Objective truth and absurdity of relativism

[Bradski]

“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.

Ah, so the church has the objective answers. I see. Not simply Christians, but Catholics. So if I need the answer to any given moral problem, and it will be an objective truth, then all I need to do is check with a Catholic.

I’m thinking about farming dolphins for food. What’s the Catholic position on that? I did a word search for ‘dolphin’ in the catechism but nothing came up.

And I’m not sure if I should take that holiday to Myanmar. Would I be supporting a country with a bad human rights record or would I be helping the people who live under that government?

And should I buy the free range eggs or the cheaper factory farmed ones and give the money I save to that homeless guy?

I need a Catholic to help me on these problems. Someone who can divine the absolute truth for me.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Ah, so the church has the objective answers. I see. Not simply Christians, but Catholics. So if I need the answer to any given moral problem, and it will be an objective truth, then all I need to do is check with a Catholic.

I’m thinking about farming dolphins for food. What’s the Catholic position on that? I did a word search for ‘dolphin’ in the catechism but nothing came up.

And I’m not sure if I should take that holiday to Myanmar. Would I be supporting a country with a bad human rights record or would I be helping the people who live under that government?

And should I buy the free range eggs or the cheaper factory farmed ones and give the money I save to that homeless guy?

I need a Catholic to help me on these problems. Someone who can divine the absolute truth for me.

For moral choices not covered by the Catechism, we are told that conscience should be our guide. That is true not only for Catholics but for everyone. If you have a conscience, apply it to the questions you raise and tell me what answers you get. See if we agree.

If you mean to trivialize this discussion, we are through.

 

[Bradski]

For moral choices not covered by the Catechism, we are told that conscience should be our guide. That is true not only for Catholics but for everyone. If you have a conscience, apply it to the questions you raise and tell me what answers you get. See if we agree.

If you mean to trivialize this discussion, we are through.

These are trivial questions precisely because they will have more than one answer. Any idiot can ask if murder is wrong. We need to examine questions where you say there is an objective answer and see where it may lay.

In this case, you say that we are to use our conscience. But, almost too obvious to point out, everyone’s conscience will give different answers. So we are no closer in determining what the objective truth is.
.
If we do that and you have a different answer, how do we determine who is right? You insist that there is a ‘right answer’. The objective truth! And your best answer is to tell me to have a think about it. And then we can see if my answer is the same as yours. Sheesh…

 

[LogisticsBranch]

I’m thinking about farming dolphins for food.

Bradski, you are inhumane. You are not being kind and compassionate. Furthermore, there are a long list of professional scientists that disagree with your statement!

To the Government of Japan,
We, the undersigned members of the community of marine mammal scientists, veterinarians, and conservation biologists, implore you to put an end to the brutal treatment and slaughter of dolphins (including small toothed whales) in the Japanese drive hunts. Scientific research shows that dolphins are highly intelligent, self-aware and emotional animals with strong family ties and complex social lives. In addition,
repeated recommendations from the international scientific and management communities (for example, the Scientific Committee of the International Whaling Commission) to end this hunt have been ignored, and there are no current population assessments of most
targeted dolphin species in Japanese waters. We urge you to lead the way and take action in stopping the inhumane treatment and killing of these highly sentient mammals.
We strongly believe that the sourcing of animals from these hunts for any purposes, including human consumption, fertilizer and pet food manufacturing, and live public display, is unethical. We believe it is a violation of the code of professional ethics concerning collection from the wild for any zoo, aquarium or public display facility to be
associated with these hunts in any way. This includes the direct sourcing of dolphins from these hunts for education or breeding programs or the indirect exchange of animals with facilities that may be closely associated with a drive hunt.

“Please you cannot ignore any longer the fact that these animals have very large
brains, highly developed societies, social relationships and sophisticated cognitive
abilities.” –Richard Connor, Ph.D.,
University of Massachusetts

NAME AFFILIATION
Diana Reiss, Ph.D. New York Aquarium and Columbia University
Lori Marino, Ph.D. Emory University
Sam Ridgway, D.V.M., Ph.D. Prof. Pathology, School of Medicine,
University of California
Paul J. Boyle, Ph.D. Director of the New York Aquarium
and The Ocean Project
Randall Wells, Ph.D. Chicago Zoological Society
Hal Whitehead, Ph.D. Dalhousie University, Canada
Louis M. Herman, Ph.D. University of Hawaii
Paul Nachtigall, Ph.D. University of Hawaii
Richard Connor. Ph.D. University of Massachusetts, Dartmouth
William F. Perrin, Ph.D. Adjunct Professor, Scripps Institution of
Oceanography
Douglas Wartzok, Ph.D. Executive Vice Provost, Florida International
University
Robin W. Baird, Ph.D. Cascadia Research Collective
Christopher W. Clark, Ph.D. Cornell University
Adam Pack, Ph.D. University of Hawaii
William E. Evans, Ph.D. University of Notre Dame
James Estes, Ph.D. Adjunct Professor, UC Santa Cruz
Laureline Meynier, Ph.D. Massey University, New Zealand
David Bain University of Washington
Sarah Mesnick, Ph.D. Center for Marine Biodiversity and
Conservation
Janet Mann, Ph.D. Georgetown University
Leszek Karczmarski, Ph.D. Texas A&M University
Corrie Allen, Ph.D. Lone Wolf Bioscience
Giovanni Di Guardo. DVM,
Dipl. ECVP
University of Teramo, Italy
Dr. L.P. Verstraten University of Amsterdam
Cornelis Hazevoet Ph.D., Lisbon National Museum of Natural History
Giuseppe Notarbartolo di Sciara Ph.D., Tethys Research Institute, Italy
Dr. Victoria Turner , Appin Scientific Limited
Lei Lani Stelle, Ph.D., Coastal Ecosystems Research Foundation
Heidi Lyn, Ph.D., New York Aquarium, Hunter College
Arthur H. Kopelman, Ph.D., Coastal Research & Education Society of Long
Island
Dr. Ben Maughan, UK Hydrographic Office
Peter Gill, Ph.D., Australocetus Research
Francisco J Alvarez, Unversidad Del Valle
Jenn Tackaberry, University of Miami
Carole Carlson, University of Miami
and 6 more pages of signatures found on the pdf]
wdcs.co.uk/media/submissions_bin/scientiststatement.pdf
wdcs.co.uk/media/submissions_bin/scientiststatement.pdf

I have lived in the Hawaiian Islands for many years and played with the dolphins. They are loving sweet creatures. YOU on the other hand are not a creature I would like to hang around with! Good bye!

 

[Bradski]

It’s not meant to be taken seriously, Logistics.

Work your way down the food chain and tell me when it would be OK to farm sea creatures for food. Some people are saying that there is an Objective Answer to all questions. So there must be one to this one. Search your conscience is the way to do it, apparently. Let me know how you get on.

Incidentally, pigs are one of the smartest animals around. If that were the criteria for deciding if we can eat something, then we shouldn’t eat them. But we farm them. And I’ve eaten kangaroo and horse and dog. Why can’t we farm them? Kangaroos are pretty dumb at the best of times. And ever had suckling pig or veal? Is eating baby animals morally wrong?

I just bought a free range chicken for dinner. Surely better than factory farmed. But if I bought the factory farmed one I could have donated the money saved to the charity shop opposite the supermarket. Is there an Objective Answer as to whether that is the correct thing to do?

And if a dolphin is killed by a boat, can you eat it or do you need to kill something else?

 

[tonyrey]

I need a Catholic to help me on these problems. Someone who can divine the absolute truth for me.

Catholics don’t believe we can divine the absolute truth on every moral issue. Very often it is a question of deciding which is the lesser evil. We’re not expected to be infallible nor to abandon our responsibility but to be humble, open-minded and sincere. We accept the Church’s teaching but in an immensely complex society it cannot possibly cater for every contingency. Ultimately we are the ones who have to decide and we cannot evade the issue by passing the buck to others.

 

[grannymh]

It’s not meant to be taken seriously, Logistics.

And is the challenge in post 77 not meant to be taken seriously?

Obviously, there must be a reason for avoidance. Is there fear of Google? Or is it fear of a hole in the arguments against objective truth? Granted it is a small hole …
Is there fear that some small holes get bigger?

 

[grannymh]

Speaking of challenges…

Here is another one. It, too, can be avoided because it requires some, not all, objective thinking skills. And then there is the scary thought that maybe some possible subjective thinking skills might be interesting.

The challenging idea. The evidence for the objective existence of God is located in human nature.

In order to test this, one has to have a general idea of the kind of god one is looking for. And one has to look at human nature as it is recorded at the dawn of human history.

 

[Bradski]

Catholics don’t believe we can divine the absolute truth on every moral issue. Very often it is a question of deciding which is the lesser evil. We’re not expected to be infallible nor to abandon our responsibility but to be humble, open-minded and sincere. We accept the Church’s teaching but in an immensely complex society it cannot possibly cater for every contingency. Ultimately we are the ones who have to decide and we cannot evade the issue by passing the buck to others.

But you claim that ethical subjectivity doesn’t exist. Then say that in a complex society the church’s teaching cannot cater for every contingency. Therefore ethical objectivity does not exist. It is relative to the contingencies that exist at that time and in that situation.

And is the challenge in post 77 not meant to be taken seriously?

Obviously, there must be a reason for avoidance. Is there fear of Google? Or is it fear of a hole in the arguments against objective truth? Granted it is a small hole …
Is there fear that some small holes get bigger?

I’m equating ethical objectivity with the claim that there is only one answer to any moral problem which is not subject to relativism. That is, the one answer is the objective truth. Yet no-one can tell me how we discern this objective truth.

If we can’t access it and we don’t know what it is and there is no agreement even if someone says they know what it is, are you really keen on insisting that it exists?

 

[Bradski]

The challenging idea. The evidence for the objective existence of God is located in human nature.

In order to test this, one has to have a general idea of the kind of god one is looking for. And one has to look at human nature as it is recorded at the dawn of human history.

I think you may have to take the lead on this, Granny. I’m not sure where it is meant to go.

 

[grannymh]

I’m equating ethical objectivity with the claim that there is only one answer to any moral problem which is not subject to relativism. That is, the one answer is the objective truth. Yet no-one can tell me how we discern this objective truth.

If we can’t access it and we don’t know what it is and there is no agreement even if someone says they know what it is, are you really keen on insisting that it exists?

Good for you.

However, I am looking for a response to my concerns in post 77. Avoidance is not a proper answer since I even gave you Google subjects as an independent source of information. I estimated three minutes for researching. However, your non-answer tells me that I underestimated the time. Perhaps time is a worry for you. Yet, looking at all your posts, you freely spend time on your position. That, my friend, does not automatically get rid of my concerns.

 

[Aloysium]

Moral choices are located within the person’s relationships.
Ultimately, they all involve the relationship we have with God.
It is in our nature to make complex what is simply the imperative to love.
In the tension that arises in our struggle to be good, we ultimately find ourselves turning to God.
In humility we seek His help for it is only through Him that we can be saved.
There is no relativism before Jesus, only whom we have become in through our choices.

:twocents:

 

[Charlemagne_III]

These are trivial questions precisely because they will have more than one answer. Any idiot can ask if murder is wrong. We need to examine questions where you say there is an objective answer and see where it may lay.

In this case, you say that we are to use our conscience. But, almost too obvious to point out, everyone’s conscience will give different answers. So we are no closer in determining what the objective truth is.

Yes we are. Not EVERYONE’S conscience will give a different answer.

Some will give the objectively right moral answer, others will not.

But even if everyone’s answer was different, one answer could still be objectively right and all the others objectively wrong.

That a consensus has not been reached is no argument against objectivity. It is only an argument against the difficulty of persuading a single objective view to prevail. A conscience can malfunction for various reasons: neurosis, poor education, a habit of sinning, a habit of lying to one’s self, etc. Conscience should be our guide in all cases where the teachings of the Church are not plainly visible, as in the case of abortion. But the individual conscience is not infallible, as tonyrey has pointed out, and as the Church has often pointed out when Catholics object to the Church’s teachings on the ground that their conscience tells them to. It is the Church that is infallible, not the conscience that fails to be informed, or refuses to be informed, by the Church’s teachings.

 

[Bradski]

But even if everyone’s answer was different, one answer could still be objectively right and all the others objectively wrong.

You are no closer to telling me how we determine this. If we can’t, then any claims that there is an objective truth ‘out there’ is empty rhetoric.

If that’s the sum total of your argument, then thanks for taking part.

 

[grannymh]

You are no closer to telling me how we determine this. If we can’t, then any claims that there is an objective truth ‘out there’ is empty rhetoric.

If that’s the sum total of your argument, then thanks for taking part.

When you googled (post 77) “Objective Truth Definition” and “Moral Principles Definition” what did you discover?

Post 87 gives both atheists and theists the same challenging idea –
“The evidence for the objective existence of God is located in human nature.” At the bottom of post 87, there is a suggestion for testing this hypothesis. What did your testing reveal?

Do recall that one of the principles of the Scientific (inductive) Method is to observe without prejudice.

If you are going to take part in a scientific type discussion, you have to do your homework. (posts 77 & 87) I learned that from an atheist scientist who had my head on a platter.

 

[Bradski]

When you googled (post 77) “Objective Truth Definition” and “Moral Principles Definition” what did you discover?

Post 87 gives both atheists and theists the same challenging idea –
“The evidence for the objective existence of God is located in human nature.” At the bottom of post 87, there is a suggestion for testing this hypothesis. What did your testing reveal?

Do recall that one of the principles of the Scientific (inductive) Method is to observe without prejudice.

If you are going to take part in a scientific type discussion, you have to do your homework. (posts 77 & 87) I learned that from an atheist scientist who had my head on a platter.

I’m not sure what answer you expect (after my ‘homework’). Do you want me to define Objective truth? It’s the opinion that there is only one answer to each problem. That truth is not relative to anything at all. And the definition of moral principles relates to ones interpretation of right or wrong. Those are the definitions that I have been using throughout – I’m sorry if my posts have not been clear enough for you to determine that. If you have a different definition, then please let me know.

And as to finding God in human nature, I’m afraid I have no idea where to start. I see no evidence for it at all.

 

[edwest2]

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?

Not really. If we had only 100 people on an island and we’ve been there for a thousand years (think of the history of most island peoples), why change anything? If one or two people come up with a really useful idea then maybe, but as far as day to day life? Enjoy it. Live. And if a bad storm comes and some people die, that’s just the way it is. As it is now.

Reality overrules relativism.

Ed

 

[grannymh]

I’m not sure what answer you expect (after my ‘homework’). Do you want me to define Objective truth? It’s the opinion that there is only one answer to each problem. That truth is not relative to anything at all.

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

And the definition of moral principles relates to ones interpretation of right or wrong. Those are the definitions that I have been using throughout – I’m sorry if my posts have not been clear enough for you to determine that. If you have a different definition, then please let me know.

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

And as to finding God in human nature, I’m afraid I have no idea where to start. I see no evidence for it at all.

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?

 

[Charlemagne_III]

You are no closer to telling me how we determine this. If we can’t, then any claims that there is an objective truth ‘out there’ is empty rhetoric.

How we determine this? Explain your demand, please.

How do you DETERMINE that all truth is relative?

 

[Charlemagne_III]

You are no closer to telling me how we determine this. If we can’t, then any claims that there is an objective truth ‘out there’ is empty rhetoric.

What do you mean by “out there.”

Is all truth relative? Relative to what? What you happen to want to think is the truth, or relative to what is actually true.

I can’t believe you think nothing is objectively good or immoral.

Is it right to maliciously torture children in one instance, but wrong to maliciously torture them in another?

Is it only relatively true that the planets rotate about the Sun in our solar system, but in other solar systems the Suns rotate about planets?

Etc.