Objective truth and absurdity of relativism

[grannymh]

No worries, Granny.

LOL
I just read this entire post!

Using “men” is fine with me, especially in the context of our discussion. I do like using “humankind” but that is not written in stone. In addition, so far I have not objectively reasoned how to be in two places at one time. Since one of the places is the grocery story, my tummy wins and I will have to post in dribbles.

I worked in the period when one said “Run it up the flagpole and see who salutes.” Recently, in another thread, I attempted to address your bottom line point. As far as I know, no one saluted.

So should we respect all men? Do they all deserve respect? I find it difficult to believe that they do. Maybe God does, but that wasn’t the question.

First, the reason I chose “The human person is worthy of profound respect.” is that I like the scientific tone of the definitive human species. Also, people being more than one opens up the possibility that some of the individual people are not quite worthy.

This often cranky (feminine of snarky) granny deliberately uses the word “profound” because it automatically starts really really interesting discussions about people like Martin Bryant. If the shouting does not get too loud, we can use a priori, stand alone objective facts. Now I am not sure how “In equal measure” is being used. My first reaction is that giving profound respect to both Sir Ernest Edward Dunlop, a World War II hero, and to Martin Bryant would be both objectively possible and subjectively not so possible. That is a rather cranky weasel statement, but I consider it true.

Returning to the last line in post 20.

Because of the observable difference in kind between the animal kingdom and the peerless human species, it is possible to profoundly respect all men. Both those who recognize the existence of God and atheists who do not believe in gods cannot change human nature per se. Obviously, our wonderful scientists can work “miracles” on our decomposing anatomy. One does not have to believe in God in order to understand the difference in kind between a beaver dam and the Hoover Dam, a concrete arch-gravity dam in the Black Canyon of the Colorado River, on the border between the U.S. states of Nevada and Arizona.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hoover_Dam

It is our peerless species which demands profound respect from all people.

 

[fisherman_carl]

I’ve never come across any literature that’s given credence where someone claims that ALL truth is relative.

Clearly SOME truth is relative - the truth value of propositions using indexicals can be relative, eg. “I think Spam is delicious.”

I have come across this on this site. Buddhists for example claim that the only truth is that there is no truth. And they also acknoledge the contradiction in that statement. There was one Buddha who said we can’t even trust what our eyes see because they are. Imperfect representations of reality.

 

[fisherman_carl]

You are confusing facts with what can be considered morally right or wrong.

If you kill someone, that is a fact. Did you kill someone? Yes. So it’s true. Did you do something wrong?

The statement ‘killing someone is wrong’ is not objective, it is relative. Relative to the situation. As soon as you add a qualifier, and it is often inherent without necessarily being stated, then you make the statement relative.

‘Torturing puppies is wrong’. Are you saying that causing harm is wrong? No, what you are actually saying is that ‘causing harm to young dogs for no reason other than to gain enjoyment from the act is wrong’. The second statement is just more accurate. And obviously, causing harm is relative to that situation. It’s not objective.

Why should facts be objective truths and not morals? Aren’t there moral objective facts? Like killing an innocent life, ie murder, is wrong?

 

[fisherman_carl]

There are absolutely objective truths. The issue comes in when people try to apply objective truth to things that are not objectively true. There are very few objective truths…

You say there are very few objective truths? But how could you objectively know that?

 

[fisherman_carl]

Objectively true simply means that Objective Reasoning has been applied. Objectively false simply means that Objective Reasoning has been applied.

Both Objective Reasoning and Subjective Reasoning are a rational process of the human mind.

It might be helpful to refer back to post 5.

I can appreciate that we may have to use reasoning, but something that is objectively true is true regardless of our reasoning. And our reasoning could be false yet we may still come to the right conclusion. For example if it is objectively true that I am not Napoleon, this would be true whether I reasoned that I wasn’t Napoleon or not. I might not know that truth until I used sound reasoning, but it was nonetheless always true.

Objective truth is true regardless of what we think or believe.

 

[Vic_Taltrees_UK]

… Buddhists for example claim that the only truth is that there is no truth. And they also acknoledge the contradiction in that statement. There was one Buddha who said we can’t even trust what our eyes see because they are. Imperfect representations of reality.

They say this to try to dodge pain. In real reality, the “subjective” is objective because that’s the value of testimony, if one has got the hang of how to evaluate it.

Our faculties being finite, it takes its conclusion far too far. Instead of using what we’ve got for the reason why we’ve got it - to find out what we can find out - “we see through a glass darkly” - it takes a perfectionist view and whinges, “why can’t I know everything, therefore this idea of knowing anything at all is obviously a load of rubbish anyway”, instead of using the orientals’ claimed patience to spend a lifetime just finding out what they can.

They devalue themselves if they dislike what they see that much that they try to deny it. Perhaps oriental existence was that horrible!

Buddhism in its many varieties was a reaction to many things that had gone on before.

(I believe there is a version of Zen that uses paradox as a form of wit to provoke thought. But then wit is wit.)

 

[tonyrey]

Relativism is obviously absurd because relativism itself would be relative to… ad infinitum…

 

[edwest2]

Relativism is obviously absurd because relativism itself would be relative to… ad infinitum…

Exactly right.

Pope Benedict:

"We are moving toward a dictatorship of relativism which does not recognize anything as for certain and which has as its highest goal one’s own ego and one’s own desires. The church must defend itself against threats such as “radical individualism” and “vague religious mysticism”. [emphasis added]

Commentary from the Practical Catholic:

“Pope Benedict does not play language games, he is unconcerned with the postmodernist’s corner on untruth. Neither should we be. Notice how he calls relativism a “dictatorship” instead of agreeing that no values and no Truth are the way forward for society. What many fail to recognize is that imposing nihilism and arbitrary tribalism is a form of dictatorship. Where untruth or half truth is the common order, there can only be oppression. Political correctness has asked us to abandon our value-laden language and to pick up a new language proper to the secular forum. However, this secular newspeak is value-laden against the traditional claims of the Western world and as such, is a poison rather than a new order. We can and should bring our own conviction laden language to the table, if we’re going to have any sort of real dialogue at all. Misinformation and restrained convictions are not the proper building blocks for a democracy.”

Ed

 

[grannymh]

Dunlop deserves the respect of anyone who knows his story. Bryant deserves none. And why? Because we qualify these men. We quantify what they did and that makes them worthy of respect relative to their deeds.

As they stand alone, just as two men, both a tabula rasa with nothing with which we can compare them, we can say, perhaps objectively, that we should grant them a certain degree of dignity.

I am thinking about “stand alone objective facts.” One of the first things I found out about objective and subjective is that something which is objective actually stands alone, independently, without needing qualifiers. Obviously, humans will add qualifiers, but I doubt that these could be strong enough to radically change the true quality of a human person.

I am going to post my preferred dictionary definitions plus an interesting explanation. I hope we can expand posts 20 & 21.

 

[grannymh]

The American Heritage College Dictionary, Fourth Edition

Objective 2. Having actual existence or reality. 3a.Uninfluenced by emotions or personal prejudices.

Subjective 1a. Proceeding from or taking place in a person’s mind rather than the external world: a subjective decision.

Another concept of “objective truth” is that it is external as it exists independently. Another concept of “subjective truth” is that it can include all the facets of the mind which is internal.

Objective truth because it is external can be considered universal. Subjective truth because it is internal can be considered relativism.

Here is an interesting link. asdatoz.com/Documents/Website-%20Objective%20vs%20subjective%20ltr.pdf

 

[Bradski]

First, the reason I chose “The human person is worthy of profound respect.” is that I like the scientific tone of the definitive human species. Also, people being more than one opens up the possibility that some of the individual people are not quite worthy.

I think that you are saying that the species deserves respect, maybe as an objective fact and individuals may not, from a subjective point of view. As you go on to say:

My first reaction is that giving profound respect to both Sir Ernest Edward Dunlop, a World War II hero, and to Martin Bryant would be both objectively possible and subjectively not so possible.

I’m not sure that respect due to Homo Sapien as an objective fact is a given. But for the purpose of the discussion let’s go with that. It is a fact just as the car is red or the pen is on the table.

Now we start to look at morality and to do that we need to consider not the species as a whole, but the individual. And we decide, on an individual basis, depending on a person’s actions, whether we consider them to be morally good or not. That is, are they worthy, individually, of our respect. It would seem that Dunlop is and Bryant isn’t.

And we judge the two men by their relative actions. Relative to what we personally consider to be a point either side of which lie moral actions or immoral ones. So Bryant is immoral relative to our personal criteria and also relative to the actions of someone like Dunlop. I’m really not sure how it could be otherwise.

The only difference we might have is what we each consider to be immoral. I’m assuming that shooting children is something on which we could agree. But contraception or extra-marital sex may be a bones of contention. But we still have a standard by which we measure all men. And they are judged relative to that standard.

Why should facts be objective truths and not morals? Aren’t there moral objective facts? Like killing an innocent life, ie murder, is wrong?

Facts stand alone without us having to judge them. We don’t decide if it’s a good thing that the car is red. But we judge people by their deeds. Relative to a personal (or religious) standard and relative to the situation.

Using your moral ‘fact’ we can ask if killing is wrong. It’s impossible to answer unless we qualify it and the act then becomes relative to the situation. So ‘killing an innocent person’ might be considered wrong. But then, many people die in just wars so it could be argued that it may not be wrong in certain circumstances. Or relative to the circumstances.

Objective truth is true regardless of what we think or believe.

True. But morality is always subjective. And don’t confuse universal acceptance of a proposition with that proposition being objectively moral. Otherwise you are saying that objective morality is a matter of simply getting universal acceptance. I wouldn’t want to go there…

 

[grannymh]

I’m not sure that respect due to Homo Sapien as an objective fact is a given. But for the purpose of the discussion let’s go with that. It is a fact just as the car is red or the pen is on the table.

To me there is a whale of a difference between these two statements, 1. respect due to Homo Sapien as an objective fact is a given and 2. the human person is worthy of profound respect. To me, 1. is talking about respect which is an action of someone other than the human. 2. is talking about the human person per se.

I focus on the human while others focus on deeds.

Now we start to look at morality and to do that we need to consider not the species as a whole, but the individual. And we decide, on an individual basis, depending on a person’s actions, whether we consider them to be morally good or not. That is, are they worthy, individually, of our respect. It would seem that Dunlop is and Bryant isn’t.

You look at the actions and I look at the person per se. Naturally actions are extremely important when one is considering an individual human. Humans are definitely responsible for their actions.

And we judge the two men by their relative actions. Relative to what we personally consider to be a point either side of which lie moral actions or immoral ones. So Bryant is immoral relative to our personal criteria and also relative to the actions of someone like Dunlop. I’m really not sure how it could be otherwise.

I am not saying it would be otherwise.

Bryant and Dunlop have the same rational capability to freely intellectively choose their actions, It is this rational capability, among other capabilities, which is one of the reasons a human person is worthy of profound respect. Please, please note that I did not say deserves, I said worthy. I said rational capability so that we can speak the truth and avoid a discussion about a spiritual soul.

The only difference we might have is what we each consider to be immoral. I’m assuming that shooting children is something on which we could agree. But contraception or extra-marital sex may be a bones of contention. But we still have a standard by which we measure all men. And they are judged relative to that standard.

The shooting of children is immoral because the human child is worthy of profound respect. The objective standard, not the actions, is that all of us, even a spouse, are worthy of profound respect.

At this time in my life, the above is all I can present, that is, I will have to wait until there is a full understanding of our of very own human nature.

 

[grannymh]

I. It is a fact just as the car is red or the pen is on the table.

If the red car is in the showroom and you need a car – that is when you can either use objective reasoning by looking at the price of the car or you can use subjective reasoning and ignore checking the specifics of the red car because red is your favorite color and you remember that all your red cars were cars that one dreams about.

It doesn’t matter what approach, objective or subjective, that one uses when deciding about buying a car, the car remains red. I really do not have anything else to say about this example of the difference between objective and subjective.

 

[Bradski]

I focus on the human whilst others focus on deeds.

I’m really not sure how you differentiate. The fact that Bryant is human makes him worthy of respect but his actions do not. How do you separate the two? He is one person, a complex mix of instincts, thoughts, actions…

Bryant and Dunlop have the same rational capability to freely intellectively choose their actions, It is this rational capability, among other capabilities, which is one of the reasons a human person is worthy of profound respect.

But if he uses that rational capacity to indulge in immoral acts, then where are we?

The shooting of children is immoral because the human child is worthy of profound respect.

I don’t agree. It is immoral because it causes harm.

 

[tonyrey]

Exactly right.

Pope Benedict:

"We are moving toward a dictatorship of relativism which does not recognize anything as for certain and which has as its highest goal one’s own ego and one’s own desires. The church must defend itself against threats such as “radical individualism” and “vague religious mysticism”. [emphasis added]

Commentary from the Practical Catholic:

"Pope Benedict does not play language games, he is unconcerned with the postmodernist’s corner on untruth. Neither should we be. Notice how he calls relativism a “dictatorship” instead of agreeing that no values and no Truth are the way forward for society. What many fail to recognize is that imposing nihilism and arbitrary tribalism is a form of dictatorship. Where untruth or half truth is the common order, there can only be oppression. Political correctness has asked us to abandon our value-laden language and to pick up a new language proper to the secular forum. However, this secular newspeak is value-laden against the traditional claims of the Western world and as such, is a poison rather than a new order. We can and should bring our own conviction laden language to the table, if we’re going to have any sort of real dialogue at all. Misinformation and restrained convictions are not the proper building blocks for a democracy."Ed

What the relativists ignore or don’t realise is that every proposition they offer is false because it is always out of date! For them truth is a constantly moving target that can never be hit. They are harking back to Heraclitus:

“Everything changes and nothing stands still.”

In other words time waits for no one. If that is the case every statement is false as soon as it is uttered. Total scepticism becomes the only rational solution - which of course is self-contradictory. In the quicksands of time we sink with nothing to support us except ourselves… Bad luck!..

 

[grannymh]

From post 32.

Originally Posted by grannymh forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_khaki/viewpost.gif
I focus on the human while others focus on deeds.

From post 34.

I’m really not sure how you differentiate. The fact that Bryant is human makes him worthy of respect but his actions do not. How do you separate the two? He is one person, a complex mix of instincts, thoughts, actions…

One of the principles of the scientific (inductive) method is to observe without prejudice. Try using that simple method of observation to examine the difference in kind between humans designing and successfully building the Hoover Dam and birds, bears, buffalo and busy beavers building their dams. Here is the link to the Hoover Dam. It is worth the reading. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hoover_Dam

Please let me know if you find any difference between a beaver dam and the Hoover Dam. They both deal with water. What do you observe without prejudice?

A person could say that the difference between the two dams is the rational principle. My point is that one can remain in the physical/material domain and still observe the difference.

A human person, “with a complex mix of instincts, thoughts, actions…” is still a single nature. What we need to avoid is the tendency to follow Cartesian dualism. We also have to be careful of the “clean slate” proposition. The human person’s rational tools are integral in human nature even before the anatomical brain is fully ready to use them.

But if he uses that rational capacity to indulge in immoral acts, then where are we?

Wherever we are, we remain a true human being. Someone can rip apart our material anatomy, but that does not imply that we turn into a dead cow.

I don’t agree. It is immoral because it causes harm.

I do not see anyone disagreeing that physical immorality causes harm to a human person. However, if a human person is not different from a cow, is there a reason to skip harmed human hamburgers?
Sidebar.
Many years ago, an atheist scientist opened my eyes to an amazing wonderful physical material universe, One of his approaches, in addition to basic science, was metaphysical poetry. As a result, my gut instinct is that there are special times when we need to put aside our different world views and freely observe the different natures of the world’s creatures.
Considering all of the above, can you build on the natural differences of the world’s creatures?

 

[inocente]

If the red car is in the showroom and you need a car – that is when you can either use objective reasoning by looking at the price of the car or you can use subjective reasoning and ignore checking the specifics of the red car because red is your favorite color and you remember that all your red cars were cars that one dreams about.

It doesn’t matter what approach, objective or subjective, that one uses when deciding about buying a car, the car remains red. I really do not have anything else to say about this example of the difference between objective and subjective.

Hi granny. Color is a good example of relativism in action.

Did you hear of Dressgate? It’s a photo which went viral last year. Some people perceive the dress as black and blue while others see it as gold and white. Photoshop sees it as blue and brown, each hue with variable saturation fading to gray. There was a hot debate for a while, with scientists saying color perception is influenced greatly by context and culture, but the different camps still maintained it was absurd that others could disagree with however they each saw it. Taylor Swift tweeted that she was confused and scared by the whole business.

 

[grannymh]

True. But morality is always subjective.

Obviously, in the real world, one does not have to go more than five blocks from one’s home to find this morality or that morality which obviously is based on this person’s or that person’s subjective thinking.

And don’t confuse universal acceptance of a proposition with that proposition being objectively moral. Otherwise you are saying that objective morality is a matter of simply getting universal acceptance. I wouldn’t want to go there…

Bless my soul! I would never want to go where “objective morality is a matter of simply getting universal acceptance.”

That is the foundation – minus the word universal and substitute majority-- of subjective relativism. Please God, wherever You are, give me old fashioned plain objective morality where I know what I should do without having to go five blocks down the street to find out the next new and improved morality which replaced yesterday’s disapproved morality because there were relative circumstances.

 

[grannymh]

Hi granny. Color is a good example of relativism in action.

Did you hear of Dressgate? It’s a photo which went viral last year. Some people perceive the dress as black and blue while others see it as gold and white. Photoshop sees it as blue and brown, each hue with variable saturation fading to gray. There was a hot debate for a while, with scientists saying color perception is influenced greatly by context and culture, but the different camps still maintained it was absurd that others could disagree with however they each saw it. Taylor Swift tweeted that she was confused and scared by the whole business.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/a/a8/The_Dress_(viral_phenomenon).png

I saw the picture. Thank you for bringing it back. I had forgotten it. Hands down, I agree with Taylor Swift. What would happen if the dress kept changing colors until it disappeared?

Personally, I have trouble seeing certain colors of cars. Fortunately, these cars still drive to the grocery store. Personally, I see the top of your pictured dress as blue and a shade of green.

There are times when a good example of relativism in action can be fun. I happen to like some shades of green matched up to some shades of blue. In this case, my subjective relativism would win if I had this dress.

 

[grannymh]

I can appreciate that we may have to use reasoning, but something that is objectively true is true regardless of our reasoning. And our reasoning could be false yet we may still come to the right conclusion. For example if it is objectively true that I am not Napoleon, this would be true whether I reasoned that I wasn’t Napoleon or not. I might not know that truth until I used sound reasoning, but it was nonetheless always true.

Objective truth is true regardless of what we think or believe.

What you are saying is accurate. May I ask a question?

Normally, one says that an objective truth about something does not depend on any human reasoning. Nonetheless, humans being intellective rational creatures seek to know objective truths like the purpose of human nature and the value of human nature. There are different forms of reasoning. Even using the complexity and sheer magnificence of the universe is a form of reasoning to the presence of an Almighty Creator. In my view, false reasoning refers to a method. Even a good method can be misused.

What I would like to know is --When referring to a false method like relativism, which possible subjects could one refer to? I ask this because I am interested in the absurdity of relativism. As I read posts, relativism becomes more complex…

Yes, a person can never be Napoleon because objectively Napoleon is dead. When one insists that he is Napoleon, as you say, the objective truth of Napoleon’s death remains. Consequently, I am looking for the basic subject and thoughts which could accomplish the leap to “absurdity of relativism.”