Moral Relativism

[jdwood983]

There seems to be some wriggling there, which may not convince your classmate .

To up the ante, suppose instead of breaking your tooth, the guy puts you in hospital for a year, damages your brain and disfigures you for life . It would be perfectly human for you and your loved ones to seek a just punishment for the culprit rather than forgive and forget. Forgiving and forgetting would be immoral as well, as it would allow the culprit to go free, uncorrected, and possibly do worse to others. The issues are then about how much punishment and retribution is just, including factors such as whether you started the fight, whether the other guy has a mental problem or prior form, etc. There’s a tension between the hyperbole of the two testaments here, which cannot be answered by absolutes.

In America at least, I wouldn’t have the option to take the person to the court, the State would do that for me. I would agree also that a severe beating like that should be taken to court. Note what Jesus said in Matthew 5:39-40 “…if anyone hits you on the right cheek, offer him the other as well; if someone wishes to go to law with you to get your tunic, let him have your cloak as well.” These are simple matters that He is talking about, not matters that require severe punishment.
And forgiveness is the Ultimate of all things in this world, so I would say forgiving the attacker is the best thing you can do. Forgetting goes alongside with forgiveness, as how can you truly forgive someone if you don’t forget about the incident? Keeping it in your heart hardens it and makes you unable to forgive. So it is not at all immoral (and is actually very moral) to forgive and forget the attacker, but that is not to say he or she shouldn’t be locked up in prison.

But does this kind of guy openly display his predilection to his wife, kids and mother, or does he hide it away because he’s ashamed and knows, in all conscience, he shouldn’t be doing it?

The latter leads to the former in the end (I’ve seen it happen several times in my short life), so it doesn’t matter. In the beginning, he knows it is wrong but continues it anyway because "it feels ‘right’ " and later just doesn’t care who knows.

Nice try, but I’ll raise you Matt 7. How can any of us absolutely know what’s right for others when we’re all fallen?

Because we have The Law, handed to us by God himself. I presume you are specifically talking about Matthew 7:1-2, and that is easily solved: if we are judging based on God’s standard while also living by God’s standard, then there is no problem. It is only when you are judging someone by your own standard that it becomes the problem.

Yes it did. Is this discussion helping you in your case with your classmate?

Glad to have helped. My classmate hasn’t yet responded, but he’s been traveling back to NY (from SC) the last pair of days so I suspect I’ll hear back near Tuesday.

 

[inocente]

Sorry, but that sounds like pure nonsense. How do you interpret the whole sheep and goats thing, the wheat and the tares, the good and bad fish, the whole issue of good and evil?? What verse in the Bible do you want to cite to show that God isn’t on one side and one side only? Obviously no two people think exactly alike. What does that have to do with anything??

Look around CAF, you’ll see folk who say only those who believe condoms are evil can be Christians, or even only those who say the Sun goes around the Earth can be Christians. Perhaps house groups and discussion groups are different on your side of the pond. First thing we learn here is that no two people have exactly the same religion whatever badge they wear.

I’ll quote the sheep and the goats to say that God isn’t on one side only. The King will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.’ – Matt 25:40. The story of Adam and Eve also points to the truth of the unity of humanity, as does all the teaching of Christ and the Church. None of us have an exclusive contract with God. A Hindu can be my brother or sister.

Again, sharing experience has nothing to do with what I was talking about, so this sounds like nonsense again. I pointed out that knowledge is a gift of the Spirit. Let me add that when we are told that (in some sense) “knowledge will pass away,” this is a statement about the future, the world to come; it is not a statement about this world, so it has no relevance to our knowledge in this world.

Let me add that when Paul says knowledge will pass away, he means that in the face of the Love to come all the knowledge that we now eagerly pursue, such as moral absolutes, is irrelevant. Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It does not dishonor others, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres. Surely that’s enough without the uphill struggle of trying to transmute it into a set of absolutes.

I don’t know what you’re talking about with a get-out clause. And to answer your question: it would be they who would be eternally off-base. What did you think?

If you just used a get-out clause to say morality can never change, could you link it?

So you’ve written a bunch of stuff here, but you’ve just repeated your position and ignored my objections. Now I will propose a universal moral law to you: It is wrong to defend one’s position by ignoring what your critic has said and simply repeating yourself. This is dishonest. Intellectual dishonesty is wrong, absolutely. Those who do not know this are wrong. The purpose that is served by claiming this to be the case is that we recognize the truth and we begin to ground the proper formation of our con-science (that by which we are ‘with-knowledge’ in the moral sphere), and this means we begin to ground the adequacy of our apprehension of the truth in the moral sphere.

I tried to answer your point about relativism v absolutism. Look them up and you’ll see that neither is much use in pinning down any given position. But before we discuss your proposal to invent moral absolutes on the fly, could you answer my plaintive plea about how these supposed absolutes are knowable?

I’ll quickly parade some of the philosophies in my Companion Guide to Ethics: different versions of natural law, Kantian, social contract, deontological, prima facie duties, utilitarianism, virtue theory, realism, intuitionism, naturalism, subjectivism, prescriptivism, etc. All have their uses and are worth knowing, even if it’s only to see where they fail, which all of them eventually do and is why they all compete with no clear winner.

Neither of us need to win here. You’ve told me what purpose absolutes may serve, thanks, just tell me what process you use to divine these absolutes and how you prove they are objective rather than subjective.

 

[Elijah_Baley]

Look around CAF, you’ll see folk who say only those who believe condoms are evil can be Christians, or even only those who say the Sun goes around the Earth can be Christians. Perhaps house groups and discussion groups are different on your side of the pond.

People say a lot of things. A lot of it is nonsense.

First thing we learn here is that no two people have exactly the same religion whatever badge they wear.

Poor catechesis, not different religions.

I’ll quote the sheep and the goats to say that God isn’t on one side only. The King will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.’ – Matt 25:40. The story of Adam and Eve also points to the truth of the unity of humanity, as does all the teaching of Christ and the Church. None of us have an exclusive contract with God. A Hindu can be my brother or sister.

The Catholic faith is the fullness of truth. It is the closest relationship with God we have. It is not just one of many options.

Surely that’s enough without the uphill struggle of trying to transmute it into a set of absolutes.

We don’t transmute it into absolutes. We bear witness to the absolutes handed us by God.

But before we discuss your proposal to invent moral absolutes on the fly, could you answer my plaintive plea about how these supposed absolutes are knowable? …

Neither of us need to win here. You’ve told me what purpose absolutes may serve, thanks, just tell me what process you use to divine these absolutes and how you prove they are objective rather than subjective.

Divine revelation. How can you question divine revelation?

 

[inocente]

In America at least, I wouldn’t have the option to take the person to the court, the State would do that for me. I would agree also that a severe beating like that should be taken to court. … So it is not at all immoral (and is actually very moral) to forgive and forget the attacker, but that is not to say he or she shouldn’t be locked up in prison.

Agreed, but you’ll need to forgive me for omitting the rather important word “merely” in front of forgiving and forgetting, i.e. that by itself it’s sometimes not enough. The point there was that morality gets messy in the real world, there are lots of ifs, buts and maybes, and if moral absolutes can only be used in that way then they serve only as guidelines with no need for claims of absolute authority.

The latter leads to the former in the end (I’ve seen it happen several times in my short life), so it doesn’t matter. In the beginning, he knows it is wrong but continues it anyway because "it feels ‘right’ " and later just doesn’t care who knows.

You have more experience than me here. A guy who has no shame about porn in front of his family is not something I’ve seen or want to see.

Because we have The Law, handed to us by God himself. I presume you are specifically talking about Matthew 7:1-2, and that is easily solved: if we are judging based on God’s standard while also living by God’s standard, then there is no problem. It is only when you are judging someone by your own standard that it becomes the problem.

That sounds dangerous, the kind of thing your colleague may be worried about. People who think they know the mind of God can go on to start wars. Bob Dylan satirized them in With God On Our Side.

 

[Elijah_Baley]

That sounds dangerous, the kind of thing your colleague may be worried about. People who think they know the mind of God can go on to start wars. Bob Dylan satirized them in With God On Our Side.

There are just wars. The Catholic Church recognizes this. Again, it’s all there in the Catechism.

 

[inocente]

People say a lot of things. A lot of it is nonsense.

Amen to that, but when a belief about some detail is sincere and rational none of us has an exclusive line to God to arbitrate.

Poor catechesis, not different religions.

Don’t know. Once we lose our amazement that we are loved unconditionally, and turn it into purely reasoned argument, I think all meaning can get lost.

The Catholic faith is the fullness of truth. It is the closest relationship with God we have. It is not just one of many options.

Well, we’re obviously going to disagree there.

We don’t transmute it into absolutes. We bear witness to the absolutes handed us by God. … Divine revelation. How can you question divine revelation?

I don’t see how to differentiate between these absolutes handed to various religions except by faith, which doesn’t provide an argument for the OP.

There are just wars. The Catholic Church recognizes this. Again, it’s all there in the Catechism.

Agreed, but there are also unjust wars, and belief-in-belief for its own sake is not a good way to avoid starting them.

 

[tonyrey]

Indeed, to any form of relativism that denies conscience anyway. I’m still eager to hear about how we got to know these add-on moral absolutes and which take priority in real life. The central issue for me is that guidelines are fine, but not if they are man-made substitutes for trust in Christ.

Then a moral absolute for you is trust in Christ>

You have faith that they’re not man-made, and I don’t question that, but the OP is about how to convince someone with a different faith or with no faith at all, and that’s still up for grabs.

How about my recent post?

“It is a moral absolute that we should be reasonable.”

 

[Elijah_Baley]

I don’t see how to differentiate between these absolutes handed to various religions except by faith, which doesn’t provide an argument for the OP.

OK, I think I understand where you’re coming from. I was wondering how a Baptist could believe that there are no moral absolutes and still be Christian, but you’re just playing devil’s advocate.

In that case, it’s a matter of going back to Kreeft:

The moral agreement among Moses, Buddha, Confucius, Lao Tzu, Socrates, Solomon, Jesus, Cicero, Mohammad, Zoraster, and Hammurabbi is far greater than their moral differences.

Which also doesn’t help the OP because he’s using Kreeft already, but it should help some very confused souls on this thread.

 

[inocente]

Then a moral absolute for you is trust in Christ>

Yes, but that’s a bit wishy-washy when it comes to making hard moral decisions.

*How about my recent post?

“It is a moral absolute that we should be reasonable.”*

Yes and no. Did you ever see pictures of people caught up in some disaster on TV, phone the hot line, then next day wonder how you’re going to pay back your generous donation? I mean, you always find a way and are glad you did it, but it was due more to emotive compassion than reason, and that’s not bad in itself.

 

[tonyrey]

*Then a moral absolute for you is trust in Christ> *

I don’t think the teaching of Christ is wishy-washy - although sometimes we have to choose the lesser of two evils. That still should not affect our absolute trust in Christ and His teaching.

“It is a moral absolute that we should be reasonable.”

Yes and no. Did you ever see pictures of people caught up in some disaster on TV, phone the hot line, then next day wonder how you’re going to pay back your generous donation? I mean, you always find a way and are glad you did it, but it was due more to emotive compassion than reason, and that’s not bad in itself.

Reason and compassion are not incompatible. In fact it is normally reasonable to be compassionate. Even if we make mistakes they don’t invalidate the principle of being reasonable. Do they?

 

[Betterave]

Look around CAF, you’ll see folk who say only those who believe condoms are evil can be Christians, or even only those who say the Sun goes around the Earth can be Christians. Perhaps house groups and discussion groups are different on your side of the pond. First thing we learn here is that no two people have exactly the same religion whatever badge they wear.

What is your point supposed to be here??

I’ll quote the sheep and the goats to say that God isn’t on one side only. The King will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.’ – Matt 25:40. The story of Adam and Eve also points to the truth of the unity of humanity, as does all the teaching of Christ and the Church. None of us have an exclusive contract with God. A Hindu can be my brother or sister.

You’ll quote the sheep and the goats to say that God isn’t on one side only?? That appears to make absolutely no sense. Care to explain?

Let me add that when Paul says knowledge will pass away, he means that in the face of the Love to come all the knowledge that we now eagerly pursue, such as moral absolutes, is irrelevant. Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It does not dishonor others, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres. Surely that’s enough without the uphill struggle of trying to transmute it into a set of absolutes.

That already is a set of absolutes. No need to transmute it!

If you just used a get-out clause to say morality can never change, could you link it?

I still don’t know what you’re talking about with this ‘get-out clause’ business. Could you be ever so helpful and actually try to answer when I ask you a question?

I tried to answer your point about relativism v absolutism. Look them up and you’ll see that neither is much use in pinning down any given position. But before we discuss your proposal to invent moral absolutes on the fly, could you answer my plaintive plea about how these supposed absolutes are knowable?

My proposal to invent moral absolutes on the fly?? What are you talking about?? I don’t need to look up relativism and absolutism. I already know what they are and I know that scepticism about the knowability of moral propositions (which you keep coming back to with your “but how do we KNOW?”-questions) is logically independent from absolutism vs. relativism. This is what I originally pointed out and which you have subsequently repeatedly ignored. Please stop doing that.

I’ll quickly parade some of the philosophies in my Companion Guide to Ethics: different versions of natural law, Kantian, social contract, deontological, prima facie duties, utilitarianism, virtue theory, realism, intuitionism, naturalism, subjectivism, prescriptivism, etc. All have their uses and are worth knowing, even if it’s only to see where they fail, which all of them eventually do and is why they all compete with no clear winner.

What is the relevance of your little parade here to my criticism of your confused comments in this thread??

Neither of us need to win here. You’ve told me what purpose absolutes may serve, thanks, just tell me what process you use to divine these absolutes and how you prove they are objective rather than subjective.

Again, your request here is one that suggests you are arguing for moral scepticism, not moral relativism. Do you understand that? (I can answer your request for information if you want, but please first answer mine. And please don’t request such information if you’re not open to hearing a real answer - I’m not saying you’re not, but your comments do sound rather ‘rhetorical,’ if you know what I mean.)

 

[grannymh]

Pardon me, as I scan posts looking for some objective moral truth, it seems that all I find is applications, speculations and preferential opinions which are relative to relativism. These are the reasons moral relativism fails, i.e., these reasons are like building a house on sand in a rain storm. My apology, have I missed a clear definitive statement regarding moral truth which is basic to all humanity regardless? Would someone be so kind as to repeat this objective or universal or basic truth which should be found in human nature itself.

Blessings,
granny

Luke 23: 33-43

 

[Elijah_Baley]

My apology, have I missed a clear definitive statement regarding moral truth which is basic to all humanity regardless?

Don’t think so, because we’ve mostly being pointing out the flaws and self-contradictions of relativism.

Great moral truths are more like principles than rules. Some examples, universal to all cultures:

• We should respect the instructions of those in rightful authority.
• We should not murder, rape, kill or steal.
• Criminals should be held to account.

These differ from the following opinions on the application of moral absolutes. Notice that the previous are principles and the latter only the extension of those principles.

• Dictators do not have rightful authority.
• It isn’t stealing if I need it.
• Capital punishment is excessive.

People here are looking at the morality of actions rather than looking along them. There are patterns and principles evident behind them, and cultures agree on the principle while disagreeing only on the application of that principle.

 

[inocente]

I don’t think the teaching of Christ is wishy-washy - although sometimes we have to choose the lesser of two evils. That still should not affect our absolute trust in Christ and His teaching.

I mean that saying trust in Christ is an absolute is all fine and dandy, but the statement by itself doesn’t allow us to reach a moral decision. By itself it’s just a banner, like saying believe in Jesus and you’ll be saved without explaining the nature of Christ, etc.

Reason and compassion are not incompatible. In fact it is normally reasonable to be compassionate. Even if we make mistakes they don’t invalidate the principle of being reasonable. Do they?

When the Good Samaritan takes pity, he starts with a spark of compassion and then follows through with reason to do a bang-up job. The spark of compassion is unreasoned emotion, so “we should be reasonable” is incomplete. Otherwise Jesus could have just said “we should be reasonable” and not have bothered with the parable.

If you try to correct it to read “we should show mercy” then it doesn’t tell us much. We need the parable and so on to understand the process and its purpose. Once we understand, “we should show mercy”, “do unto others”, “do least harm”, etc. are shorthands to remind us of processes we cannot usefully define by simple statements alone. “Do unto others” is neat, but even that doesn’t work for a soldier on a battle field.

We all know what we mean by these shorthands because we’re all part of the same choir, but we forget how many concepts are needed first for others to interpret them correctly without getting mightily confused.

 

[inocente]

What is your point supposed to be here??

There is no one true religion. If we define a true Scotsman as one who adheres to a given doctrine then it is we who are making the choice, not God. Everyone comes to God in their own way.

You’ll quote the sheep and the goats to say that God isn’t on one side only?? That appears to make absolutely no sense. Care to explain?

The sheep helped their brothers and sisters, the goats didn’t. There’s one and only one humanity and so we are all brothers and sisters. Differing physicality and beliefs cannot change that. God is on everyone’s side, He doesn’t give up on anyone - the split happens after we die.

I still don’t know what you’re talking about with this ‘get-out clause’ business. Could you be ever so helpful and actually try to answer when I ask you a question?

You said that should folk in the future believe that eating the flesh of other creatures was immoral, they would be “eternally off-base”. I was wondering how you reach that conclusion. To give another example, if people in the long distant past thought it was OK to keep slaves and we don’t, it’s for God not us to judge them. To say that those hypothetical folk in the future are off-base is to impose our morality on them, the morality we share right now in 2010, which seems to require a get-out clause if morality is in any sense made up of absolutes.

My proposal to invent moral absolutes on the fly?? What are you talking about??

You proposed the universal moral law that “It is wrong to defend one’s position by ignoring what your critic has said and simply repeating yourself.” Just never seen it written down before, not sure if it always applies universally.

I don’t need to look up relativism and absolutism. I already know what they are and I know that scepticism about the knowability of moral propositions (which you keep coming back to with your “but how do we KNOW?”-questions) is logically independent from absolutism vs. relativism. This is what I originally pointed out and which you have subsequently repeatedly ignored. Please stop doing that.

Sorry pardon. I am skeptical of any moral absolutes by not believing that any moral principle or imperative must necessarily apply to all people for all time. Morality always depends on context and society. Thus in that sense I am definitely a relativist.

What is the relevance of your little parade here to my criticism of your confused comments in this thread??

I’ve not yet seen any reasoned argument for preferring one system of morality to the exclusion of all others on this or any other thread. I believe that rather than putting all our eggs in one basket we can do better by being open to all sensible systems. If you think different then suggest a single system and we can discuss its merits.

I’m finding your posts confusing too. We have differing worldviews, both consistent to ourselves, but I’m not sure how we can get over this hurdle to come to a common understanding. Of the two sides in the OP, the opponent is still the more convincing to me.

 

[inocente]

OK, I think I understand where you’re coming from. I was wondering how a Baptist could believe that there are no moral absolutes and still be Christian, but you’re just playing devil’s advocate.

Ok you got me but only a little bit, the Baptist faith is really lean. It’s not so much absolutism as the way in which it is often used that gets to me. To explain:

Christian arguments can take the form:

Fred: It’s written on our hearts that X is evil.
Sue: But half the population don’t think X is evil.
Fred: That’s because their conscience is malformed / they’re brainwashed by socialism / etc.
Sue: That just silly and it insults half the population.
Fred: But it’s written on our hearts.

Or an alternative:

Fred: God says X is evil.
Sue: How do you know?
Fred: It’s right there in scripture.
Sue: Doesn’t scripture also say the homosexual act requires the death penalty and we shouldn’t eat shellfish?
Fred: That was for other people in a different time.
Sue: So how do you know that X is evil for us now?
Fred: It’s right there in scripture.

I think the growth of secularism is partly the fault of us Christians because in a pluralistic society arguing absolutes works against us. We may or may not privately believe in absolutes but all the evidence is that we cannot use them to bring society back on track. X is evil if there are bad personal and/or social consequences, and we should be putting those consequences forward, such as the harm done by drive-thru civil union and divorce, not making flimsy circular arguments. If X has no bad consequences then there’s no point even trying to argue it’s evil, it just makes us look bitterly puritanical.

So I’m thinking that God has a plan, and the plan is to wean us off that kind of rule carved in stone and back to life. A step too far?

Great moral truths are more like principles than rules. Some examples, universal to all cultures:

• We should respect the instructions of those in rightful authority.
• We should not murder, rape, kill or steal.
• Criminals should be held to account.

Rightful authority is relative since it relies on decisions about what is rightful and what type of instructions are acceptable in good conscience. Not killing is relative to things like the rules of war. The definition of criminal is highly relative since it needs a whole bunch of stuff behind it to say what is criminal, for example does it include political prisoners, what is the age of criminal responsibility, etc.

Morality is different in kind to the laws of physics.

 

[PRmerger]

Christian arguments can take the form:

Fred: It’s written on our hearts that X is evil.
Sue: But half the population don’t think X is evil.
Fred: That’s because their conscience is malformed / they’re brainwashed by socialism / etc.
Sue: That just silly and it insults half the population.
Fred: But it’s written on our hearts.

Catholic arguments take this form:

Fred: It’s written on our hearts that X is evil.
Sue: But half the population don’t think X is evil.
Fred: That’s because their conscience is malformed.
Sue: That’s just silly and it insults half the population.
Fred: Well, this was already posited and answered by Our Lord 2000 years ago: “Teacher, what good must I do to have eternal life?” “Because the Church has been sent by Jesus to preach the Gospel and to “make disciples of all nations…, teaching them to observe all” that he has commanded (cf. Mt 28:19-20), she today once more puts forward the Master’s reply, a reply that possesses a light and a power capable of answering even the most controversial and complex questions. This light and power also impel the Church constantly to carry out not only her dogmatic but also her moral reflection within an interdisciplinary context, which is especially necessary in facing new issues.” --originally posted by the late, great Pope JPII.

 

[PRmerger]

Christian arguments can take the form:

Or an alternative:

Fred: God says X is evil.
Sue: How do you know?
Fred: It’s right there in scripture.
Sue: Doesn’t scripture also say the homosexual act requires the death penalty and we shouldn’t eat shellfish?
Fred: That was for other people in a different time.
Sue: So how do you know that X is evil for us now?
Fred: It’s right there in scripture.

Yes, this is indeed problematic for those who subscribe to the paradigm "All God’s Truths can be found in Scripture alone.’

However, as you know, inocente, the CC professes that there are 2 channels of God’s Word: Scripture and Tradition. And the Magisterium of the CC is the guardian and authentic interpreter of the affirmations of Scripture and Tradition. Thus, while Scripture professes that we must pour olive oil on our grain offerings, we understand it in light of the Faith which was committed to the Church.

The CC provides the framework for Christians to understand why eating shellfish is ok, but homosexuality is not.

 

[grannymh]

Don’t think so, because we’ve mostly being pointing out the flaws and self-contradictions of relativism.

Discussing flaws and self-contradictions of relativism is very important. From my point of view, these are essentially *he said/she said" conversations and thus skirt the real issue as to what is the objective, universal truth basic to all humanity regardless?

Great moral truths are more like principles than rules. Some examples, universal to all cultures:

• We should respect the instructions of those in rightful authority.
• We should not murder, rape, kill or steal.
• Criminals should be held to account.

The three points above depend on time and living space. In other words, they are conditional and not necessarily universal. I say not necessarily because in real life, applications or extensions of those principles could actually be based on objective truth which serves as the basis for human morality.

While some great moral truths may be written on paper as principles, they, in themselves, can be different from the universal, objective truth which is universal to all cultures at all times, before we were born, and after we die.

These differ from the following opinions on the application of moral absolutes. Notice that the previous are principles and the latter only the extension of those principles.

• Dictators do not have rightful authority.
• It isn’t stealing if I need it.
• Capital punishment is excessive.

People here are looking at the morality of actions rather than looking along them. There are patterns and principles evident behind them, and cultures agree on the principle while disagreeing only on the application of that principle.

This is well said except for one detail. There is really no need that cultures agree on the basis [objective truth] for a principle which explains same.
As soon as any kind of agreement is implied, one is back to first step of Relativism.
An objective, universal truth, throughout human history, has never been dependent on any hint of agreement since the time that the first human lived.

Universal, objective truths were established with the creation or appearance of the first, true, fully complete human nature. I deliberately used the word appearance because non-theists are held to universal, objective truths even though they do not believe in God. This is possible because both theist and non-theist possess the same human nature.

Blessings,
granny

The quest for truth is worthy of the adventures of the journey.

 

[grannymh]

Moral Relativism was born when the first human person ignored the responsibilities of his human nature.