Prof. Ronald Dworkin: "Professors and others who teach and study in universities have... a paradigmatic duty to discover and teach what they find important and true, and this duty is not, even to the degree that medical responsibility may be, subject to any qualification about the best interests of those to whom they speak. It is an undiluted responsibility to the truth, and it is, in that way, the closest a professional responsibility can come to the fundamental ethical responsibility each of us has..." In [We Need a New Interpretation of Academic Freedom](https://www.jstor.org/stable/40251473?refreqid=excelsior%3Abcdbbec93d9cc4301190e05031a10a8d), 1996

What is the truth? When we 'genuinely believe or know' something to be 'true', what does this mean? One of the most convincing arguments to me comes from Nietzsche's writing on [the truth as it relates to morality] (https://philosophy.ucsc.edu/news-events/colloquia-conferences/GeneologyofMorals.pdf). Nietzsche's quote "all things are subject to interpretation and whichever interpretation prevails at a given time is a function of power and not truth" can be interpreted as promoting meaninglessness. But I think it means that what we accept as 'truths' have in fact developed within humanity, often in order to serve particular ends. This doesn't necessarily mean that the 'truth' is null and void - but it is a very difficult thing to accept. Humans want structure & to appeal to a greater sense of meaning. The idea of a complete lack of moral authority other than our own can be terrifying. The idea of looking at truth as something to interrogate rather than automatically accept can be a good thing. If you concede that human truths have origin points, you can examine the [histories that underlie your beliefs] (https://www.powercube.net/other-forms-of-power/foucault-power-is-everywhere/), and the ends they might serve. In other words - saying what you 'believe or know to be the truth', rather than lying, is essential, even if what you believe or know is controversial. Going along with the shoal consensus is not what has got humanity this far - and speaking your belief/knowledge of the truth is also important because it provokes discussion. Controversy isn't necessarily a bad thing - it can even be fruitful.

**Essential to what end?** - This statement is ambiguous for one is left wondering the ends to which it can be deemed essential. - The opinion might better be stated as 'it is morally essential...' . - If one places high value, or even prioritises truth against all else such that their ultimate desired end is absolute honesty then of course to state the truth at all times may be seen as essential. - However, if one primarily values what is right, then an argument must be made in an attempt to show that to always tell the truth or be brutally honest is always morally correct in order to demonstrate that always telling the truth is essential to acting morally. - If one's aim is something else, such as to convince someone of something, there may be times it is essential _not_ to tell the truth. - Commonly, people prioritise feelings over truth and telling white lies avoids hurt and conflict in everyday scenarios. Lying or withholding truth can be seen as essential in avoiding these scenarios. - There are also situations where truth is essential, for example in science with its primary aim of objectivity and discovering facts. - Ultimately the way in which people form opinions on this statement depends heavily on the imagined scenario and their objectives in that scenario.