Aquinas: Truth-Telling as a Moral Virtue

I recently came across a paper on Thomas Aquinas and truth-telling and wondered whether a medieval theologian/philosopher could say anything to an increasingly post-truth world. The author of the paper, Fainshe Ryan, quotes some lines from Michiko Kakutani’s book, The Death of Truth: “…cynicism and weariness and fear can make people susceptible to the lies and false promises of leaders bent on unconditional power. As Hannah Arendt wrote in her 1951 book The Origins of Totalitarianism, ‘The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the convinced communist, but people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction (i.e. the standards of thought) no longer exist.'”

People today often see truth-telling as a tool for obtaining one’s objective, an instrumental means to an end. Telling the truth or working with alternative facts means little if anything. Under these conditions, truth-telling has little value in and of itself. Aquinas’ writing on truth-telling leads to a different conclusion.

The intrinsic value of truth

Aquinas argues that truth-telling is a component of human flourishing and a human virtue. He embeds truth-telling in a discussion of the virtues that make for human flourishing (faith, hope, love, prudence, justice, temperance, and fortitude). Truth-telling connects particularly with the virtue of justice for Aquinas. Aquinas states that virtue is “that which makes its possessor good, or renders their action good.” A person is perfected by the virtue of truth-telling. Along Aristotelian lines, the virtuous person develops a capacity for doing a good thing. Virtue becomes part of who they are. They become people who tell the truth naturally.

Truth-telling is an interweaving of understanding, or the intellect, and the will. As Ryan notes, “the desire for truth leads one to explore, to ask questions, to seek to understand, to seek towards deeper understanding. For Aquinas, truth-telling becomes a moral virtue. Truth-telling persons are perfected by the virtue of truth. When people tell the truth they maintain an order, a harmony, between what they are saying is true and the fact of the matter.

Truth-telling and justice

Aquinas calls truth a satellite of justice, a necessary supplement to acting justly. Because truth-telling is associated with the virtue of justice he emphasizes its importance for human living and societal flourishing. For Aquinas, justice is relational, it brings about a certain equality between persons. Justice is the rendering of the law, of what is right, and truth-telling is the rendering of truth.

Truth-telling has two commonalities with justice. “The act of truth-telling, truthfulness must needs be directed to another person. It is a social virtue in this way. Secondly, it sets up a certain equality between people, again essential to the formation of society,” Ryan posits. But for Aquinas, truth-telling has some differences from justice. It does not dispatch a legal debt but a debt of proper respect, of integrity. It is “out of integrity that one should be truth-telling.” Aquinas believes truth-telling pertains to personal integrity, authenticity, and honorableness.

Truth-telling and human society

The conclusion that Ryan draws from Aquinas’ understanding of truth-telling is that “we owe it to one another, that it is a matter of justice, that we be truth-telling so that we can trust one another. This is essential for the preservation of human society.” Ryan quotes Aquinas: “Now it would be impossible for people to live together, unless they believed one another, as declaring the truth one to another. Hence the virtue of truth does, in a manner, regarding something as being due.”

Ryan says Aquinas “makes clear that truthfulness, truth-telling, is effected both by words and by deeds. Truth-telling is a virtue. Truthful acts and deeds perfect us. Aquinas posits the virtue of truthfulness, in word and in deed, as a core virtue for human society.”

The nature of truth

According to Aquinas when we seek truth, we are exploring the reality under our investigation. To Aquinas, “truth implies an adequate representation of a thing, so falsity implies the contrary.” Thus to speak falsely is to speak of what is not there at all. Deviating from truth is deviating from reality. The result, therefore, is dwelling in an impaired reality and with the dire consequences that may be associated with living with impaired reality.

If truth-telling is a matter of personal authenticity, then lying is its opposite. Lying is an act of duplicity. Ryan points out that “to lie is not primarily to deceive, but simply the intention to assert the false” and “just as one may acquire the virtue of truth-telling, so too the vice of lying can be acquired.” Or, to quote Aquinas, “the liar, when he lies from habit, delights in lying.” Lying, the absence of truth-telling, corrodes human relationships.

Conclusion

Aquinas says that truthfulness is “necessary for the preservation of human society. Now it would be impossible for people to live together, unless they believed one another, as declaring the truth to one another.” In part, because truth-telling is basic for a person’s own flourishing as an individual it is also foundational to the flourishing of human society.

Ryan concludes with this: “…a proper understanding of the virtue of truth-telling is an essential resource for navigating these dangerous times. The perspective it provides allows a critique of the post-truth culture and enables a more incisive perception of its dangers, and potential for social disaster. It follows that the pandemic of post-truth, from an Aquinas’ perspective, is utterly subversive of human flourishing. Those who indulge in the phenomenon of post-truth corrupt their character, diminishing their very humanity, and that of society.”

Comment

Interestingly, the example Ryan uses to illustrate post-truth is this: “While we may smile, or grimace, at the U.S. President Trump’s claim that his was the ‘biggest ever’ presidential inauguration numbers, the fact that Trump requested that official pictures be edited to make the crowd appear bigger demonstrates not only a clear disregard for facts but a deliberately falsified self-presentation.”

I find this interesting because Ryan is the Director of the Loyola Institute at Trinity College, Dublin, Ireland. I assume she used the Trump example because she thought it the best known globally. There were many examples to choose from, but this example was probably the most known example from his earliest days as president.

Ryan could have referred to the numerous instances in which Trump denied have said something to a person even though audio tapes clearly confirm that he said what he denies saying. Or, Ryan could have selected from among the nearly 10,800 false or misleading statements he made in the first 869 days of his presidency, about 12.5 false or misleading statements per day according to the Washington Post Fact Checker.

Analyses of the concept of post-truth (and associated concepts such as alternative facts, echo chambers, filter bubbles, and fake news) often discuss its adverse consequences for democracy. Democracy requires a significant degree of trust. Compromise requires dialogue around a basic set of facts. We all play language games. Spin control was always part of politics, as was slanting a message differently to different audiences and, at least sometimes, saying one thing in public but something quite different behind closed doors. But blatant, serial, continuing lying without compunction is something else. And when key public leaders, like a president, who people often look up to and want to believe, become Johnny Appleseed liars, our polity and our society become worse off. When the lies get nurtured, are reinforced, truth becomes difficult to discern. Dialogue and communication breakdown, trust disappears.

Trump has effectively weaponized lying by building his lies into simplistic narratives and simplistic stories. We all like stories, we are attracted to them, perhaps the more simplistic the better. Things that are complicated, particularly things that are complex, are inherently very difficult, if possible, to understand. Arriving at a good semblance of reality requires great effort and discernment. Almost invariably simplistic stories and narratives do a damaging disservice to reality, to the truth.

Putting an emphasis on truth-telling as a moral virtue paints a picture of personal responsibility, obligation, honor, and integrity. Words matter, ideas are powerful. The phrase “the pen is mightier than the sword” did not come out of the ether. Lies and mendacity tear down civic society and weaken the foundations of civilization. Lies and mendacity impede if not prevent justice.

I remember to this day a line from reading, perhaps over 20 years ago, a book by Max De Pree, the founder of the Herman Office Furniture Company. That line is “The first responsibility of a leader is to define reality.” Thus, the line in the paper that I found most forceful is this: “For Aquinas, deviating from truth is deviating from reality. The result, one is dwelling in an impaired reality… the consequences can be dire.”

Certainly, we can still learn from medieval philosophers and theologians.