Well, no. My point was that things being relative does not, by itself, stop them from being objectively true.
You keep failing to see the distinction between “objective truths” (true about objects independent of subjective determination) and “subjective truths” (true in the sense of currently held by subjects, and determinable by subjects themselves.)
Merely because some truths have dependencies (are relative) does not disqualify them from being objectively true, nonetheless. It is just that the truth value in this case depends upon several objects rather than just one. In other words, these truths are conditional on the relative alignment of objects.
So, your statement that “If something it [sic] not objectively true, it must be relatively so,…” is false. Relatively true statements can still be objectively true, just that dependencies exist. “Relative” does not logically imply “NOT objective,” as you claim it does.
If I say that something is objectively true, it either is or it isn’t. It is a determinable fact either way. Your car, my pen, whatever. You claim that an objective truth can be relative in the first instance (killing is wrong, but it depends on the circumstances), but will become objective when…well, apparently when we all agree to it within the particular scenario (killing is wrong…as long as it’s a justifiable war and the enemy is armed and he is a threat etc etc).
This ‘relative alignment of objects’ you talk about are indeed objective facts. We are at war – here’s the declaration. The enemy is armed – he’s carrying a gun. He is a threat – he’s pointing it at us. But at every step in this formulation of the scenario, we are asking each other, is it, at this particular point, morally acceptable to kill the guy. As I tried to indicate in that hypothetical conversation, as we add more and more ‘objective facts’ to the scenario, the question is always asked at each single stage: Is it alright, at this point, to kill him?
There is literally nothing that says that you have to fulfil specific criteria before you shoot. The are no universal ‘rules of engagement’ regarding your personal decision in this moral question (note the word ‘personal’). Everyone would pull the trigger at different points. Some may never pull it, saying that killing is wrong under all circumstances. Others might say ‘retaliate first and nuke the lot of them’ and although you may get some people agreeing at certain points, the decision they make will be a relative one.
Every single moral question is dependent on objective facts. Every moral decision you make will change the world in some way. Some people like Sam Harris insist that we can decide this empirically. But without any shadow of doubt, the decisions we make are personal. We personally decide which ‘objective facts’ are to be considered and we personally accept or reject them when reaching our decision.
So unless you want to get into bed with Sam Harris and say that all moral questions can be decided empirically (or impersonally on an objective basis), then all questions of morality are relative. Tell Sam I said hi…
I don’t deny that some motives are functions of conscious decision, my thought is that not all are. In fact, I would say that corruption in a moral sense is when a person has no conscious control over motive such that motive becomes the dominant force bringing about an act – in fact that is when motives become objectively obvious and certain to the outside world because motives become virtually causal. That is why courts of law, for example, seek means, MOTIVE, and opportunity because when moral wrong occurs the presumption is that motive has overwhelmed good sense.
I still don’t see the relevance of this. But motive cannot exist without a conscious decision to pursue a particular course of action. You may feel you cannot resist, but it is still a conscious decision.
Again, it makes no sense whatsoever to say that you have no idea what your motives were for a given act. Motive is important in trials for the very reason that it implies guilt. That you made a conscious decision to act. If you did indeed have no motive, then there cannot have been any conscious decision and depending on the facts of the matter you may well be found innocent because of that (unless the lack of conscious decision was self-imposed – being too drunk or drugged).
