvania and the author of Grit: The Power of Passion and Perseverance . She is also the co-host of the podcast No Stupid Questions .

Character Lab is a nonprofit whose mission is to advance scientific insights that help kids thrive.

• Find a Therapist
• Find a Treatment Center
• Find a Psychiatrist
• Find a Support Group
• Find Online Therapy
• United States
• Brooklyn, NY
• Chicago, IL
• Houston, TX
• Los Angeles, CA
• New York, NY
• Portland, OR
• San Diego, CA
• San Francisco, CA
• Seattle, WA
• Washington, DC
• Asperger's
• Bipolar Disorder
• Chronic Pain
• Eating Disorders
• Passive Aggression
• Personality
• Goal Setting
• Positive Psychology
• Stopping Smoking
• Low Sexual Desire
• Relationships
• Child Development
• Self Tests NEW
• Therapy Center
• Diagnosis Dictionary
• Types of Therapy

At any moment, someone’s aggravating behavior or our own bad luck can set us off on an emotional spiral that threatens to derail our entire day. Here’s how we can face our triggers with less reactivity so that we can get on with our lives.

• Emotional Intelligence
• Gaslighting
• Affective Forecasting
• Neuroscience

• Share full article

Advertisement

Supported by

Guest Essay

How Trump’s Team Blew It

By Renato Mariotti

Mr. Mariotti, a partner at Bryan Cave Leighton Paisner in Chicago, is a former federal prosecutor.

The criminal trial of Donald Trump didn’t have to end this way.

The prosecution’s case had flaws that couldn’t be wallpapered over even with weeks of testimony, over 200 exhibits and a polished and persuasive presentation by Alvin Bragg, the Manhattan district attorney, and his team. If Mr. Trump’s lawyers had played their cards right, they most likely would have ended up with a hung jury or a misdemeanor conviction.

The defense lost a winnable case by adopting an ill-advised strategy that was right out of Mr. Trump’s playbook. For years, he denied everything and attacked anyone who dared to take him on. It worked — until this case.

I have practiced criminal law for over 20 years, and I have tried and won cases as both a federal prosecutor and criminal defense attorney. I’ve almost never seen the defense win without a compelling counternarrative. Jurors often want to side with prosecutors, who have the advantage of writing the indictment, marshaling the witnesses and telling the story.

The defense needs its own story, and in my experience, the side that tells the simpler story at trial usually wins.

Instead of telling a simple story, Mr. Trump’s defense was a haphazard cacophony of denials and personal attacks. That may work for a Trump rally or a segment on Fox News, but it doesn’t work in a courtroom. Perhaps Mr. Trump’s team was also pursuing a political or press strategy, but it certainly wasn’t a good legal strategy. The powerful defense available to Mr. Trump’s attorneys was lost amid all the clutter.

At the beginning of the trial, Mr. Trump’s team had a clear path to victory. He was charged with 34 counts of falsifying business records related to the cover-up of a $130,000 hush-money payment that was made to the porn star Stormy Daniels. Yet the only direct evidence of Mr. Trump’s knowledge was the testimony of Michael Cohen — who has pleaded guilty to lying to Congress and charges of bank fraud, tax evasion and campaign finance violation — who hates Mr. Trump and makes money off his public commentary on Mr. Trump’s legal woes.

We are having trouble retrieving the article content.

Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.

Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and  log into  your Times account, or  subscribe  for all of The Times.

Thank you for your patience while we verify access.

Already a subscriber?  Log in .

Want all of The Times?  Subscribe .