Is Truth Subjective?

[johnunningman39]

I have heard from several people that Truth is subjective. It is based on the our experiences. When I describe a sin (abortion, stealing, adultery, etc.) they mention exceptions e.g. "Killing is immoral but it can be moral (war in defense of an innocent other- CCC and St. Thomas Aquinas). How can I prove that Truth is objective, always being true?

 

[buffalo]

I have heard from several people that Truth is subjective. It is based on the our experiences. When I describe a sin (abortion, stealing, adultery, etc.) they mention exceptions e.g. "Killing is immoral but it can be moral (war in defense of an innocent other- CCC and St. Thomas Aquinas). How can I prove that Truth is objective, always being true?

Without God (who is absolute truth) man can only know subjective truths. Revealed truth is always true.

When they say “There’s no such thing as absolute truth.” it is a statement that’s being made absolutely. They have defeated their own argument.

 

[OriginalJS]

Keep logic out of this; it robs generalizations of their impact!

 

[Swan]

Without God (who is absolute truth) man can only know subjective truths. Revealed truth is always true.

When they say “There’s no such thing as absolute truth.” it is a statement that’s being made absolutely. They have defeated their own argument.

I think this is kind of a circular argument in that getting consensus on what is “revealed truth” is in itself subjective as there are various opinions of what has been “revealed”. Since this is not the type of thing that can be proven (as a whole) in an objective manner, we still come back to the same question of “what is truth”. I wish this were not the case. I wish there were something that at this point in my life I could latch onto and agree with completely, but the only thing I can say for sure it that I don’t know - and this is all, as you can see, subjective on my part. BTW - I’m not being a smart @## here, I am totally serious and from the heart.

 

[Cajetan]

I have heard from several people that Truth is subjective. It is based on the our experiences. When I describe a sin (abortion, stealing, adultery, etc.) they mention exceptions e.g. "Killing is immoral but it can be moral (war in defense of an innocent other- CCC and St. Thomas Aquinas). How can I prove that Truth is objective, always being true?

What you’re dealing with are moral (ethical) subjectivists, not “truth” subjectivists. Even the most hardened ethical subjectivist believes that truth, broadly speaking, is objective. They just believe that morality is fundamentally an “artificial” human construct – right and wrong, good and evil are not really real, or “imprinted” on human nature or the universe – and therefore morality is just something that does not deal in universal truths.

 

[buffalo]

I think this is kind of a circular argument in that getting consensus on what is “revealed truth” is in itself subjective as there are various opinions of what has been “revealed”. Since this is not the type of thing that can be proven (as a whole) in an objective manner, we still come back to the same question of “what is truth”. I wish this were not the case. I wish there were something that at this point in my life I could latch onto and agree with completely, but the only thing I can say for sure it that I don’t know - and this is all, as you can see, subjective on my part. BTW - I’m not being a smart @## here, I am totally serious and from the heart.

How about this - tell them that you will murder them. Undoubtedly, they will tell you it is wrong. But you can reply It’s not wrong for me. This ultimately moves you toward the dignity of man, but where did that come from. The spiral gets tighter.

 

[FightingFat]

Murder is always wrong- what changes is that you might be forced to commit it by the sin of another. Likewise, stealing is always wrong, but is a man who is starving and steals a loaf of bread to feed his family wrong? What is wrong in that situation has changed to the fact that the man is forced into a position were he must steal in order to survive.

So truth is objective.

If you are interested in understanding this subject more fully, may I recommend amazon.com/Refutation-Moral-Relativism-Interviews-Absolutist/dp/0898707315/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1212479394&sr=8-1

 

[Deacon_Ed_B]

Truth is NOT SUBJECTIVE, it is OBJECTIVE, I.E., ONE SINGULAR AND IMMUTABLE. The belief that truth is subjective comes from the protestant teaching that the bible means whatever a person feels it means for him or her. Just look at the thousands of protestant denominations if you don’t believe this. If someone does not like or agree with what their pastor, minister, preacher is teaching they either go elsewhere to someone with whom they agree, or start their own church. The Holy Spirit is the source of revealed truth. The Holy Spirit does not contradict himself. While our understanding of what is true may change, truth itself does not. If something was true 2000 years age, it is true today and will be true 2000 years from now. This is what Holy Mother Church teaches. This is what I believe. This is what I teach.
Prayers & blessings
Deacon Ed B

 

[Cajetan]

The belief that truth is subjective comes from the protestant teaching that the bible means whatever a person feels it means for him or her.

I’d say the idea was around long before the Protestant Reformation. It’s a philosophical idea, first and foremost, and ultimately pre-Christian.

 

[Mystic_of_God]

I have heard from several people that Truth is subjective. It is based on the our experiences. When I describe a sin (abortion, stealing, adultery, etc.) they mention exceptions e.g. "Killing is immoral but it can be moral (war in defense of an innocent other- CCC and St. Thomas Aquinas). How can I prove that Truth is objective, always being true?

Subjective truth is a contradiction in terms. What is is.

 

[fhansen]

I have heard from several people that Truth is subjective. It is based on the our experiences. When I describe a sin (abortion, stealing, adultery, etc.) they mention exceptions e.g. "Killing is immoral but it can be moral (war in defense of an innocent other- CCC and St. Thomas Aquinas). How can I prove that Truth is objective, always being true?

Given the conditions of the world we live in, it can be objectively wrong to kill a fetus by abortion but objectively right to kill an enemy in self-defense.

 

[Starwynd]

One person’s truth is another person’s lie.

Truth is entirely subjective. Even though God has given clear and explicit truth and instructions to obey him, nobody can agree on how to interpret his instructions. That’s why Christianity is so splintered today.

We have Seventh Day Adventist, snake handlers, KKK (their philosophy is based on Christian teachings, not accusing anybody of being a racist), Fred Phelps and his Westboro Baptist Church, people who believe in Speaking in tounges, pro-choice and pro-life Christians, homosexual ministers, and the list is endless on how many people interpret the truth to suit their own beliefs.

Even though there may be one body of truth to be revealed, nobody can really agree on how to interpret it and follow it.

That’s why truth is entirely subjective.

One man’s truth is another man’s lie.

 

[Cajetan]

One person’s truth is another person’s lie.

Truth is entirely subjective. Even though God has given clear and explicit truth and instructions to obey him, nobody can agree on how to interpret his instructions. That’s why Christianity is so splintered today.

We have Seventh Day Adventist, snake handlers, KKK (their philosophy is based on Christian teachings, not accusing anybody of being a racist), Fred Phelps and his Westboro Baptist Church, people who believe in Speaking in tounges, pro-choice and pro-life Christians, homosexual ministers, and the list is endless on how many people interpret the truth to suit their own beliefs.

Even though there may be one body of truth to be revealed, nobody can really agree on how to interpret it and follow it.

That’s why truth is entirely subjective.

One man’s truth is another man’s lie.

This just shows that people are confused/unclear regarding what the truth IS on any given matter. This certainly does not show that truth is subjective.

If it is true that I took a walk yesterday, and my mother says that I did and my father says that I did not, this disagreement does nothing to make “subjective” the truth that I took a walk yesterday. The truth stands always the same; my father’s statement is just false.

 

[Starwynd]

But whose statement is real and why would yours be any more real to anybody else who hasn’t seen you take a walk? And why would your truth be more right than anybody else’s? Just because you know you took a walk? Nobody else knows you took a walk all we have is your claim that you took a walk.

So people will come to different conclusions anyway if they did see you take a walk or not. Or they might modify it it and say you did not walk in the lawn you walked in the park. Some would say that you didn’t walk at all but took a drive. Some would say they saw you walking with your mom and others would say they saw you walking with your daughter or even with your dog.

 

[Tic_Toc]

I have heard from several people that Truth is subjective. It is based on the our experiences. When I describe a sin (abortion, stealing, adultery, etc.) they mention exceptions e.g. "Killing is immoral but it can be moral (war in defense of an innocent other- CCC and St. Thomas Aquinas). How can I prove that Truth is objective, always being true?

Truth is definitely objective. Within the context of the experience, there is still a right or wrong (for example, if someone is holding you up at gun point and you kill the person in self-defense, that’s fine, but if you just kill a guy because he called you fat, that’s wrong), but because the circumstance is different, what is right and wrong are different sometimes. I mean, if you take the instance where the guy calls you fat, and you put yourself in a place where the people think it’s perfectly all right to kill people who insult them, it’s still wrong. Truth is objective, but what the truth is depends on the context, if that makes sense.

 

[fhansen]

But whose statement is real and why would yours be any more real to anybody else who hasn’t seen you take a walk? And why would your truth be more right than anybody else’s? Just because you know you took a walk? Nobody else knows you took a walk all we have is your claim that you took a walk.

So people will come to different conclusions anyway if they did see you take a walk or not. Or they might modify it it and say you did not walk in the lawn you walked in the park. Some would say that you didn’t walk at all but took a drive. Some would say they saw you walking with your mom and others would say they saw you walking with your daughter or even with your dog.

But he either did take a walk or he didn’t and peoples’ opinions on the matter have nothing to do with the truth of the matter. Humans disagreeing on morality only proves that humans aren’t sure how to live and, for me, proves that we aren’t God but are split from Him, the author of objective morality and truth…

 

[rwoehmke]

Truth is definitely objective. Within the context of the experience, there is still a right or wrong (for example, if someone is holding you up at gun point and you kill the person in self-defense, that’s fine, but if you just kill a guy because he called you fat, that’s wrong), but because the circumstance is different, what is right and wrong are different sometimes. I mean, if you take the instance where the guy calls you fat, and you put yourself in a place where the people think it’s perfectly all right to kill people who insult them, it’s still wrong. Truth is objective, but what the truth is depends on the context, if that makes sense.

There is a difference between murder and killing. Murder can never be justified, whereas killing may be. They are not the same thing. I thoroughly agree with you truth is objective. If something is true the opposite cannot be. I think perhaps part of the problem today is that many people do not understand the rules of logic. Do they still teach it in higher education?

 

[Deacon_Ed_B]

I’d say the idea was around long before the Protestant Reformation. It’s a philosophical idea, first and foremost, and ultimately pre-Christian.

I don’t know about you, but I follow Thomistic Philosophy. The one used by the Church,
Prayers & blessings
deacon Ed B

 

[Cajetan]

I don’t know about you, but I follow Thomistic Philosophy. The one used by the Church.

Says the man who apparently doesn’t know that Thomas Aquinas taught Predestination.

Don’t talk to me about Thomism. I live and breath the philosophy of St. Thomas and the great Dominican commentators.

 

[RachelsAlumni]

If truth is subjective then truth would depend on my subjective feelings, desire, belief or understanding about an objective thing.

For example I can subjectively believe that the earth is flat, but that subjective belief does not change the truth that the earth is round. The absolute truth exists independent of my belief or unbelief. Absolute truth is no more dependent on my belief than is the earth spinning on it’s axis. It’s up to me to ascend to the truth, not the reverse.