Objective truth and absurdity of relativism

[PRmerger]

If there is no truth that is objective then that would mean whatever I think about is true. If I think I am Napoleon then it is true that I am Napoleon. Because no one could tell me that it is objectively false that I am Napoleon. And if someone else claims that they are Napoleon then that must also be true since truth is relative. But if I did not believe them to be Napoleon as I am then that would also be true. So something would be true and not true at the same time. Yet it is logically impossible to be Napoleon and not Napoleon at the same time. Thus, not believing in objective truth leads to such absurdities.

Everyone who posts here on this forum, at least on a regular basis, necessarily believes in objective truth.

Even if he doesn’t admit to such.

Otherwise, coming here and posting one’s thoughts is as otioise as going to a forum which discusses whether turnips are better mashed or fried.

And no one does that for any prolonged period of time because we all know the difference between preferences (mashed are better!) and objective truth: you are not Napoleon.

A discussion board about preferences/tastes lasts about 2 pages.

But if one believes that what he is professing is true, and true for everyone, not just what he prefers, then he comes here and posts, and posts, and posts.

 

[PRmerger]

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.

Just because some moral situations are relative doesn’t mean that all moral situations are relative.

There are indeed some moral absolutes: it is always wrong to torture puppies for fun.

Always.

 

[PRmerger]

Actually, I am more interested in how Google defines Objective Truth. (post 77)

Actually, I am more interested if you found any kind of a difference between Objective Truth Definition and the Moral Principles Definition. (post 77)

What I actually said in post 87 is – “The evidence for the objective existence of God is located in human nature.” Google does refer to the idea that objective refers to something outside a human person. It could be easier if you start with your understanding of human nature. What is it in your eyes?

You may find this series of essays interesting by atheist-convert-to-Catholicism Leah Libresco.

She writes:

In August of 2010, I wrote a series of posts on the relationship between math and morality.

“From Dreams I Proceed to Facts” — an introduction to my views on math and metaphysics by way of Flatland
Hail to the Cylinder God — being able to make negative definitions of God is essential
As sure as I am of anything — how does evidence for morality compare to evidence for causality, or the reality of sight
Tangled Up in Blue — a discussion of the tension between societal norms and the actual moral values they’re meant to be applications of
On what evidence? — I answer commenter’s questions about why I feel the evidence for absolute morality is compelling
Optimized and Arbitrary — why game theory should make us understand that stable societal norms are not the same as moral norms
Optimized and Arbitrary (Part 2) — what does it mean that we have strong preferences for particular stable/resilient societies?
Empirics, Morality, and Rational Ignorance — some moral questions come down to empirical evidence, may I trust other people’s reports on these facts rather than investigating myself?
One last post on sight — far from a direct representation of reality, I like to think of sight as a n-1 dimensional representation of an n dimensional reality

I love the game theory–why it should “make us understand that stable societal norms are NOT the same as moral norms.”

 

[PRmerger]

If we take the human person is worthy of profound respect as a principle then I think we have to allow people to genuinely and sincerely disagree on moral imperatives.

Of course they are free to disagree on moral imperatives.

That’s because we are free moral agents.

But just like a man is free to say, “This is a circle!”



but we all know he’s just plain WRONG…

so, too can someone say, “I believe that it’s perfectly fine to cheat on my wife, as long as she never finds out!”…

but we all know he’s also just plain WRONG.

 

[grannymh]

You may find this series of essays interesting by atheist-convert-to-Catholicism Leah Libresco.

She writes:
In August of 2010, I wrote a series of posts on the relationship between math and morality.

“From Dreams I Proceed to Facts” — an introduction to my views on math and metaphysics by way of Flatland
Hail to the Cylinder God — being able to make negative definitions of God is essential
As sure as I am of anything — how does evidence for morality compare to evidence for causality, or the reality of sight
Tangled Up in Blue — a discussion of the tension between societal norms and the actual moral values they’re meant to be applications of
On what evidence? — I answer commenter’s questions about why I feel the evidence for absolute morality is compelling
Optimized and Arbitrary — why game theory should make us understand that stable societal norms are not the same as moral norms
Optimized and Arbitrary (Part 2) — what does it mean that we have strong preferences for particular stable/resilient societies?
Empirics, Morality, and Rational Ignorance — some moral questions come down to empirical evidence, may I trust other people’s reports on these facts rather than investigating myself?
One last post on sight — far from a direct representation of reality, I like to think of sight as a n-1 dimensional representation of an n dimensional reality
I love the game theory–why it should “make us understand that stable societal norms are NOT the same as moral norms.”

My apology. l did check the link; however, the items in the list did not sound like a proper definition for universal objective truth. Did I accidentally miss a topic on the universal objective truth that the human person is worthy of profound respect?

 

[PRmerger]

My apology. l did check the link; however, math and morality does not sound like a proper definition for universal object truth.

Well, given the fact that I posted the link less than 20 minutes ago, I doubt you had time to read the links to digest how math and morality do indeed have a relationship.

 

[grannymh]

Well, given the fact that I posted the link less than 20 minutes ago, I doubt you had time to read the links to digest how math and morality do indeed have a relationship.

Again, my apology. I did not realize that I had to click every point. I would think that math and morality would have a relationship because both are able to use the deductive method of reasoning in certain circumstances. However, my simple brain is still involved with universal objective truth …

 

[PRmerger]

Again, my apology. I did not realize that I had to click every point.

Well, only if you want to say that there *isn’t *a relationship between math and morality.

I would think that math and morality would have a relationship because both are able to use the deductive method of reasoning in certain circumstances.

Egg-zactly. And both have objective truths that are can be apprehended by the intellect.

 

[PRmerger]

 

[grannymh]

Well, only if you want to say that there *isn’t *a relationship between math and morality.

Egg-zactly. And both have objective truths that are can be apprehended by the intellect.

Interesting. Could you please give me three of these objective truths and explain how exactly they can be apprehended. Or give me the link. I had to drop higher math so morality would be a better topic.

 

[PRmerger]

Interesting. Could you please give me three of these objective truths and explain how exactly they can be apprehended. Or give me the link. I had to drop higher math so morality would be a better topic.

I think Libresco pithily explains everything in this one sentence: “Without perfect knowledge or direct experience of a hypercube, I nonetheless had a way to describe it and to formulate hypotheses about its properties.”

So we don’t have a perfect conceptualization of a hypercube, for example–we can’t draw it in 2 dimensions–but we can UNDERSTAND it. We can apprehend it without empirical knowledge of it.

And from there she says, again rather pithily: “Even with only imperfect access to morality, we can find a way to talk about moral laws in much the same way we speak of topological laws”

Here: topological laws refer to the hypercube

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Sorry, Brad, for some reason I didn’t notice this post. I don’t believe objectivity depends on universal agreement because everyone could be mistaken!

For sure, as everyone was mistaken until Copernicus came along.

But today the universal agreement is on the side of Copernicus, and there is something to be said for the fact that it is universal rather than still debated whether the earth revolves about the sun or the sun revolves about the earth.

 

[inocente]

inocente;13640351:

Freedom of conscience is not just a secular right, it is a founding principle of the Baptist faith.

A founding principle of the Baptist faith? Is it not a principle of **all ** Christian faiths?

Earlier, in post #116, you told me that my conscience is a “purveyor of perdition” unless it agrees with your church, so you’ve already told me plainly that you don’t believe in freedom of conscience, now you want to make it a principle, which is it?

*But you have said in other threads that you have no creed, and are free to believe what you like.

That kind of freedom has nothing to do with conscience.

Answer me this:

Do you believe that conscience takes precedence over the teachings of Christ?

Are you free to “genuinely and sincerely” disagree with Christ?

Would this not be the rejection of objective Truth and the ultimate absurdity of relativism?*

Baptists have no creed since we believe that each person is responsible for his own salvation. That’s an objective truth to us, along with freedom of religion and freedom of worship. But paramount is that Christ judges you on your own actions and thoughts, and will not accept a plea that you were only following orders.

To put it into a more philosophical form, once you act against your conscience, once you no longer take responsibility for yourself, you are no longer a moral agent.

inocente;13640404:

I didn’t realize I was preaching discord and destroying the fabric of American civilization. I did not realize that Muslims are terrorists and that Protestants preach rebellion.

It must be very frightening for you to be surrounded by so many bad people. Do you take an assault weapon to Mass in case a Methodist jumps out from behind a pew?

Do you seriously think everyone is evil, are you seriously so scared?

Are you seriously pretending to be philosophical?

You’re not supposed to answer a question with a question, it’s not polite, please answer my questions first.

 

[Aloysium]

. . . there is something to be said for the fact that it is universal rather than still debated whether the earth revolves about the sun or the sun revolves about the earth.

You present an appropriate metaphor for this discussion wherein the same sort of mental contortions are required to describe the Good from a relativistic rather than objective perspective. Charitas is at the heart of creation from which it springs and around which it revolves, eternal. I suppose until all those who wish to make the journey Home do so, these debates must necessarily continue.

 

[inocente]

I will never dismiss freedom of conscience because it is obvious that a conscience is inherent in human nature which is another reason that I repeatedly say –
The human person is worthy of profound respect.

I may have missed your posts which would ground the very freedom of conscience in an objective truth about human nature. Please accept my apology. Nonetheless, the reality of freedom of conscience is clearly based on an objective truth, which I wish someone would acknowledge, as being an universal objective truth according to what an universal objective truth requires

No apology needed but thanks for the thought. I’m happy to agree that freedom of conscience is an objective truth, since no one can consider herself a moral agent unless she acts in accordance with what she believes is right and wrong.

The proof is simple: Anyone who argues the opposite and says he should be allowed to do what he believes is immoral, is claiming that he should not be held accountable for his own actions, which is an obvious no no.

As I recall, there is a lot of this and that which obscure the source of freedom of conscience. That is what I would call a mess.

I have never indicated that I believe that only persons who see things my way, whatever that means, are worthy of profound respect. That is why the objective truth of human nature is a simple statement regarding the human person. If one is a human person, then that human person is worthy of profound respect. The back and forth over how one determines this or that without resorting to the basics of an objective truth is what I call a mess.

The mess of relative this to that is due to that or this post which is not considering the fundamental truth which humans can refer to when writing any constitution for any nation. Or what humans can consult when difficult decisions have to be made.

Please see above.

Speaking of a “founding principle” in the Baptist faith, what is the rock that this principle is based on? . In the beginning of the trolley discussion, post 55, a member of the audience brought up genocide. Why would genocide be considered?

That wasn’t an audience of Baptists, that was an audience of Harvard students, and judging by the size of the audience, and the fact that lecture has had over six million views on Youtube, it’s a very popular class. If you continue to watch the lecture, you’ll see that Professor Sandel is careful not to try to force any particular morality on his students, since his aim in the class is to teach “justice, equality, democracy, and citizenship”.

*Why do some, hopefully not all, persons appear to ignore the concept that the human person is worthy of profound respect? That makes it extremely difficult to find conclusions which meet one of the major requirements for an universal truth which is that it exists before one is born and continues to exist after one dies. *

I’d speculate on one possible reason. In the Parable of the Good Samaritan, Jesus has the priest and the Levite walk on by and instead makes a Samaritan the hero of the day, knowing full well that His Jewish audience despised Samaritans. Jews versus Samaritans was the sectarianism of that day. By bringing ethnic prejudice into the story, and slapping it down, Jesus brings home that being a good person is not a matter of stereotypes and labels. But sadly, unjust discrimination does still seem to be part of human nature.

btw I’ll claim that every single thing in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is also an objective moral truth, purely on the grounds that I’d like to see anyone try to argue against it.

 

[PRmerger]

Baptists have no creed since we believe that each person is responsible for his own salvation.

This is a nonsequitur. Catholics have a creed but we also believe that each person (who is capable of making an informed choice) is responsible for her salvation.

That’s an objective truth to us, along with freedom of religion and freedom of worship. But paramount is that Christ judges you on your own actions and thoughts, and will not accept a plea that you were only following orders.

Very Catholic, this.

To put it into a more philosophical form, once you act against your conscience, once you no longer take responsibility for yourself, you are no longer a moral agent.

This, too: very Catholic.

 

[grannymh]

No apology needed but thanks for the thought. I’m happy to agree that freedom of conscience is an objective truth, since no one can consider herself a moral agent unless she acts in accordance with what she believes is right and wrong.

May I respectfully present what I wrote in post 134.
“I may have missed your posts which would ground the very freedom of conscience*** in*** an objective truth about human nature.”
Apparently, this thread is based on the concept that there is no difference between “is an objective truth” and “in an objective truth about human nature.” Thus, I should not be concerned. Why would anyone even think about fundamental truths and lies which can serve as the foundation for modern morality? Perhaps that is one reason why what I say is ignored.

Regarding my realization that this thread does not recognize the truth that the human person is worthy of profound respect.

I’d speculate on one possible reason. In the Parable of the Good Samaritan, Jesus has the priest and the Levite walk on by and instead makes a Samaritan the hero of the day, knowing full well that His Jewish audience despised Samaritans. Jews versus Samaritans was the sectarianism of that day. By bringing ethnic prejudice into the story, and slapping it down, Jesus brings home that being a good person is not a matter of stereotypes and labels. But sadly, unjust discrimination does still seem to be part of human nature.

That is a good possible reason why people ignore what I am saying.

I do have two questions about this specific Parable of the Good Samaritan.

1. In this Parable, did Jesus know that the priest and Levite are real human beings?
2. Does this Parable demonstrate that Jesus excluded the priest and Levite from His love?

Matthew 10: 14

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Earlier, in post #116, you told me that my conscience is a “purveyor of perdition” unless it agrees with your church, so you’ve already told me plainly that you don’t believe in freedom of conscience, now you want to make it a principle, which is it?

I don’t see why you are confused. We ought to follow our conscience, but our conscience must be informed by the teachings of Christ which we receive through his Church. They are not revealed anywhere but through his Church, and his Church is the safeguard of those teachings. Your individual conscience is free to follow the teachings of Christ. If it rebels against those teachings, the conscience can falsely maintain it is following the Church when it is really only following its own wayward path away from the Church, and it does this by giving in to its lower passions to believe that it, and it alone, is the arbiter of truth, not Christ himself.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Baptists have no creed since we believe that each person is responsible for his own salvation. That’s an objective truth to us, along with freedom of religion and freedom of worship. But paramount is that Christ judges you on your own actions and thoughts, and will not accept a plea that you were only following orders.

To put it into a more philosophical form, once you act against your conscience, once you no longer take responsibility for yourself, you are no longer a moral agent.

You have just made my case. You prefer to follow yourself before following Christ on the false claim that your conscience is infallible but Christ cannot be if his teaching contradicts your infallible belief.

Yes, Christ expects you to be a free moral agent by freely conforming your will to his.

“Thy will be done” not “My will be done.”

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Baptists have no creed since we believe that each person is responsible for his own salvation.

Catholics also believe that Catholics are responsible for their own salvation, but not by ignoring the beliefs that we were taught because we prefer our own individual interpretation of them over the interpretation of the Church that Christ founded to teach the truth.

But of course, if you don’t believe Christ gave the Church the authority to teach in his name, you are free to believe that he gave you the personal authority to believe exactly what you like to believe. I’m afraid giving you that authority is not stated anywhere in the New Testament that I can find.

Would you mind locating the passage? I doubt that you can.

On the other hand:

“Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it.”

Would you like to explicate that passage for us?

Is Christ referring to your Baptist creed, which is that there will be no creed, and therefore no need to worry about the gates of hell prevailing against Baptists?

2 Peter 2:1

“But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will also be false teachers among you, who will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing swift destruction upon themselves. Many will follow their sensuality, and because of them the way of the truth will be maligned.”