"All truth is relative" = an absolute truth: Why?

[Charlemagne_III]

It isn’t universally agreed upon. I won’t agree to it unless you tell me what you consider to be evil. If it’s using contraception for example, then I don’t agree with your statement. You have to qualify it to explain what you personally mean by it.

Which makes it…relative.

No, I was speaking not of a particular evil, but of everything that is evil. Do you agree that everything that is evil should be avoided (assuming we could agree in each instance upon those things that are evil? Or do you think there are some evils that should not be avoided? Give me an example of an evil you would not avoid?

So my original objection stands, if you agree that all evil should be avoided. How does the truth of that statement of avoiding evil not make that statement a fact?

 

[Bradski]

Math facts are relative based upon the number base being used, just as moral facts are relative to the circumstances, motives and ends.

This is like Alice through the looking glass. Yes, I agree totally. I’m just going to repeat what you said:

Morality is relative to the circumstances, motives and ends.

Now I’m going to repeat it in a shortened version:

Morality is relative.

Is there anything else we need to discuss?

Likewise, given a proper accounting for motives, circumstance and end goods, moral facts are true without qualification.

This is where you have a problem. Because what you are saying is that given a proper accounting etc, a given moral action (I would not say fact) is true for you. Yes, it may also be true for me as well - we may well reach agreement on many things, but the statement doesn’t apply in all circumstances.

So again, I would ask you how you determine something to be an absolute truth? Without simply declaring it to be so you are going to need reasons. What are your reasons?

Bradski, your example of the fact of the pen being on the desk is likewise “relative.” A primitive human being would comprehend neither the idea of pen or desk. Both of these would be completely foreign to them.

I don’t think you’re missing the point - it’s quite a simple proposition. Why you are arguing against it has me puzzled.

I said earlier that as long as we agreed on the meaning of the words used, then you would be able to understand what I was talking about without me having to drag you over to my desk to see it. But if you didn’t understand English or you spoke no language at all or if you had no concept of a pen or a desk, then the pen would still be on the desk nevertheless. It would still be a fact whether no-one even knew about it. It would still be a fact even if there was no-one to know about it.

It won’t always be there, but at the point when it is, it is a fact. There are other facts that are not contingent. Numbers, as have been discussed, are such. 2 + 2 does not always = 4. But if you have two objects and I give you another two, you will always have four. That is a fact. And the fact that two plus two will always be four is a fact whether anyone exists to do the counting or not. It will be a fact even if there are no objects to count.

However, moral ‘facts’ are entirely different. They are relative to the situation and do not stand on their own. It is nonsensical to say that evil exists if there is no-one to commit evil. You cannot call someone evil if they do nothing evil. If you call someone evil, then I will want to know what he did and under what conditions before I can agree. The act will be evil contingent upon the situation.That is, it occurs or exists IF…certain circumstances prevail. That is, it is relative to the situation.

Whether that is a distinction that makes any difference is debatable. A “relative” fact would be contingent upon other facts for its truth value.

That does not mean it couldn’t be absolutely or necessarily true if the truth it depends upon is necessarily true.

There is an argument for absolute truth in there somewhere.

Well, I’m quite prepared to hang around while you try to dig it out. And while you are at it, could you please tell me how you determine what is absolute and what isn’t? I’m still no wiser in that regard.

There may possibly be absolute truths, however we do not have the required mechanisms to filter those absolute truths from the mass of contingent truths we see expressed in languages.

As stated, mathematical truths are absolute. It’s not difficult to understand simpler ones like two and two make four. But morality? If there is a way to determine a moral absolute (without pointing to scripture and shouting ‘Look!’), then no-one seems to be able to define it.

No, I was speaking not of a particular evil, but of everything that is evil. Do you agree that everything that is evil should be avoided (assuming we could agree in each instance upon those things that are evil? Or do you think there are some evils that should not be avoided? Give me an example of an evil you would not avoid?

So my original objection stands, if you agree that all evil should be avoided. How does the truth of that statement of avoiding evil not make that statement a fact?

There’s the phrase above that is causing me problems. ‘Assuming that we agree’. It appears from that statement that something is actually evil if we both agree. So we have a little vote on various scenarios. If I agree, does it make it an absolute truth? And if I don’t agree, is it then, as far as you are concerned, relative? Or do you still maintain that it’s absolute?

Because if the former, then it would appear to depend on a vote and if it isn’t, I want to know how you determine it to be so.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Well, I’m quite prepared to hang around while you try to dig it out. And while you are at it, could you please tell me how you determine what is absolute and what isn’t? I’m still no wiser in that regard.

Here, this will give you something to do while you wait…

coldcasechristianity.com/2014/the-case-for-truth-video/

 

[Bradski]

Well, it passed the time while I was making the pasta for tonight’s dinner.

I’ve no problem with his explaining that mathematical concepts are absolute but he’s on shaky ground when it comes to morality. He seems to want to claim that statements which have always been considered right (or wrong) by everyone are absolute. Torturing babies is the usual example. And, yeah, who in his right mind would disagree. But does that make it absolute? Because everyone agrees? Is that the standard by which we determine whether something is absolute or not? By universal agreement? And what happens if there is no universal agreement?

I’ll go back to what I said before. Causing harm is a relative concept. Torturing babies is a specific case. IF causing harm means that you are taking pleasure in torturing babies, then you are causing harm for no benefit and if everyone agrees with that then we have universal agreement on a concept which is already, by definition, relative.

And there have been instances of homosexuality since, well, since sex was invented. So not everyone for all time (as he says in the clip) has agreed with it being wrong. So if he wants to call it absolutely immoral (without pointing to scripture and yelling 'There it is!), then how do you manage it? How about you dig it up and let me know (and not just in relation to specific matters - we need a rule for all matters).

 

[tonyrey]

… So again, I would ask you how you determine something to be an absolute truth? Without simply declaring it to be so you are going to need reasons. What are your reasons?

A person should always in any circumstances whatsoever try to do what he or she believes is right.

Can you find a single exception to that rule?

 

[tonyrey]

It is an absolute truth that we should always try to be reasonable. If we reject the power of reason we are contradicting ourselves.

It is an absolute truth that we should always try to do what we believe is right. Otherwise we imply that the difference between good and evil is an illusion - in which case it doesn’t matter how we behave.

It is an absolute truth that we exist. Otherwise nothing makes sense.

 

[rossum]

As stated, mathematical truths are absolute. It’s not difficult to understand simpler ones like two and two make four.

That is not an absolute truth. In most human languages, the words “two” and “four” do not mean what they mean in English. How about “eins” and “vier”; “un” and “quatre”, “ek” and “chaar”? Any statement in a language is relative to the dictionary being used.

As soon as you use a human language, you have moved away from absolute truth and into relative truth.

rossum

 

[tonyrey]

That is not an absolute truth. In most human languages, the words “two” and “four” do not mean what they mean in English. How about “eins” and “vier”; “un” and “quatre”, “ek” and “chaar”? Any statement in a language is relative to the dictionary being used.

As soon as you use a human language, you have moved away from absolute truth and into relative truth.

rossum

The symbols we use do not change the facts to which they refer.

A rose by any other name…

 

[Bradski]

It is an absolute truth that we should always try to do what we believe is right.

Well done Tony. Describing an absolute using relative terms. Classic…

 

[Bradski]

The symbols we use do not change the facts to which they refer.

A rose by any other name…

Not often I agree with you, Tony. But you are perfectly correct.

If there are two planets in a given system and two in another, then the total planets are four. It doesn’t matter what language you use. It doesn’t matter if there are no people to count them. It doesn’t matter if they are the only objects in existence. Two plus two always equals four, even if there is nothing to count.

 

[rossum]

The symbols we use do not change the facts to which they refer.

How do you know that? You cannot get to the “facts” inside someone else’s head to know absolutely what they mean by the symbols/words they are using. All you can do is to generate an approximation of what is in side their head. That approximation cannot be absolute, and must be relative.

rossum

 

[rossum]

If there are two planets in a given system and two in another, then the total planets are four. It doesn’t matter what language you use.

But it does matter if one of the “planets” is Pluto, which may, or may not, be a planet depending on the current definition of the word “planet”.

Are there four planets or just three planets? It depends on who you ask and when you are asking.

Definitions of words change over time, so words cannot be absolute. The astronomers’ definition of “planet” is one obvious recent case.

rossum

 

[Peter_Plato]

Well, it passed the time while I was making the pasta for tonight’s dinner.

I’ve no problem with his explaining that mathematical concepts are absolute but he’s on shaky ground when it comes to morality. He seems to want to claim that statements which have always been considered right (or wrong) by everyone are absolute. Torturing babies is the usual example. And, yeah, who in his right mind would disagree. But does that make it absolute? Because everyone agrees? Is that the standard by which we determine whether something is absolute or not? By universal agreement? And what happens if there is no universal agreement?

I’ll go back to what I said before. Causing harm is a relative concept. Torturing babies is a specific case. IF causing harm means that you are taking pleasure in torturing babies, then you are causing harm for no benefit and if everyone agrees with that then we have universal agreement on a concept which is already, by definition, relative.

And there have been instances of homosexuality since, well, since sex was invented. So not everyone for all time (as he says in the clip) has agreed with it being wrong. So if he wants to call it absolutely immoral (without pointing to scripture and yelling 'There it is!), then how do you manage it? How about you dig it up and let me know (and not just in relation to specific matters - we need a rule for all matters).

Except Wallace doesn’t use the word absolute. He uses the word “objective,” and claims the SOURCE of the truth claim or WHAT the claim is about is the object of the claim rather than the subject making the claim. Whether the objective claim is absolutely true or not is also eligible for debate precisely because the claim is about something objectively available to all - or at least a few - knowers at some level. Subjective truths are claims about subjects by the subjects themselves and, as such, are not disputable in the way that objective claims are.

Just because knowers stand in potentially different relationships to the object does not mean those knowers cannot have meaningfully true claims to make about the object. Neither does it prove that it is impossible for at least some of those claims to be absolutely or definitively true about the object merely because some knowers dispute the claims or see the object through their own lenses. Your logic doesn’t get you where you think it does.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

As soon as you use a human language, you have moved away from absolute truth and into relative truth.

rossum

Now I am going to use some human language to describe a fact.

“The Earth presently revolves about the Sun.”

Is this absolute truth or not? If it is relative, tell us how.

 

[tonyrey]

Well done Tony. Describing an absolute using relative terms. Classic…

Which of the terms are relative, Brad? We? Try? Believe?

If you believe “right” is relative you have no reason to object to criminal behaviour…

 

[tonyrey]

How do you know that? You cannot get to the “facts” inside someone else’s head to know absolutely what they mean by the symbols/words they are using. All you can do is to generate an approximation of what is in side their head. That approximation cannot be absolute, and must be relative.

rossum

Facts don’t exist inside our heads nor do we invent them. They existed long before we existed! There are many facts that haven’t been discovered; otherwise science and philosophy are pointless investigations…

 

[rossum]

Now I am going to use some human language to describe a fact.

“The Earth presently revolves about the Sun.”

Is this absolute truth or not? If it is relative, tell us how.

First, the Earth and Sun revolve around their mutual centre of mass, and the Earth’s path is influenced by the other planets as well as the Sun. That centre of mass is usually, but not always inside the Sun. It is never at the centre of the Sun.

Second, your statement is meaningless, and hence has no truth value to someone who does not speak contemporary English. Thus the truth-value of you statement is dependent on the knowledge of the person looking at it. Hence it is not an absolute statement, but relative to the person reading it.

For example, is the following statement true or false?

gtam gzhi dang, nges par 'byung bcas gzhi dang bcas,
gang dag zag bcas nyer len pa’i,
phung po’ang de dag 'thab bcas kyang,
sdug bsngal kun 'byung 'jig rten dang,
lta gnas srid pa’ang de dag yin

Without the correct dictionary it is impossible to say. Its truth, or falsity, is not absolute, but depends on the dictionary we use to determine the meaning of the words in the statement. The same applies to any statement in any human language.

rossum

 

[rossum]

Facts don’t exist inside our heads nor do we invent them. They existed long before we existed! There are many facts that haven’t been discovered; otherwise science and philosophy are pointless investigations…

Whatever exists outside our heads, we can never know absolutely. Are our senses absolutely accurate? Can you smell as accurately as a dog? Then your knowledge of the smells of the world is not absolute, but relative to the imperfection of your sense of smell.

All our senses are imperfect, so all our knowledge of the external world is imperfect, and is only as accurate as our senses will allow. Hence all our knowledge of the external world is relative to our sense-perceptions and is not absolute.

Our senses can be fooled, as with a mirage, and can miss things entirely, as with seeing light polarization. Our senses are not absolute, and hence anything we perceive through those senses is not absolute either.

rossum

 

[Peter_Plato]

Whatever exists outside our heads, we can never know absolutely. Are our senses absolutely accurate? Can you smell as accurately as a dog? Then your knowledge of the smells of the world is not absolute, but relative to the imperfection of your sense of smell.

All our senses are imperfect, so all our knowledge of the external world is imperfect, and is only as accurate as our senses will allow. Hence all our knowledge of the external world is relative to our sense-perceptions and is not absolute.

Our senses can be fooled, as with a mirage, and can miss things entirely, as with seeing light polarization. Our senses are not absolute, and hence anything we perceive through those senses is not absolute either.

rossum

Your point seems to be that we ought to assume we will always be incorrect about what we think we know because we have no assurance that we could be correct. I see no reason to accept that as a necessary proposition.

Admittedly, a haze surrounds knowledge, but the only way through the haze is to question, observe, reason, experiment, think some more, propose, question some more, assess, and repeat, repeat, repeat until greater clarity comes about.

You also completely discount – and arbitrarily, I might add – the fact that whatever stands on the other side of the haze has an absolute interest in making itself known to us. The opposite, in fact, has been my experience – things just naturally seem to be predisposed towards being known the more we put effort into doing so. The fact that we can know – or, at least, have the potential to know – means we have been predetermined to know.

So, if we can know and the Object of our knowledge wills to be known by us, that means we are in a very favourable position vis a vis truth.

Now, you might argue that you do not find that persuasive because you disagree. Go ahead and do so. The problem is that you admit that YOU cannot know anything with absolute certainty so you have no grounds from which to dispute anything – you admit you don’t know anything with any degree of certainty. You can remain in your fog if you choose. I find no compelling reason to want to stand beside you.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

First, the Earth and Sun revolve around their mutual centre of mass, and the Earth’s path is influenced by the other planets as well as the Sun. That centre of mass is usually, but not always inside the Sun. It is never at the centre of the Sun.

Second, your statement is meaningless, and hence has no truth value to someone who does not speak contemporary English. Thus the truth-value of you statement is dependent on the knowledge of the person looking at it. Hence it is not an absolute statement, but relative to the person reading it.

For example, is the following statement true or false?

gtam gzhi dang, nges par 'byung bcas gzhi dang bcas,
gang dag zag bcas nyer len pa’i,
phung po’ang de dag 'thab bcas kyang,
sdug bsngal kun 'byung 'jig rten dang,
lta gnas srid pa’ang de dag yin

Without the correct dictionary it is impossible to say. Its truth, or falsity, is not absolute, but depends on the dictionary we use to determine the meaning of the words in the statement. The same applies to any statement in any human language.

rossum

Your logic is baffling in the extreme.

Words are merely signs that point to things or events. If the letters mean nothing, are mere nonsense syllables, that is not a proof of relativism.

No matter what language you use, when you say in that language that the Earth revolves about the Sun, you are making an absolute truth statement. If this is not true in every language, but true in only some languages and false in others, you would have a case to make. But there is no language in which this is not true.

Now some people who are ignorant might say the Sun revolves about the Earth, but they are deceived by their senses, and so it cannot be said that they are relatively right to believe so. They are absolutely wrong. No?