The Boundaries of Truth

Are there boundaries of truth, such that we shouldn’t say some things, even if they are so? Even the least zealous of the trans apologists maintain that even though you know that the man who is dressed as a woman is a man, you should play pretend anyway, placing purported kindness over what they condescendingly refer to as “the absolute truth.”

Most of us want to be nice or at least desire to avoid conflict in lives that are plenty hectic without added quarrels. Yet, the notion that it is moral to “play along” falls apart under any serious scrutiny.

It is worth slowing down to examine why lies are immoral, before we so flippantly lay waste to moral edict as if it were a mere social etiquette. Our use of words and language form our understanding of the world. So, dishonesty hurts the other person by distorting his understanding of reality. It is through language that we understand and perceive what is real. Politicians often wield their use of the language as a weapon of deception. They make an art form of changing people’s perception of reality away from that which is true, as did the sophists.

To speak with carefully considered lies is to attempt to tyrannize the other person via a shifting of his understanding of what is so. It is to say that you do not consider the other person to be equal to you, for you are attempting a type of gross domination, and one does not dominate an equal.

It is likewise true that lying to someone who is in a state of delusion, in an attempt to encourage that state of disorder, is especially immoral. He has no way of finding the truth on his own, and he has a right to the accurate knowledge of his creation, his dignity, and his value.

“A language is well ordered when its words express reality with as little distortion and as little omission as possible.” — Josef Pieper, Abuse of Language, Abuse of Power

In agreeing that a man is a woman when we know it not to be so, most do so with the desire to get something out of the other person, whether that be his approval or even just his silence. It is thus, at best, a manipulation; an exchange made without the other person’s sanction. To try to claim moral high ground while engaging in a combination of manipulation and cowardice is egregious.

Adding Prudence

While we have an obligation to speak truth, this doesn’t mean that we must engage everyone who is in error. There is no duty to approach the homosexual couple in the grocery store and tell them that their lifestyle is sinful and self-destructive, even though both would be true. To do so would be imprudent.

St. Thomas Aquinas said that prudence is the charioteer of all virtues. Justice without prudence becomes vigilantism. Goodwill without prudence results in the misallocation of resources that could do more good elsewhere. Truth without prudence or decency results in someone like Diogenes, the 4th Century vagrant pagan who claimed he was “hunting for an honest man” while he prowled the streets naked, engaging in acts of public urination, because he considered them to be an honest reflection of his nature.

When we should speak becomes a far more nuanced issue, and sometimes a deeply personal one with regard to telling friends what they may not wish to hear. What should be far clearer is that whenever we do speak, we must utter truth. Our modern society is increasingly compelling people’s assent, having them speak lies in order to engage in a collective warping of reality. We must not partake in acts of evil, disguised as mercy.