6 ms·
Ask HN: Is truth a basic human right?
Recently I read the statistics on the frequency of journalists being killed. I was appalled.
I suppose I never thought deeply enough to conclude the torture and murder of Jamal Khashoggi is a manifestation of a systematic problem.
If nation states (even democratic in some instances) are willing to kill those who share the truth, is this something we should accept?
I wonder to what extent we are entitled to truth, and why there is a war against it.
- aaron695 6y agoWhy do you think Jamal Khashoggi told the truth?
- desertraven 6y agoThat’s a good point. Perhaps I’m combining two different things - freedom of speech and truth. Thanks for pointing that out. With Jamal aside, would you consider addressing the more general question of truth as a right?
- aaron695 6y agoYou don't have a right to know my medial records. So no, truth is not a human right. If I know a zero day in your product you have no right to that knowledge. You have no right to access newspapers for free. You have no right to the truth. Certainly not a basic human right. If your question is really the right to not be lied to, have fun with all the religions you'd have to restrict, except the correct one. Plus you'd have to kill Santa.
- desertraven 6y agoI must say I appreciate your direct delivery, and concise points (sorry Santa). How do you suppose we determine what basic human rights are? Or is the question too vague? Keeping the same spirit of your comment, but applying it to food: You don’t have a right to my food. You have no right to food for free. Both these statements seem quite true in today’s world. Can we go further and say food/water isn’t a human right? I hope this isn’t interpreted as putting words in your mouth. I’m just curious where you stand with regard to more ‘mainstream’ human rights.
- aaron695 6y agoI admit I find it hard to understand what is a basic human right. I think probably because it's a PR term where the implementation can't match the description. > You have no right to food for free. If it's a basic human right then I think you do. > You don’t have a right to my food. This I also think is true so you hit a contradiction. In practice it's making sure people have enough to eat the best you can. The practical application of what I think you want is freedom of speech and low censorship. But it will include falsehoods. It also avoids the discussion of what is truth, which is impossible.
- desertraven 6y agoCould you expand on the impossibility of discussing truth?
- barbacoa 6y agoJamal was not a journalist. He was an opinion piece writer for the wapo. He was also working for the Qatar government to undermine saudi interests. It's alleged that Qatar was sending him outlines of what articles to publish and paying him to do so. Not that he deserved what happened or that Saudi Arabia isn't terrible for killing him but I wouldn't put him on some alter as a journalistic martyr.
- Jugurtha 6y ago>I suppose I never thought deeply enough to conclude the torture and murder of Jamal Khashoggi is a manifestation of a systematic problem. Even for something that has received such a wide coverage as that, what do we actually know for a fact about it? You hear pundits and journalists claiming things for fact, but what are the sources, and what is the actual evidence. The only evidence is "everybody knows", or the U.S. intelligence community being "certain" of his fate. They were "certain" of a lot of things. If something that has received as wide a coverage as that event has had, imagine all the things we'll never hear about. >If nation states (even democratic in some instances) are willing to kill those who share the truth, is this something we should accept? It's amusing that I'm writing these lines near a street named "Richelieu" in Algiers. We'll have to go back to Cardinal de Richelieu for whom the "raison d'État"[0] was a cornerstone. I'd recommend the book "Diplomacy" by Henry Kissinger. - [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_interest https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_interest
- Pils 6y ago> You hear pundits and journalists claiming things for fact, but what are the sources, and what is the actual evidence. The only evidence is "everybody knows", or the U.S. intelligence community being "certain" of his fate. They were "certain" of a lot of things. If something that has received as wide a coverage as that event has had, imagine all the things we'll never hear about. Is this a serious comment? The Saudi Arabian government has already admitted to murdering Khashoggi (but denied that MBS had anything to do with it)[0]. There was plenty of reviewed evidence, including CCTV footage, audio recordings, etc, not just "everybody knows". [0] "After repeatedly shifting its account of what happened to Khashoggi in the days following the killing, the Saudi government admitted that Khashoggi had been killed in a premeditated murder" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assassination_of_Jamal_Khashoggi https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assassination_of_Jamal_Khashog...
- Jugurtha 6y ago>Is this a serious comment? The Saudi Arabian government has already admitted to murdering Khashoggi (but denied that MBS had anything to do with it)[0]. There was plenty of reviewed evidence, including CCTV footage, audio recordings, etc, not just "everybody knows". Have you seen the footage and listened to the audio recordings? I've followed the events, and read the articles as they came out. One after the other talked about details, bone saws, audio recordings of phone calls, of the deed itself, video footage. The ones I may have watched were not of that event. The link points to the Wikipedia page of the "Assassination of Jamal Khashoggi". Do you have a link to the Saudi Arabian government admitting to murdering Khashoggi?
- jbotz 6y agoThose who want power over others have always manipulated public perception of the truth, but an Open Society (by Karl Popper's definition) was supposed to be resistant to this in much the same way as the scientific process is resistant to it, through things like free speech, democratic debate, and freedom of the press. Today the ideal of the Open Society is in tatters largely because of systematic and relentless attacks on the truth. I think the seeds of many of our problems today are found in the birth of modern marketing and and the manufacture of "needs" to create a consumer society. And also, I think that the very idea of "intellectual property" is at odds with a commitment to truth and a truly open society. This combined with the fact that the primary beneficiaries of these two concepts also hold most of the economic power in our world create the fundamental distortion that has led to where we are today.
- eyelidlessness 6y agoI don’t think there would be a legal way to codify access to truth that wouldn’t also enable disastrous side effects. Such a law would potentially endanger rather than protect journalists, whose work could potentially be scrutinized for truthfulness in order to determine whether they qualify for protection; implicitly, should they fail that scrutiny, however biased... they would presumably be less protected than under broader laws that protect journalists (or just human life) generally. That said, law isn’t the only framework to understand rights. I think it’s reasonable to say that we’re morally entitled to access to the truth. It doesn’t have the same force as law, but it doesn’t carry the same risks either. All of that said, since you’re new to the realization that truth telling is a mortal risk... welcome. It’s not warm here, but it’s important to know. For what it’s worth, there’s a long ugly history of persecution of truth. It’s present in the history of major religion and major political strains. I have many misgivings referencing this particular news outlet generally, but if you want to learn more about the dangers faced by journalists, Democracy Now is a great resource for that.
- antiquark 6y agoFree speech should be a basic human right... and maybe truth falls under that.
- dalmo3 6y agoI think of it like most other "rights": You have the right to know the truth, you have the right to tell the truth, but you don't have the right to force someone else to tell you the truth.
- desertraven 6y agoCan I interpret that as you being against the killing of those who speak the truth? And in reference to your last point, what are you getting at there? Is there something you’re observing in the world that justifies forceful extraction of truth being the focal point of your comment?
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- dalmo3 6y agoFirst, yes, right to know and tell, pretty much against any form of punishment. The last point is in reference to your use of the word "entitled." English is not my first language, so I might interpret this wrong, but when one says "I'm entitled to X" it is heavily implied that "someone else should give me X when I ask," and I disagree with that in general, except in settings where those are the terms agreed (I suppose public service would be one).
- desertraven 6y agoAhhh! Thank you for the explanation, and also for taking the time to make me more aware of my words (and English is my first language!) I suppose it’s hard to categorise what forms of truth would be a right. And in some cases it could directly oppose privacy.
- zxcmx 6y agoTruth itself is not really knowable in many interesting cases, and even scientific truths which might appear "objective" at any given point are subject to debate, change and revision. The thing that needs to be protected is the pursuit of truth and I think this looks a lot like freedom of the press and freedom of civic speech.
- atoav 6y agoI think you are right in truth itself is not really knowable in many interesting cases — but I think we already would be okay with a level lower: what if we manage to get rid of verifiable untruths? You know the "X says Y is true and Y can be objectively checked because there is a definition for what Y is". I think that the US had a corrosive atmosphere even before Trump already, think about the whole "candidate X is socialist/fascist". Not to take a political stance, but there are definitions for those terms and checking if something is untrue is just a matter if the reality of what candidate X says or does fits that definition. This is what media was supposed to do and this is what public discourse was meant to be before parties became tribes, before the footballification of politics. Media has no incentive to do this nowadays, as they have to fight about your brain time with much nicer and more exciting media products.
- zxcmx 6y agoI agree that "lies" and "bullshit" seem to be among the defining problems of our time. What seems to have broken down is trust. In the many cases where you rightly point out the truth is discoverable, who do we trust to tell it to us? It's a hard, long-term problem. If people have lost faith in priests, scientists, politicians and the media, where to go from there? Any program to restore some ground truth to common discourse will have to operate by building (or rebuilding) broad societal trust in one or more public institutions. Ideally institutions which act in good faith and are in fact trustworthy. It is very hard (in a democracy) to make true progress on societal issues without some way to achieve broad consensus that they are real.
- kypro 6y agoThis is an important point. There are very few "objective" truths in politics, politics is mainly just people arguing over their personal preferences. The problem is those who hold power like to label other preferences as wrong and often try to suppress them. I'm not sure truth is protectable in most political contexts. What does truth mean when we're dealing with conversions involving subjective preferences?
- gregjor 6y agoNo, because we can’t agree on what’s “true” or what we mean by that. Umberto Eco wrote an interesting essay on the nature of truth, you can find it in his book On the Shoulders of Giants. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights spells out rights that cover journalists doing their job. https://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/ https://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/ Saudi Arabia is not a signatory of the Declaration. Having a right, from whatever source or authority, does not protect anyone from someone abusing or ignoring that right.
- idoh 6y agoFrom a USA perspective, we have freedom of press / speech, which means that the government is not allowed to interfere / pass laws. I feel like this is reasonable. Other than that, truth can't be a basic human right in the sense that, say, water or shelter can be, because what does that even mean? How would you go about providing truth to someone?
- blankton 6y agoIs the freedom of speech as stated in law enough? I can imagine that a lot of journalists are afraid to say what they want (or need) to say. The thread of losing the job is possibly a great burden in the pursuit of truth. We should enable some sort of financial independence for journalists to give them every reason to speak and write truthfully. A young and starting journalist needs a job at an established organization and is therefore bound to theire agenda.
- idoh 6y agoI agree that the world is better with independant journalists seeking and speaking truth to power. However, I disagree with your conclusion that the way to get this is basically state funded journalists. State controlled media is a sign of corrupt governments world wide, we must not go in that direction.
- friendlybus 6y agoTruth a basic human responsibility. Hot headed aggression will always overcome truth, and find a way to abuse knowledge and win wars. We must tell our truths often and early if we are to progress diplomatically.
- Darmody 6y agoThe basic human right you're looking for is called freedom of speech. As long as we have it, we're able to share different points of view and discuss them. Then we can draw our own conclusions. That's the closest we can get to the "truth".
- 8bitsrule 6y agoI'd settle for the 'facts'... things that most reasonable people can observe and can agree exist/happen. (Whether they survive interpretation is another question.) 'Truth' is one of those lofty aspirations that we like to pretend to reach for, but very few of us (if any) are yet fit to grok. Gotta walk before you can run.
- aeternum 6y agoMost reasonable people once observed & agreed that the earth was flat and women were unfit to vote. It would be unwise to consider everything reasonable people observe or agree upon facts.
- Lammy 6y agoI would love to find better words to describe my desire to respect the autonomy to have ideas I consider incomplete, incorrect, or even offensive, because it’s the only way I’ve been able to make all this stuff fit my morality without compromising it to pass judgement on others. (no implication intended toward you)
- Simulacra 6y agoDepends on whose truth.
- disown 6y ago> Recently I read the statistics on the frequency of journalists being killed. I was appalled. Where? What are the stats? > I suppose I never thought deeply enough to conclude the torture and murder of Jamal Khashoggi is a manifestation of a systematic problem. It's not. And common sense says he was killed because he was a spy/political actor, not a "journalist". What "truth" was he killed for, if he was killed. Why was he targeted and not 1000000 other journalists around the world. If it was systematic, there would be a lot less journalists. If it was systematic how come there hasn't been another khashoggi incident? There would be journalists being killed in every consulate around the world. No? > If nation states (even democratic in some instances) are willing to kill those who share the truth, is this something we should accept? Of course not. But then again, they shouldn't be killed for lying either. > I wonder to what extent we are entitled to truth, and why there is a war against it. Ask the CNN, WaPo, NYTimes, Foxnews, etc why they are engaging in a war against "truth". There is a war against "truth" because political/financial interests are at stake. An introductory class in philosophy would do wonders for you. "Truth" you will find is a very complex topic. But beyond the philosophical issues with "truth", your problem is that your started with a false premise : "Journalists give us truth". They do not. Truth doesn't come from journalists. Truth is independent of journalists. You sneakily confused "right to free speech" with "right to truth via journalists". That's journalist type of behavior. You see this all of HN and social media because of the amount of journalists wasting time on social media instead of doing actual work. I believe in right to free speech. I believe journalists have the right to lie outright, spin facts, tell truth, etc without physical harm. Just like any american has the same constitutional rights. Unfortunately, it's the journalists who are waging a war to censor americans so it's hard to sympathize with these people. But certainly nobody should be killed for expressing their opinions.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- probinso 6y agoI think that gradual truth should become a human right. If truth or human rights then privacy would not be. In a just world privacy should have an expiration date, potentially beyond the end of participants but always resulting in complete transparency. Basically I want a moral model that prevents grandmas from having secret family recipes that could enrich the world supply of cookies
- gitgud 6y agoTo me, information is a basic human right. The degree of truth that is within that information needs to be delineated by the individual... Not prescribed by an authority as truth
- muffa 6y agoyes. No, we should not accept journalists being killed it is their job to find the truth when people of countries etc does not want you to know the truth. Why is the truth important? It is a democratic cornerstone, the people we have elected are working for us and shall report to us just as basic as that. When you don't get access to the truth or get misinformation you are taken away your democracy as you see in countries like in example Russia, China and USA.
- markus_zhang 6y agoA right is always obtained (sometimes with force), not given. Whether it is a basic one depends on how many people wants to obtain it. If few cares about it, then it's a luxury.