Ethical Criteria of Truth: Evidence, Principles, and Universality
Ethical Criteria of Truth
Evidence and Errors
Evidence, while seemingly clear, is the ultimate criterion of truth, but it is not always trustworthy. We have all experienced errors where what seemed obvious was later invalidated by stronger evidence. Therefore, it’s crucial to measure the strength of material evidence. This is both the most challenging and most rewarding aspect of human existence. We must distinguish truth from falsehood in these matters to avoid being involved in tragedies.
Concerning fundamental values like peace, freedom, equality, and justice, it is concerning that some claim we cannot agree on ethical principles valid for all humanity. While some cases are fiercely contested, disagreement often lies not in the fundamentals, but in their implementation or interpretation.
These principles present challenging problems for ethics to resolve. However, the intensity of these discussions shouldn’t obscure the fact that, in many other areas, we possess a robust ethical theory with universal value. The Declaration of Human Rights embodies a version of this theory.
For centuries, the criteria of truth have been studied more deeply in science than in ethics. This leads some to believe that ethical criteria don’t exist, and that one’s own conscience—personal evidence—is the ultimate arbiter in moral matters. This is incorrect; strict criteria *do* exist.
Essential Criteria
- Subjective Evidence: This is the fundamental criterion. The individual must assess the merit of an ethical theory’s content. However, subjective evidence can be false if overridden by a stronger one.
- Internal Clarification of the Evidence: Evidence that appears strong initially may prove fragile upon analysis. We must distinguish between intended meanings and values, such as the foundation of freedom.
- General Acceptance: An ethical standard is not only well-founded but also gains legitimacy through widespread acceptance.
Certain forms of argumentation increase the ethical strength of evidence:
- Moral Experience of Mankind: Advocated by Jacques Maritain, this approach tests the value of models through experience.
- Arguments from an Impartial Observer: This idea originates with Adam Smith. A more elaborate version, proposed by John Rawls, suggests that a “unanimous choice of a theory of justice” can be achieved by adopting a “veil of ignorance”—judging each situation regardless of our social position, personal beliefs, interests, or preferences.
- Reasoned Dialogue: “Dialogical ethics,” championed by Habermas, posits that justice can only be achieved through reasoned discussion involving all concerned parties in an ideal communication environment.
- Universality: An ethical principle is strengthened if it can be universalized. Kant considered this the hallmark of any ethical standard, leading to his categorical imperative: “Act in such a way that your behavior can serve as a universal standard of conduct.” Consider what would happen if everyone acted as you do.
- Consistency: We cannot accept a model or theory that makes contradictory claims.
- Consistency with Other Truths: An ethical model must be consistent with science and other established scientific truths.
- Effectiveness: Scientists recognize that a theory’s success is evidence in its favor. Since ethical standards aim to solve serious problems, their effectiveness is a logical criterion of truth.
- Prediction of Good Consequences: An ethical theory’s evidence is supported if it can predict positive consequences from its application. Eliminating the five major barriers identified by the law of ethical progress can lead to anticipated positive outcomes.
- Argument *ad horrorem* (Reduction to the Horror): Failure to meet an ethical standard will result in dire consequences. This is known as the argument “by reduction to the horror.”