Theory of Knowledge: Discussion on Whether Good Explanations Have to Be True

Many people see Religious Knowledge System and Ethics convincing because of the fact that these two have established rules and evidence to support what they put on or what they judge as true. In this word many people have the faith in religion and those who do not follow any religion who can be consider as agnotist (which refers to the existence or non-existence of god is unproven, but that either of these truths is a possibility) will most of the time follow what is ethically correct so that they should not use consequentialism (which refers to the ethical principle that you should judge how morally acceptable an action is on the basis of what its consequences are) as a way of choosing what is correct or not. This essay will be more centralized on the fact that people can believe that something is correct because of their situation or of their background. For my point of view you can judge what is correct by looking if it is the right thing in your religion or in what you find ethical so those good explanations are not always correct. Due to the above hypothesis I will use Religious Knowledge System and Ethics as area of knowledge and emotion faith and reason as way of knowing to trying to see to what extend good explanations can be true.

Religious Knowledge System is reliable for anybody depending of the faith he has in it. Many people find it very easy to accept something because their religion tells them that it is correct. Believing in something in our days is already considered as a pact and believers think that if they do not honor the pact they will not go where they want to be after their death or that something bad will happen to them. From the point of someone not having really started believe in anything the decisions he will take or the actions he will make will be based on another things while when you are believer you have accept according to what your religion judge as correct. Many people see religion as a form of brain wash and their hypothesis can be true. You can observe that someone believing in something may be against some aspects of his religion but will still be oblige to believe in it even while taking decisions believers can be for something but because of the religion start to refuse or to be against the thing. The religion can sometimes have some limitations but who will you be to change them so most of the times you are oblige to follow them. For example my grandmother first decision for our religion was catholic she dreamed to be catholic she wanted to enter in a catholic choral but at a level some practices that catholic were doing were not really persevere as correct for her she was not believing in some of their tenets and she was oblige to change her church now going to the Pentecostal church all of that because of the fact that she was perceiving the explanations of some facts wrong but they were consider as correct by the church. So in this case she had her explanations that she was seeing as good and the church also had their explanations that they were seeing as good so one of the two is wrong but they both have good explanations.

Many people cannot understand something while they want to understand it and should understand it to build their personal knowledge but will not understand it because it has been deformated and divulgated to them by the wrong person. The fact that you are ignorant can make you be obliged to accept something. An agnotist that do not believe in the existence and in the non existence of God does not have any party and is waiting for good explanation to be convinced to choose a part. So at this point you do not have any knowledge and you want to acquire knowledge but you can be convince by the wrong person but just because the good explanation that he gives to you, you start believing in what he said is true. From the fact that you are ignorant and you have not build any personal knowledge people can use this fact giving you good explanations to promote their benefits and to try to build a strong believe in their tenets. For example the sister of m grandmother that never trusted in the existence or non existence of God (agnotist) made a bad choice from the point of view of her family. She has been deturned by a marabou that told her that she will get all what she wants and will go in even if she chooses to follow him and to give him money and at the beginning he explained it giving proof so she was trusting what he said but at a moment he started asking her some extra things that she should do to continue benefiting of the advantages and when she refuses he told her that she will go in hell because she follows him and chase her from his century. So here we can see that the fact that the marabou gave good explanations pushes her to trust him while even he at the end because he was angry admits that what he was saying as false. So due to this we can say that good explanations are not always true.

In this we have some rules and some things that are already consider as ethical and have been proven so it is already like an automatism and reasonably you will be almost forced by your mind to follow those rules. Most of the time we have people thinking that nobody is suppose to do something unethical and can be condemn because of that. Is ethically wrong to kill someone but someone can have good reasons to do it maybe to defend himself but ethically it is perceive as incorrect. One man should be judge for its act or should judge any actions correct or incorrect by seeing if it is ethical. The fact that is unethical does not mean it is incorrect but for someone believing that all what is out of what is saying to be ethical is unethical. A friend of my father has been judged on the murder of his wife, he accepted the fact that he killed his wife but explained that it was just to defend himself that it was him or her that she was furious and she took a knife to kill him and she took it back and wanted to stop her but she was moving too fast and randomly he putted the knife on his wife. Here in this case the fact that he killed his wife was perceive as ethically wrong but it was simply self defense and he did not even wanted to kill her but from an ethical point of view it was incorrect so they putted him in jail. We can observe that even with a good explanation it is not always true from someone believing in the laws that have been considered as ethical your action will be judged wrongly if it is not consider as ethical.

However in this world there are some people that does not care what has been established but they just see from their point of view. They choose what is ethically correct depending on their emotion their background and the consequence it can have so they most of the time use cosequentialism as a way of determining what is ethical or not. Many people feels not concerned about the laws and the things that we are suppose. They think like if you are from somewhere where you are supposed to kill to stay alive then they will kill everybody that will try to play bad games with them or that will try to attempt to their life and for them it will be ethically correct because of from where they come because of their backgrounds. For example when the friend of my father did what he did, they would have considered his act by using consequentialism because of the consequence that the action will create. If he did not killed her he could have been dead and she could have killed many others people when she is furious. So here they would have judged it ethically correct because of the consequences that it could have had if he did not killed her and they will consider his act as ethically correct. So here with goods explanations what is perceive as ethical depends of the conditions in which you are and the explanations you give so if you give goo explanations you act will be considered as correct. In this case with good explanations your act can be seen as correct so good explanations are true.

From this essay we can see that good explanations will be considered as true when it is posed to someone who is open minded someone who is comprehensive someone who judges things depending on the situation and not depending on what he has been thought is correct or not. And also that, good explanations are not always true and are not always perceives as correct from people who already believe in something so already have in the back of their mind what is correct and what is wrong. From a bias point of view, what he sees as correct or not remains the same no matter how good is the explanation and what it says to be true so for him what it perceive as correct is correct but he can be considered as closed minded. The definition of what is true depends upon the person. Nobody in this world can claim to have perfect knowledge so every explanations good or not have to be consider as one that can be true so if we take it from this point of view nobody can tell what is true or not therefore we will not really able to respond to this question because we cannot tell what is true or wrong. So from this perspective the only conclusion we can have is that since nothing is true or wrong we cannot conclude that an explanation is true or wrong therefore this question cannot be answer from this perspective.