Objective truth and absurdity of relativism

[grannymh]

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.

:yup::extrahappy::hug3:
:flowers:
Objective argument?

:kiss4you:

Subjective argument?

 

[grannymh]

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.

I understand now. I had been on a different track thinking that relativism, per se, would be considered absurd.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

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.

The only way to make a better society is to work diligently to get the maximum agreement of the maximum number in society who promote not relativism, but an objective view of morality informed by wisdom and reason and the grace of God.

If men think wisdom without God behind the wisdom is a sufficient way to build a better society, they are surely fooling themselves. Minus God you get the Hitlers and the Stalins and the Maos of the world, all godless homicidal maniacs who make the Inquisition look like a weird walk in darkness by a few whacko priests who would rather imprison and torture than kill, and in many (or most) cases gave their adversaries every chance to escape death by confessing their sins.

There is no doubt in my mind that if moral relativism gains a complete triumph over American society, we will become a nation that defines right as the prerogative of he who wields the biggest club over us all. And there will then be, as in North Korea today, no appeal to the Higher Authority without provoking the sentence of the imminent firing squad.

 

[edwest2]

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.

I’m all for reasonable arguments but even there we run into problems:

1. Some arguments require research and sometimes research is biased or incorrect.
2. Purposely being mislead by others who leave out important details or claim facts that are not true, but unknown to the average person.
3. Outright lies that contain fragments of truth but focus on the lies and claim the lies are truthful.
4. Self-justification. Sometimes, people individually selectively choose what is reasonable for them alone, even if it harms others directly or indirectly.

I grew up during a time when people were actively trying to control themselves and help others without personal gain. It was not an intellectual exercise. For the most part, it worked. Until agitators appeared that demanded change - most of it demonstrably harmful for Western society as a whole. What worked was turned upside down. I watched it happen.

Ed

 

[Bradski]

“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.

No problem there. But you implied that common values are objective values. Which is not the case.

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. .

So a young girl must honour her father. The one that rapes her on a regular basis? Or is that command relative to the situation? That is, relative to the respect any given parent deserves?

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. .

So where is the magical standard to be found? It can’t be in scripture because there are so many things within it that we find appalling. It can’t be the Ten Commandments because the majority of those relate to our relationship with God and the rest are either relative (the rapist father) or simplistic advocations to do the right thing that really so bleedin’ obvious as to be not worth the tablet on which they were carved Wot? No more killing? Damn, I wish we’d thought of that before…).

And it can’t be our individual conscience because they are all, well, individual.

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.

Darn tootin’ they do. But if an atheist has no access to the objective truth and a Christian does, then you should be able to tell one from the other by the decisions each of them make. Will the Christian have access always to this ephemeral objective truth? If not, then how on earth can you except me to believe it exists when we can’t access it?

Tell me where it resides. Tell me how you personally access it. Then tell me why the choice you make is always right. If it isn’t always right, or you don’t know, then you have no more access to it than I do.

 

[LogisticsBranch]

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.

Hey ya Bradski I know you were talking to grannymh, but I wanted to chime in. I don’t always agree with grannymh, especially when it comes to science related topics. Getting back to your comment as noted above, I honestly can’t say that I respect my husband when he digs up my rose bush without getting my permission to do so. I’m absolutely ticked off whenever he decides to make changes in my garden! :sad_yes:
It doesn’t mean I don’t love him.

You stated, “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.”

I’ll tell you what I think regarding your second comment. No two people think exactly alike. Regarding morality:

Unique and Interactive Effects of Moral Emotions and Moral Disengagement on Bullying and Defending among School Children
Thornberg, Robert; Pozzoli, Tiziana; Gianluca, Gini; Jungert, Tomas
Elementary School Journal, v116 n2 p322-337 Dec 2015
The first aim of the present study was to examine in a single model how moral disengagement and moral emotions were related to bullying and defending behavior among schoolchildren. The second aim was to test whether the two moral dimensions interacted with each other to explain behavior in bullying situations. Data were collected from 561 Swedish students. Moral disengagement was positively associated with bullying and negatively associated with defending, whereas moral emotions score was negatively associated with bullying and positively associated with defending. Moreover, students who scored high in moral emotions did not tend to bully other students, irrespective of their levels of moral disengagement, whereas when the moral emotions score was low bullying behavior increased with increasing levels of moral disengagement. In contrast, moral disengagement was negatively related to defending behavior at low levels of moral emotions, but not when moral emotions were high.
Descriptors: Bullying, Child Behavior, Moral Values, Emotional Response, Foreign Countries, Empathy, Elementary School Students, Grade 5, Grade 6, Questionnaires, Statistical Analysis, Correlation, Path Analysis
eric.ed.gov/?q=morals&id=EJ1084383

 

[o_mlly]

If there is no truth that is objective then that would mean whatever I think about is true. … Thus, not believing in objective truth leads to such absurdities.

How does a human person come to know the truth? Humans, cognizant beings with an unconquerable curiosity about everything, possess the faculties—senses, intellect, imagination and reason—to come to know the world that is outside us, ourselves, and our Creator. My faculties do a better job at finding the truth in the physical world than the truth in the spiritual realm. The duality I suggest here is not ontological but epistemological. I am better equipped to grasp the reality of rocks than the reality of God. For the latter, I must depend on the grace of revelation. Even to understand myself, I must rely on others to reveal themselves to me, and project what is common to us to be common to all. But we have difficulty in claiming as truth the knowledge we possess that is limited to our own experiences, our existential selves.

Existentialism, knowledge gained by individual experience, is inherently biased. When the subject becomes its own object, bias impregnates knowledge. I can observe more objectively things outside myself than the thing that is myself. Bias, a preference or an inclination, inhibits impartial judgment. If I know bias exists, I should be reasonably skeptical of any all-inclusive claims based on such knowledge. Skepticism and existentialism, I think, are good partners when we pursue the truth… Metaphysics compliments existentialism as a thought process, each checking and balancing the other. Existentialism, an experience driven mode of knowing, may garner notions about the human condition that metaphysics, a rationally driven mode of knowing, may not.
Existentialists, noting that existence always precedes essence, seek to discover, not deduce, knowledge by examining one’s own “lived experience” and, inductively, from those particular experiences that are common to all, offer generalized theories of reality. Intelligence can never disown itself. The existentialist’s experience, therefore, must resonate with mine to have meaning for me.

I believe the existentialist’s method suffers the two weaknesses. Any initial generalized hypothesis offered by the existentialist is both inchoate and fragile. Inchoate because the truth in the hypothesis is dependent on massive collaboration and fragile because just one descent may begin its obliteration. If the “lived experience” examined is unique to its examiner, then that “lived experience” must be considered an anomalous experience of the examiner, and, therefore, not natural by definition— present in all people, at all times and all places. Until the “lived experience” of the one is confirmed by the many, the generalized truthfulness of that knowledge as applying to all humanity must be held in suspense. The only logical way around this conundrum is to specify that reality is not singular, but multiple, and, at times, perhaps even contradictory. But such a position, making truth subjective, would obviate any need for further deliberation! I must, therefore, reject any part of an existentialist’s expression of human nature or salvation that does not square with my own existential expression. If we are to dispute productively, we must go to a different realm of knowing, and, I suggest, the metaphysical as the only court of appeal.

 

[fisherman_carl]

No problem there. But you implied that common values are objective values. Which is not the case.

So a young girl must honour her father. The one that rapes her on a regular basis? Or is that command relative to the situation? That is, relative to the respect any given parent deserves?

So where is the magical standard to be found? It can’t be in scripture because there are so many things within it that we find appalling. It can’t be the Ten Commandments because the majority of those relate to our relationship with God and the rest are either relative (the rapist father) or simplistic advocations to do the right thing that really so bleedin’ obvious as to be not worth the tablet on which they were carved Wot? No more killing? Damn, I wish we’d thought of that before…).

And it can’t be our individual conscience because they are all, well, individual.

Darn tootin’ they do. But if an atheist has no access to the objective truth and a Christian does, then you should be able to tell one from the other by the decisions each of them make. Will the Christian have access always to this ephemeral objective truth? If not, then how on earth can you except me to believe it exists when we can’t access it?

Tell me where it resides. Tell me how you personally access it. Then tell me why the choice you make is always right. If it isn’t always right, or you don’t know, then you have no more access to it than I do.

What you are really asking is a separate question from the issue of objective truth. You are asking how does one determine objective truth. But even if in certain cases it may be difficult to determine it, it doesn’t mean there isn’t objective truth. I said objective truth is truth that is objectively true regardless of whether anyone might believe it to be true or not. As a Catholic I believe in certain truths that are objective like salvation can only be found through Jesus Christ. How does one come to know this is a separate issue from whether it is objectively true or not. People may go through subjective experiences to arrive at this truth, but nonetheless it is objectively true or not. And just because we might not agree on some objective truths does not mean there are none. The absurdity would be if there were no objective truths in reality. Then logical contradiction would be apparent. Its one thing to disagree about what is objectively true. It is another to state that there is no objective truth. The later is a philosophical belief that derails the search for truth from the get go.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Its one thing to disagree about what is objectively true. It is another to state that there is no objective truth. The later is a philosophical belief that derails the search for truth from the get go.

 

[tonyrey]

No problem there. But you implied that common values are objective values. Which is not the case.

All values exist in our minds but it doesn’t follow that they are all arbitrary.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

But if an atheist has no access to the objective truth and a Christian does, then you should be able to tell one from the other by the decisions each of them make. **Will the Christian have access always to this ephemeral objective truth? **If not, then how on earth can you except me to believe it exists when we can’t access it?.

Yes, with respect to faith and morals. Access the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

All other objective truths are accessible unless one does not strive or does not know how to strive for them.

 

[grannymh]

But if an atheist has no access to the objective truth …

Please pardon my curiosity.

Which objective truth would you be referring to? Rain is wet? Or apples call fall from trees? Personally, I love rain on a hot day. And I have no trouble eating apples.

In order for an universal truth to exist it has to be objective. If it floats between one’s ears, what happens when the person is six feet under ground?

Now, a true universal truth does not need an atheist label nor a theist label provided that the atheist and theist are both real human beings. This brings up an interesting question --Does real human nature exist as an universal truth? Hint – Find a mirror for your answer.

Is the person who messes with a garden still a real human being with a real human nature? If he gets hit with a shovel, does his human nature per se change? Obviously, his human nature hurts, but it still remains as is as it is bleeding. Of course, one can still love him as he is driven to the hospital to get stiches.

 

[Bradski]

All other objective truths are accessible unless one does not strive or does not know how to strive for them.

I keep asking. I keep asking everyone where these objective truths are so that we know we have the right answer to any moral problem. You keep saying that they exist. You keep saying that they are accessible.

So who knows how to do it? If ten of you say you can access an objective truth, then how about I give you each the same moral problem and we can see if you all come up with the same answer. If you come up with different answers, then you are going to have to tell me why you were wrong or why the others were wrong.

Actually, let’s not bother. Because we know the result in advance. There would be ten different answers. And I’d end up writing something like: ‘Well, so much for the objective truth, eh?’

What we actually do is indulge in reasoned debate and we get a consensus on what we think is the right option for any given circumstance at that particular time. That is, relative to the situation.

You guys will be given a day off while this happens. You can spend it looking for the Objective Truth as it applies to the problem. Of course, if you turn up the following day saying that you have found it, you are going to have to give (wait for it…) reasonable arguments as to why it is the answer for the given circumstances at the particular time.

In other words, why it is relative to the situation.

Ironic, eh?

 

[Charlemagne_III]

I keep asking. I keep asking everyone where these objective truths are so that we know we have the right answer to any moral problem. You keep saying that they exist. You keep saying that they are accessible.

So who knows how to do it? If ten of you say you can access an objective truth, then how about I give you each the same moral problem and we can see if you all come up with the same answer. If you come up with different answers, then you are going to have to tell me why you were wrong or why the others were wrong.

Actually, let’s not bother. Because we know the result in advance. There would be ten different answers. And I’d end up writing something like: ‘Well, so much for the objective truth, eh?’

What we actually do is indulge in reasoned debate and we get a consensus on what we think is the right option for any given circumstance at that particular time. That is, relative to the situation.

You guys will be given a day off while this happens. You can spend it looking for the Objective Truth as it applies to the problem. Of course, if you turn up the following day saying that you have found it, you are going to have to give (wait for it…) reasonable arguments as to why it is the answer for the given circumstances at the particular time.

In other words, why it is relative to the situation.

Ironic, eh?

Since you are an atheist, I assume you believe it is an objective truth that no God exists.

To answer your challenge, why not try to prove how objective your truth is? You can’t.

Yes, inevitably we will disagree, but that does not change the fact that one of us is objectively right and the other is objectively wrong even if we cannot satisfy each other of the objective evidence.

Either God(s) exist or they don’t.

God made us free to disagree with each other and to disagree with him. That is the source of our disagreement, satisfying our own contrary passions. This is the way of the world and it always will be until the end.

 

[grannymh]

I keep asking. I keep asking everyone where these objective truths are …

They are in the grocery store, aisle 5.

Solving a moral problem is known as ethics. In some institutions, there is an ethical committee which makes decisions. Manufactures and politicians can claim ethical standards which does not mean that they are always followed. Some people use the Ten Commandments as an ethics standard. A hospital may have their ethics posted in the lobby.

Tiny helpful suggestion. On a sunny day, google “objective truth definition”. I am interested in what you find.

Better yet. Google “moral principles definition.” A three minute search revealed that there is a tad difference between objective truth and moral principles.

Obviously, there is some confusion regarding the difference between moral principles and objective truth on this thread which needs to be tackled before going down aisle 5 in a grocery store.

 

[Bradski]

Since you are an atheist, I assume you believe it is an objective truth that no God exists.

To answer your challenge, why not try to prove how objective your truth is? You can’t.

Yes, inevitably we will disagree, but that does not change the fact that one of us is objectively right and the other is objectively wrong even if we cannot satisfy each other of the objective evidence.

I may have to duck out of this conversation. I’m not sure that you understand the difference between objective facts (God exists or God does not exist) and objective truths (this is the right thing to do or this isn’t). We are, after all, talking about objective moral truths.

The fact, as you say, that ‘one of us’ is objectively right and the rest objectively wrong (meaningless statements, but I’ll assume that you mean one of us has access to the ‘objective truth’) leads to the obvious question: How the hell do we find out who is right?

If we can, then tell me how. If we can’t, then having an ‘objective truth’ is utterly meaningless if it cannot be determined.

 

[tonyrey]

… I’m not sure that you understand the difference between objective facts (God exists or God does not exist) and objective truths (this is the right thing to do or this isn’t).

A fact is the truth about events. oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/fact
A truth doesn’t necessarily have a moral connotation. Liars see no reason why they should tell the truth or stick to the facts. The truth is composed of facts but facts are not composed of truths. Facts are specific truths whereas the truth is a collective term which refers to reality as a whole and is necessarily objective. There are no subjective facts at all - and no subjective truths except with regard to matters of taste:

De gustibus non disputandum est!

If I say “It’s true for me God exists” I’m wasting my breath! Four words are enough.
I certainly can’t say “It’s my truth”.

 

[grannymh]

I keep asking. I keep asking everyone where these objective truths are …

They are in the grocery store, aisle 5.

Solving a moral problem is known as ethics.

In some institutions, there is an ethical committee which makes decisions. Manufactures and politicians can claim ethical standards which does not mean that they are always followed. Some people use the Ten Commandments as an ethics guide. A hospital may have their ethics posted in the lobby.

Tiny helpful suggestion. On a sunny day, google “objective truth definition”. I am interested in what you find.

Better yet. Google “moral principles definition.” A three minute search revealed that there is a tad difference between objective truth and moral principles.

Obviously, there is some confusion on this thread regarding the difference between moral principles and objective truth on this thread. This means that the confusion needs to be tackled before going down aisle 5 in a grocery store.

 

[LogisticsBranch]

I may have to duck out of this conversation. I’m not sure that you understand the difference between objective facts (God exists or God does not exist) and objective truths (this is the right thing to do or this isn’t). We are, after all, talking about objective moral truths.

The fact, as you say, that ‘one of us’ is objectively right and the rest objectively wrong (meaningless statements, but I’ll assume that you mean one of us has access to the ‘objective truth’) leads to the obvious question: How the hell do we find out who is right?

If we can, then tell me how. If we can’t, then having an ‘objective truth’ is utterly meaningless if it cannot be determined.

Let’s get back to my post 66. I think you are missing the point of the title. I personally don’t think we need to put God into this conversation. Moving forward…let’s look at

What is Ethics in Research & Why is it Important?
by David B. Resnik, J.D., Ph.D.

December 1, 2015

Applying Foucault’s notion of “critique” to 338 peer-reviewed journal articles uncovered six interconnected truths: quality is an objective reality; quality enhances children’s optimal development; quality is the domain of science/psychology; quality can be known from researchers’ perspectives . . . .
eric.ed.gov/?q=objective+AND+truths&id=EJ932104

Ethical can be applied to objective truths. Let’s look at the National Institute of
Environmental Health Sciences. Glossary of Commonly Used Terms in Research Ethics
David B. Resnik, National Institute of Environmental Health Science, National Institutes of Health, May 2015:

. . .]
Ethical dilemma: A situation in which two or more potential actions appear to be equally justifiable from an ethical point of view, i.e. one must choose between the lesser of two evils or the greater of two goods.

Ethical reasoning: Making a decision in response to a moral dilemma based a careful and thorough assessment of the different options in light of the facts and circumstances and ethical considerations.

Ethical relativism: The view that ethical standards are relative to a particular culture, society, historical period, etc. When in Rome, do as the Romans do. See Ethical universalism.

Ethical theory: A set of statements that attempts to unify, systematize, and explain our moral experience, i.e. our intuitions or judgments about right/wrong, good/bad, etc. See Kantianism, Utilitarianism, Virtue ethics.

Ethical universalism: The view that the same standards of ethics apply to all people at all times.

Ethics (or morals): 1. Standards of conduct (or behavior) that distinguish between right/wrong, good/bad, etc. 2. The study of standards of conduct.

Ethics, applied: The study of ethics in specific situations, professions, or institutions, e.g. medical ethics, research ethics, etc.

Ethics, meta-: The study of the meaning, truth, and justification of ethical statements.

Ethics, normative vs. descriptive: Normative ethics studies the standards of conduct and methods of reasoning that people ought to follow. Descriptive ethics studies the standards of conduct and reasoning processes that people in fact follow. Normative ethics seeks to prescribe and evaluate conduct, whereas descriptive ethics seeks to describe and explain conduct. Disciplines such as philosophy and religious studies take a normative approach to ethics, whereas sociology, anthropology, psychology, neuroscience, and evolutionary biology take a descriptive approach.
niehs.nih.gov/research/resources/bioethics/glossary/index.cfm

That’s it for me!

 

[Charlemagne_III]

The fact, as you say, that ‘one of us’ is objectively right and the rest objectively wrong (meaningless statements, but I’ll assume that you mean one of us has access to the ‘objective truth’) leads to the obvious question: How the hell do we find out who is right?

If we can, then tell me how. If we can’t, then having an ‘objective truth’ is utterly meaningless if it cannot be determined.

Do you believe that truth is one, or do you believe that contradictory statement can both be true? If there is an objective truth, it has to exist somewhere. If regarding morals you are looking for objective truth and don’t know how to be assured where to find it, you need search no farther than the Catechism of the Catholic Church. I know it seems preposterous to you that this is a solution, but if God exists (a truth you have yet to discover) he would surely want to endow us with the kind of guidance we need to be in touch with objective moral truth.

The Catholic Church claims it is the messenger of God’s truth and offers for proof both Scripture and Sacred Tradition of the Church. Clearly, the world rejects that truth because the world belongs more or less to the devil, whose modus ope**randi is to spread confusion everywhere so that the truth cannot be found or can only be found piecemeal here and there. Christ declared the devil to be a liar and a murderer, and if the world today is not full of lies and murder, I am the one truly confused.

“How the hell do we find out who is right?” you rightly ask. We find it by searching, exactly what you and the rest of us are doing at Catholic Answers. The Church extends a friendly hand to all to enter, however hesitatingly, the temple of God. The Church prays constantly for the conversion of the world, and only by that conversion will objective moral values hold sway over the world and the devil.

“How the hell do we find out who is right?”

I believe that we do not find out who is right by assuming that we have to enter hell to do it.



Entering here should do it. scborromeo.org/ccc.htm