Between Desire and Truth: Is Objectivity Possible?

Image generated by the author using Oreate AI

In many cases, we make decisions emotionally first and justify them rationally afterward. When we strongly desire a particular outcome, it becomes easy to confuse the search for truth with the search for evidence that confirms what we already want. Consider a simple example:

Imagine someone who wants to buy an expensive car because of its appearance or the status it conveys. They begin searching for articles and videos that reinforce the idea that it is a “good investment” or “fuel-efficient.” They are not really seeking the truth as much as they are defending a decision they have already made.

Psychologists refer to this tendency as motivated reasoning. When we want a certain outcome, the mind often acts more like a lawyer defending a client than a judge impartially weighing competing alternatives. Admitting that the decision we prefer may not be the best one can carry an uncomfortable psychological cost.

But is complete objectivity possible?

Every person has desires, values, and fears that influence their judgments. The difference is not between objective and non-objective people. Rather, it is between those who recognize their biases and try to resist them, and those who believe they are objective while unconsciously following their preferences.

Yet recognizing a bias does not necessarily free us from it.

Awareness alone is not enough. A person may realize that they are inclined toward a particular opinion because of their background or personal interests and still find themselves unable to overcome that inclination. In fact, some psychological studies suggest that people tend to overestimate their ability to detect their own biases while seeing the biases of others much more clearly.

None of this means that objectivity does not exist. Even if our judgments are influenced by our desires and values, we possess tools that can reduce their impact. Scientific methodology and logical reasoning are among those tools. Objectivity is not the absence of human influences; it is the construction of methods that limit their power over our conclusions.

In other words, we cannot escape human nature, but we can build tools that make its influence less dominant.

Consider the example of a scale. No one expects the human hand to estimate weight with perfect accuracy, which is why we invented scales. A scale does not eliminate the biological limits of human perception; it compensates for them. Logic and the scientific method can be understood in much the same way. They are tools designed to compensate for the weaknesses of the human mind.

Yet even if we develop tools that help us move closer to objectivity, not all sources of disagreement will disappear. We do not disagree only about facts; we also disagree about what we consider important in the first place. Facts can often be measured and tested, but values cannot be evaluated by a single objective standard.

For that reason, part of every human decision remains tied to the kind of life we want to live, not merely to what can be shown to be true by general standards.