Objective truth and absurdity of relativism

[edwest2]

What the relativists ignore or don’t realise is that every proposition they offer is false because it is always out of date!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!..

I recall a song by a UK Band: “Anarchy in the UK.” The anarchists have this “anything goes” idea. I saw a scene from a horrible movie where a woman shoots two men who are threatening but she feels justified. After all, she could have left the moment she saw them behave badly earlier and others did. She was an executioner.

Man becomes God. “It is forbidden to forbid.” There’s absolute truth… uh, wait a minute. Nothing’s absolute.

Best,
Ed

 

[edwest2]

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.

I, and all designers, have at least one book about Color and how it affects people. There have been numerous studies done about how people are affected by color. Photoshop doesn’t help me, I guide it. So, no, there is no relativism. Color theory is very well established.

Ed

 

[tonyrey]

I recall a song by a UK Band: “Anarchy in the UK.” The anarchists have this “anything goes” idea. I saw a scene from a horrible movie where a woman shoots two men who are threatening but she feels justified. After all, she could have left the moment she saw them behave badly earlier and others did. She was an executioner.

Man becomes God. “It is forbidden to forbid.” There’s absolute truth… uh, wait a minute. Nothing’s absolute.

Best,
Ed

I don’t know “Anarchy in the UK” but of course I do know “Anything goes”. The words are certainly relevant to the topic:

“The world has gone mad today
And good’s bad today,
And black’s white today,
And day’s night today…”

In other words relativism makes everything topsyturvy because there is no point at which you can draw the line. How do you measure it? It’s impossible because it’s an arbitrary decision. Either is everything topsyturvy or nothing is. It’s similar to the slippery slope from absolutism to nihilism: either everything is good or nothing is good. The difference is that for theists everything is good in its proper context whereas there is no context for relativity - and for atheists nothing is good because there is no context for goodness (except in human minds).

For theists there are degrees of goodness depending on the subject but there are no degrees of relativity. Why not? Because are no extremes! Something is either extremely relative or hardly relative but it cannot be competely relative or not relative at all. That would dispense with relativity altogether. QED

I may be mistaken but I’m interested to know why!

 

[o_mlly]

If there is no truth that is objective then that would mean whatever I think about is true. …

No, reality is singular and independent of what people think. Truth, therefore, is only that knowledge that conforms to reality.

 

[o_mlly]

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.”

De gustibus non est disputandum. Personal preferences are merely subjective opinions that cannot be right or wrong.

 

[edwest2]

I don’t know “Anarchy in the UK” but of course I do know “Anything goes”. The words are certainly relevant to the topic:

“The world has gone mad today
And good’s bad today,
And black’s white today,
And day’s night today…”

In other words relativism makes everything topsyturvy because there is no point at which you can draw the line. How do you measure it? It’s impossible because it’s an arbitrary decision. Either is everything topsyturvy or nothing is. It’s similar to the slippery slope from absolutism to nihilism: either everything is good or nothing is good. The difference is that for theists everything is good in its proper context whereas there is no context for relativity - and for atheists nothing is good because there is no context for goodness (except in human minds).

For theists there are degrees of goodness depending on the subject but there are no degrees of relativity. Why not? Because are no extremes! Something is either extremely relative or hardly relative but it cannot be competely relative or not relative at all. That would dispense with relativity altogether. QED

I may be mistaken but I’m interested to know why!

Pope Benedict:

"If we cannot have common values, common truths, sufficient communication on the essentials of human life–how to live how to respond to the great challenges of human life–then true society becomes impossible."

Commentary by the Practical Catholic:

"How true this is. Where there is no communication, no culture, no shared experience, there is no society; because there is no people. There remains only a vast and foreboding, unforgiving sea of individuals ready to crash upon each other and the world with the slightest wind. Without a common basis, we have not the vaulted pluralism we’re taught to embrace, but Babel, in all the confusion and madness of a society with no binding forces. Already we are seeing the tensions of this fragmentation breaking out across cultures.

“Without common values and truths, such as in the socieites we find ourselves in, we find the fabric of society torn like Joseph’s cloak, by a great many tribes which would like to lay claim to the title of favored. Leftists, conservatives, anarchists, nihilists, secularists, objectivists, the shallow, the entertainers, the entertained, all vying for control against each other. Tribalism can indeed spawn differentiation, but without some common ground, and in the face of increasing jargon not only in the academies but in the cultures; we shall be left with madness. In the end this tribalism can only result in the decline of all their claims, and the alienation of one from the other. Babel is the happenstance when society tries to become God.”

Be of good cheer. Know the truth and live it. But also know the devil’s words to Eve in the Garden: “You shall be as gods.”

None are perfect but Jesus Christ shows us the way.

Best,
Ed

 

[Bradski]

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.

This is where I really have a problem with objective morality. At least, the sort that God is meant to give us. Apart from a few commands within scripture, where on earth are we to get information on the countless moral decisions that we need to make practically every day? The usual answer is: ‘Our God-given conscience’. So who’s God-given conscience should we listen to? Because as sure as God made little green apples, everyone will have a different view on any number of matters.

If there is something that is not covered in scripture and is not mentioned by the Catholic church at all, then where does this mysterious Objective Morality exist and how do we access it so that we are all convinced it is the right answer? If we are not all convinced, then who decides on who is right?

It would seem that Objective morality is a nice idea for some people – wouldn’t it be great they say if we all knew what the right answer was all the time. But all we have are common values. Values that have been discussed, argued, debated, reasoned and sometimes fought over very many years. Yes, sometimes we get it wrong and yes, sometimes we can’t agree. But if anyone has a better idea how to make a decent society.

As Pope Benedict says, quoted earlier:

“If we cannot have common values, common truths, sufficient communication on the essentials of human life–how to live how to respond to the great challenges of human life–then true society becomes impossible.”

How we get them is the challenge. Appealing for divine guidance is not an answer. At least, not an answer to which everyone can agree.

 

[Rhubarb]

De gustibus non est disputandum. Personal preferences are merely subjective opinions that cannot be right or wrong.

Okay, sure. The truth value of “I am six feet tall” also depends on the utterer. Or anything else that uses indexicals. “Now my head hurts” or “That dog is grey.”

 

[edwest2]

This is where I really have a problem with objective morality. At least, the sort that God is meant to give us. Apart from a few commands within scripture, where on earth are we to get information on the countless moral decisions that we need to make practically every day? The usual answer is: ‘Our God-given conscience’. So who’s God-given conscience should we listen to? Because as sure as God made little green apples, everyone will have a different view on any number of matters.

If there is something that is not covered in scripture and is not mentioned by the Catholic church at all, then where does this mysterious Objective Morality exist and how do we access it so that we are all convinced it is the right answer? If we are not all convinced, then who decides on who is right?

It would seem that Objective morality is a nice idea for some people – wouldn’t it be great they say if we all knew what the right answer was all the time. But all we have are common values. Values that have been discussed, argued, debated, reasoned and sometimes fought over very many years. Yes, sometimes we get it wrong and yes, sometimes we can’t agree. But if anyone has a better idea how to make a decent society.

As Pope Benedict says, quoted earlier:

“If we cannot have common values, common truths, sufficient communication on the essentials of human life–how to live how to respond to the great challenges of human life–then true society becomes impossible.”

How we get them is the challenge. Appealing for divine guidance is not an answer. At least, not an answer to which everyone can agree.

It is a fact that we cannot have increasingly dysfunctional behavior portrayed by the media.

I wonder how those who don’t believe in a divine being arrive at their value system. The reality is - most of us do not experience extraordinary circumstances. I’m referring to the US. Most of us go to work, to the store, to the gas station, engage in some type of recreational activity and repeat.

On any index, the vast majority survive, and live lives that are as only what they decide. If anyone chooses to engage in risky behavior, I would hope they would think through the possible outcomes.

Anyway, decisions don’t come from nowhere. They are based on something. I’m sure each of us could tell ourselves from where if we took some time to think about it.

Best,
Ed

 

[grannymh]

This is where I really have a problem with objective morality. At least, the sort that God is meant to give us. Apart from a few commands within scripture, where on earth are we to get information on the countless moral decisions that we need to make practically every day? The usual answer is: ‘Our God-given conscience’. So who’s God-given conscience should we listen to? Because as sure as God made little green apples, everyone will have a different view on any number of matters.

If there is something that is not covered in scripture and is not mentioned by the Catholic church at all, then where does this mysterious Objective Morality exist and how do we access it so that we are all convinced it is the right answer? If we are not all convinced, then who decides on who is right?

It would seem that Objective morality is a nice idea for some people – wouldn’t it be great they say if we all knew what the right answer was all the time. But all we have are common values. Values that have been discussed, argued, debated, reasoned and sometimes fought over very many years. Yes, sometimes we get it wrong and yes, sometimes we can’t agree. But if anyone has a better idea how to make a decent society.

As Pope Benedict says, quoted earlier:

“If we cannot have common values, common truths, sufficient communication on the essentials of human life–how to live how to respond to the great challenges of human life–then true society becomes impossible.”

How we get them is the challenge. Appealing for divine guidance is not an answer. At least, not an answer to which everyone can agree.

Objective morality is based on the universal objective truth that the human person is worthy of profound respect. Both atheists and theists can recognize the difference in kind between a human person and a non-human creature. It does not really matter that different differences are expressed. What matters is that human nature is unique in the eyes of God and in the eyes of the scientist. Unique human nature is beautiful, wonderfully made. Psalm 139: 14 which can be appreciated by everyone.

Regardless of how many murders are committed or how many times food is brought to the hungry, the actual blood and guts, skin and bones that make a being a human being is not radically changed. A human is a human not a dog or a donkey. Human morality is for humans who are not birds and busy beavers. However, because humans are different in kind, they have the free choice to extend their good actions to non-human creatures. In addition, we can condemn animal cruelty in the light of human morals.

Psalm 139: 14,I am wonderfully made, can be understood by everyone independently from personal beliefs. From any angle, both good and bad humans are wonderfully made. However, being wonderfully made absolutely includes responsibility for one’s actions. Being wonderfully made does not mean that a human can escape the results of immoral actions.

Real problems regarding a moral code occur when one bypasses the real worth of a human person. This can occur because of the absurdity of earthly relativism. True goodness does not depend on the majority vote.

 

[tonyrey]

If there is no truth that is objective then that would mean whatever I think about is true. …

There is no discrepancy between these points of view! They both support the reality of objective truth - and the absurdity of relativism.

 

[grannymh]

This is where I really have a problem with objective morality. At least, the sort that God is meant to give us. Apart from a few commands within scripture, where on earth are we to get information on the countless moral decisions that we need to make practically every day?

When the issue is – “where on earth are we to get information on the countless moral decisions that we need to make practically every day?” – a bit of relativism is useful. A silly example. Can the immorality of murder be applied to a very non-healthy situation of serving ice-cream instead of vegetables to a child on her birthday? Without proper food, a child could die. Sometimes common sense circumstances themselves will solve what could look like a moral question. One needs to get used to spotting what is common sense and what is not. Another example. A husband lies about overspending the family income. Common sense says that naturally the wife is angry so she may yell nasty words. Still, it is possible that she would have to decide that stabbing him where it hurts is or is not a moral action.

Another way to deal with countless moral decisions is to seek good for a person. A parent makes countless “moral” decisions based on love for the child. A loving parent instinctively knows that sending a child naked into a sub-zero blizzard is an immoral decision. A husband’s love for his wife can keep him from adultery. The simple command “do not steel” covers numerous locations and opportunities.

Basically, I can only guess at how one could handle “moral decisions” based on the Scripture commandment "You shall love your neighbor as yourself.
Matthew 19: 19
Mathew 22: 34-40
Mark 12: 28-34
Luke 10: 25-28
John 15:12

 

[tonyrey]

This is where I really have a problem with objective morality. At least, the sort that God is meant to give us. Apart from a few commands within scripture, where on earth are we to get information on the countless moral decisions that we need to make practically every day? The usual answer is: ‘Our God-given conscience’. So who’s God-given conscience should we listen to? Because as sure as God made little green apples, everyone will have a different view on any number of matters.

If there is something that is not covered in scripture and is not mentioned by the Catholic church at all, then where does this mysterious Objective Morality exist and how do we access it so that we are all convinced it is the right answer? If we are not all convinced, then who decides on who is right?

It would seem that Objective morality is a nice idea for some people – wouldn’t it be great they say if we all knew what the right answer was all the time. But all we have are common values. Values that have been discussed, argued, debated, reasoned and sometimes fought over very many years. Yes, sometimes we get it wrong and yes, sometimes we can’t agree. But if anyone has a better idea how to make a decent society.

As Pope Benedict says, quoted earlier:

“If we cannot have common values, common truths, sufficient communication on the essentials of human life–how to live how to respond to the great challenges of human life–then true society becomes impossible.”

How we get them is the challenge. Appealing for divine guidance is not an answer. At least, not an answer to which everyone can agree.

I believe there are three indisputable facts (which are objectively true -

1.Solutions are not always clearcut and sooner or later we have to make decisions.
2.Rather than flip a coin it is more reasonable to rely on inspiration regardless of its origin…
3.That common values have stood the test of time is evidence they are objectively true.

 

[inocente]

I, and all designers, have at least one book about Color and how it affects people. There have been numerous studies done about how people are affected by color. Photoshop doesn’t help me, I guide it. So, no, there is no relativism. Color theory is very well established.

The explanation concerns various assumptions made by the brain concerning ambiguities. Another example of the subjective quality of color is that no TV, phone or computer monitor can produce yellow light, they can only produce fake yellow by mixing red and green light. We can’t distinguish real from fake but birds can.

 

[inocente]

This is where I really have a problem with objective morality. At least, the sort that God is meant to give us. Apart from a few commands within scripture, where on earth are we to get information on the countless moral decisions that we need to make practically every day? The usual answer is: ‘Our God-given conscience’. So who’s God-given conscience should we listen to? Because as sure as God made little green apples, everyone will have a different view on any number of matters.

Well of course, always act on your own conscience, no matter how much peer pressure is heaped on you.

But it’s more interesting than that, because we change our mind depending on circumstance. as shown by the trolley car dilemma.

In one version, a trolley car is heading towards five workers who will surely be killed unless we pull a lever to switch the car to another track where only one will get killed. Most people, regardless of their religion or culture, will pull the lever on the principle it’s better for one to die than five.

But in another version, the trolley car is again heading towards five workers who will surely be killed, unless we push a fat man off a bridge to stop the car. Most people will not push the fat man and so will let the five die, completely abandoning their previous principle that it’s better for one to die than five.

If you watch the first six minutes of this famous Harvard lecture, you’ll see the students’ astonishment with their own lack of consistency. - youtube.com/watch?v=kBdfcR-8hEY

 

[edwest2]

The explanation concerns various assumptions made by the brain concerning ambiguities. Another example of the subjective quality of color is that no TV, phone or computer monitor can produce yellow light, they can only produce fake yellow by mixing red and green light. We can’t distinguish real from fake but birds can.

The explanation is highly flawed. There are only a handful of primary colors plus black. Shades, hues and tints exist and under certain lighting conditions, can appear to vary, and visual cues and past experience can easily cause some people to reach the wrong conclusion regarding an actual product and an image of one. For example, there are various shades of red, with some that are pleasing to most and others that are not. Long before the internet, standards were established. Light has certain set angstroms. Red 230 is different from red 222. So, toy manufacturers, for example, in order to produce a certain red, from light to dark, had to be given a specification. There are machines that check to make sure the right red is applied/used regardless of who makes it.

Yellow occurs in nature and yes, different dyes/paints/inks have to be mixed to create it on a product. In printing, for say, a color book cover, a match print or color proof is created on paper from a file. If the proof is too red, for example, the image can be adjusted. To the trained eye, and I’ve been there myself, the “right” colors are obvious and deviations are obvious. So when picking a shade of red for a book title, I’m right there when it doesn’t look “right,” and there are only a few options to change it. The printer has to give us a color proof that matches that red within a certain percentage. Usually within 2 to 5%. A 100% match is possible but adds steps.

Ed

 

[Bradski]

I believe there are three indisputable facts (which are objectively true -

1.Solutions are not always clearcut and sooner or later we have to make decisions.
2.Rather than flip a coin it is more reasonable to rely on inspiration regardless of its origin…
3.That common values have stood the test of time is evidence they are objectively true.

This post is meant to answer a few that have gone before, not just Tony’s.

I see no problem with your three points, except the conclusion of the last ( and I’m assuming you could swap ‘conscience’ for inspiration in point 2, notwithstanding that anyone’s conscience is likely to give different answers to anyone else’s).

By common values, one assumes that you mean values that are common to us all at this time. Because it’s not too hard to think of values that were common in times past that we now reject. That is, we have decided that they have not stood the test of time and therefore cannot be described as such.

What you are saying is that universally accepted standards of behaviours are THEREFORE objective and will always be correct, which is nonsense.

It may be that in times to come we will all look back on the fact that we grew animals for food as a barbaric act. Which is then the objective truth? The one will (mostly) agree with now or the one that we all agree with tomorrow?

Granny’s criteria seems to be boiling down to common sense as an indication of what is right. Presumably when that common sense doesn’t counter what the church says. But give a hundred people a reasonably simple moral problem and you’ll get umpteen versions of what common sense entails.

Again, if there is a difference in what each of us believes to be right, how do we determine which one of us has the right answer? Assuming there is no guidance from scripture or the church.

I’ll tell you how. And it won’t come as too much of a surprise because we all do it for all problems at all times. We use reasonable arguments.

 

[fisherman_carl]

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.”

I would say that the absurdity that I proposed here was a logical contradiction about being Napoleon and not Napoleon at the same time. But, you could use other examples. For example, is a fetus a human being with a right to life or not? Either it is a human person or it isn’t objectively. Yet, relativists would say that it is a subjective question. However, they would not likely call their own status as a human being into question and give others the power to determine if they were human or not. Especially others who might have a vested interest in them not being human so that they could dispose of them.

 

[tonyrey]

I believe there are three indisputable facts (which are objectively true -

“common values have stood the test of time” doesn’t mean “all common values have stood the test of time”. Respect for everyone’s right to life and the principles of liberty, equality and fraternity" will always be universally true attributes of a civilised, humane and democratic society. Even if people are killed or imprisoned in self-defence it is only because they are lesser evils.

 

[fisherman_carl]

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.

I could easily say that there are certain moral facts that stand alone that do not require our judgment, that are true regardless of what we think of them. Now, you mention the 10 commandments. These could be an example of moral facts that do not require us to decide whether they are good or not, in order for them to be true.

Since you describe yourself as an atheist then automatically then morality is relative according to you. That is a given. Because if God does not exist there is no standard of morality that we can measure from. However, if atheism is not true then there is a higher authority, a standard, from which we can compare. In a sense everything would be compared to that standard. And, what does not measure up to that standard would be itself destroyed by that standard.

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…

Again, this goes back to your being an atheist. Not all morality can be subjective. The 10 commandments for instance offer us a standard. Now, you might say that everyone has there own subjective interpretation of that standard. But, I would say that the standard itself is the objective morality and that without such a standard we have no place to even start from. At least with a starting point you are not going to end up to far away from the standard.

And, especially if you are going to be judged by those moral standards you don’t want to wander away too far from them. No adultery for instance means no adultery. It’s not so subjective that a person can not figure out what it means.