Post-Truth Hospital
Imagine you came to hear that whenever a person is going to the hospital to test for COVID-19 in your city, they are doing a test and telling them that it is just flu and sending them home. And a few days later, that person is dying. Not only that person but people around are also getting sick. One hospital thinks it is a flu, another hospital thinks it is mild pneumonia, and another hospital thinks it is just a cold. They may be right, but with the mortality rate we see, it’s more likely that these hospitals are either incompetent, or they are not telling the truth. What do you do when this happens closer to home? Would you sit back and enjoy your coffee and muse on the idea that truth is relative? Is it ok to put people’s lives on the line based on what the hospital feels is true? Would you not respond within your capacity to prevent people from dying because hospitals are rejecting treatment?
Welcome to the Post-Truth Hospital. These hospitals believe that there is no such thing as absolute truth. Whatever serves their purpose is truth for them. After all, as Yuval Harari says, “we’re a post-truth species.” They may or may not force you to accept their ‘truth,’ but you cannot make them accountable by your ‘truth.’ If anything goes wrong, you cannot seek justice because they believe that no one has the right to make an absolute truth claim. Well, that statement itself is an absolute claim, but they don’t want to talk about it.
So, would you prefer to make an appointment next time with a post-truth doctor or a surgeon? Come on, we are post-truth species, don’t we need an appropriate treatment?
A few days later, I was mentioning to my friend about these testing incidents in the hospitals. I forwarded him a few news articles on these incidents. I wanted to know what he thinks, as he also believes in post-truth philosophy. Surprisingly he was upset and told me that we should take this issue to the concerned authority. He immediately tweeted tagging these hospitals and the health ministry. Then I specifically asked him, I know you believe that there is no absolute truth, so why are you so angry with these hospitals? Don’t you see they also seem to think the same way? He immediately said, “No, that has nothing to do with science. Science is very objective. But, there is no absolute truth in morality, metaphysics, belief, etc.” So I asked him, Don’t you think rejecting treatment by telling lies and letting the person die is a moral decision? He quickly paused and said, “Absolutely. But let us discuss this heavy topic sometime later.”
My friend seems to avoid discussing this, maybe he needs some time to think. His dilemma is, in the hospital scenario, truth ought to be objective, but in morality or belief, it cannot be. This is a false dichotomy many believe in. How can one separate morality from reality? When morality is grounded in truth, it corresponds to reality; if not, it fails the test of truth. Hence such morality or belief is false. Just because false beliefs exist does not mean all beliefs are subjective or false. Now in the hospital scenario, we were on the receiving end; if not, my friend may have taken the post-truth argument to be free himself from any responsibility.
When morality is grounded in truth, it corresponds to reality; if not, it fails the test of truth. Hence such morality or belief is false.
That is why people choose a post-truth perspective when they are on one side of the matter and decide to fight for justice when we are on the receiving end. It sounds like what Fredrick Nietzsche once said, “Truth is the name we give to that which agrees to our own instinctive preferences. It is what we call our interpretation of the world, especially when we want to foist upon others.”
Just like my friend, any sane person would ask for an investigation of the claims of the hospital. Reason? Not because we hate these hospitals but, because their report is not corroborating with reality where the people are dying. Well, these hospitals may be right, and people may die for other reasons. But, with the information we have, there seems to be a problem. Why do I think so?
I think so because any truth claim that does not correspond to reality and is not coherent with other sets of related propositions is false. This is called correspondence and coherence theory of truth in epistemology. Two contradictory statements cannot both be true in the same sense, Either one or both are false. We all know that in this scenario, the hospital reports, the patient’s health history, and post-mortem reports should corroborate to establish the truth.
After a week, the hospitals came back, saying that we cannot question their claims because ‘truth’ is subjective. Apparently, they mentioned these words, “everything can be true.” Now my friend is confused, “if everything is true, then nothing is false?” he asked. I said, not just that. If nothing is false, then it would also be true to say everything is false. Isn’t this nonsense? When you make an assertion, you deny its opposite. Therefore, truth, by definition, becomes exclusive.
We came to realize that when the truth has died, justice becomes meaningless. Now my friend’s dilemma is if the truth is absolute and exclusive, how do I know it?
Read the remaining article “Post-Truth Pandemic — Where justice has died”.
The conversation in this article is fictional.
