Objective truth vs subjectivism

[BruceK]

I been having a debate with this other person recently. This topic has more to do with philiosophy than with birth control and contraception. His words are follows:
The morality of murder is objectively knowable, both from the perspective of the observer and the victims. The knowledge of those things that are objectively knowable, like murder, rape, lying, etc., may not depend on immediate direct experience. In the case of ABC(artificial birth control), the question is: On what basis does one judge it to be moral or immoral? My position is that those acts that are in conformance with God’s will are moral and those that conflict with God’s will are immoral. That leaves the discernment of just what is in accord with God’s will w.r.t. conjugal intercourse and what conflicts with it . In conjugal intercourse, couples learn from their direct experience and knowledge of conjugal life the two separate roles God that intended for conjugal intercourse to play in marriage. Married Catholics through their (subjective) direct experience and knowledge of conjugal intercourse properly discerned God’s (objectively knowable) will as to the separate ends of conjugal intercourse.]I replied: And the morality of ABC is not objectionally knowable?
He replies,*The morality of ABC is subjectively known to most married Catholics through their direct experience of the conjugal life, and objectively knowable to those who are honest enough to recognize God’s will as expressed through His creation of humans. Or to put it another way, honest enough to re-read the language of the body, spoken by the Creator through His creation of humans, in truth *
I then reply, <It’s irrational to say that an objective truth can only be known subjectively. It is one or the other. >

He replies: What I have said that narried couples can subjectively know God’s will w.r.t. the purposes of conjugal intercourse through their direct experience and knowledge of conjugal intimacy. Celibate clergy can discern that reality indirectly by learning from the experience and knowledge of married couples, or they can discern that reality directly and objectively from God’s creation of humans. But, in either case, the subjective knowledge discerned by married couples and the objective knowledge based on God’s will expressed through His creation of humans must be and is congruent - the use of ABC can be morally congruent with God’s will constitutive of marriage.
One can know truth and reality subjectively or objectively. For instance, the truths of natural law, according to St. Thomas and Jaques Maritain, are know by individuals subjectively.
**It looks to me he’s using a lot of double-talk, so what exactly are the flaws in his argument? **

 

[Padilla7921]

There are three types of thought: rational (inherent), empirical (experiential), and a hybrid of the two, where rational thoughts are applied to empirical experiences. Rationalists rejected empiricism, empiricists rejected rationalism, and “hybriders” (my term, not theirs) wanted everyone to just get along. Immanuel Kant was a big proponent of the hybrid version. John Locke, the Father of Empiricism, believed in–you’ll never guess–empiricism.

It’s rather fair to say that Kant was correct in his analysis. One can use rational or empirical thought, or both when necessary. All three types are viable ways of thinking, and it is important to understand that either option can be utilized to its fullest potential and assist in the thought/philosophical/scientific process.

Regarding truths, it is important to remember that truth “is what is.” Therefore, to say that a truth is objective is to be redundant. Also, a “subjective truth” isn’t really a truth, but rather, a perception. Perceptions aren’t always truthful (color blindness, for example).

However, this person is dealing primarily with rationalism, empiricism, and Kantianism (I believe that’s the real term for the hybrid version, though I’m not entirely sure, forgive me). He’s right when he says that, using his example, a married couple can personally realize a truth through experience (this is not perception, but empiricism), whereas a priest can realize that same truth via Kantianism or rationalism.

 

[BruceK]

I been having a debate with this other person recently. This topic has more to do with philiosophy than with birth control and contraception. His words are follows:
The morality of murder is objectively knowable, both from the perspective of the observer and the victims. The knowledge of those things that are objectively knowable, like murder, rape, lying, etc., may not depend on immediate direct experience. In the case of ABC(artificial birth control), the question is: On what basis does one judge it to be moral or immoral? My position is that those acts that are in conformance with God’s will are moral and those that conflict with God’s will are immoral. That leaves the discernment of just what is in accord with God’s will w.r.t. conjugal intercourse and what conflicts with it . In conjugal intercourse, couples learn from their direct experience and knowledge of conjugal life the two separate roles God that intended for conjugal intercourse to play in marriage. Married Catholics through their (subjective) direct experience and knowledge of conjugal intercourse properly discerned God’s (objectively knowable) will as to the separate ends of conjugal intercourse.

]I replied: And the morality of ABC is not objectionally knowable?
He replies,*The morality of ABC is subjectively known to most married Catholics through their direct experience of the conjugal life, and objectively knowable to those who are honest enough to recognize God’s will as expressed through His creation of humans. Or to put it another way, honest enough to re-read the language of the body, spoken by the Creator through His creation of humans, in truth *
I then reply, <It’s irrational to say that an objective truth can only be known subjectively. It is one or the other. >

He replies: What I have said that narried couples can subjectively know God’s will w.r.t. the purposes of conjugal intercourse through their direct experience and knowledge of conjugal intimacy. Celibate clergy can discern that reality indirectly by learning from the experience and knowledge of married couples, or they can discern that reality directly and objectively from God’s creation of humans. But, in either case, the subjective knowledge discerned by married couples and the objective knowledge based on God’s will expressed through His creation of humans must be and is congruent - the use of ABC can be morally congruent with God’s will constitutive of marriage.
One can know truth and reality subjectively or objectively. For instance, the truths of natural law, according to St. Thomas and Jaques Maritain, are know by individuals subjectively.
**Can an objective truth be discovered or known subjectively? It looks to me he’s using a lot of double-talk, so what exactly are the possible flaws in his argument? **

 

[BruceK]

There are three types of thought: rational (inherent), empirical (experiential), and a hybrid of the two, where rational thoughts are applied to empirical experiences. Rationalists rejected empiricism, empiricists rejected rationalism, and “hybriders” (my term, not theirs) wanted everyone to just get along. Immanuel Kant was a big proponent of the hybrid version. John Locke, the Father of Empiricism, believed in–you’ll never guess–empiricism.

It’s rather fair to say that Kant was correct in his analysis. One can use rational or empirical thought, or both when necessary. All three types are viable ways of thinking, and it is important to understand that either option can be utilized to its fullest potential and assist in the thought/philosophical/scientific process.

Regarding truths, it is important to remember that truth “is what is.” Therefore, to say that a truth is objective is to be redundant. Also, a “subjective truth” isn’t really a truth, but rather, a perception. Perceptions aren’t always truthful (color blindness, for example).

However, this person is dealing primarily with rationalism, empiricism, and Kantianism (I believe that’s the real term for the hybrid version, though I’m not entirely sure, forgive me). He’s right when he says that, using his example, a married couple can personally realize a truth through experience (this is not perception, but empiricism), whereas a priest can realize that same truth via Kantianism or rationalism.

Ok, so is the ultimate standard of human conduct and morality an objective norm found outside of man and independent of his subjective persuasion? or is it immediate internal judgement and enlightenment of each person for him or herself?

 

[Padilla7921]

Ok, so is the ultimate standard of human conduct and morality an objective norm found outside of man and independent of his subjective persuasion? or is it immediate internal judgement and enlightenment of each person for him or herself?

Human conduct and morality ultimately derive from God Himself. That is, He, the Creator of all things, sets the standard for human conduct and morality. Therefore, moral righteousness is an objective thing, as the standard is universal for the entirety of mankind.

However, realizing the objective truth of morality can happen through different channels (rationalism, empiricism, or Kantianism). So, while the truth is an objective thing, it can be known via experience rather than by contemplation (or, it can happen by contemplating that experience).

True enlightenment (though, honestly, the use of the word “true” here is rather redundant) brings a person to know a universally objective truth. As expected, enlightenment can happen through either one of the aforementioned means of thought.

On the other hand, internal judgment does not always lead to enlightenment or rightness, as internal judgment is completely dependent on the mental, intellectual, emotional, social, and spiritual capabilities of the person judging. In cases of internal judgment, it is possible to not realize an objective truth, as judgment doesn’t always equate to realization. Note that realization is gaining a fundamental understanding of a reality or truth, while judgment is an attempt to determine a thing through mental, intellectual, emotional, social, and spiritual capabilities. Also note that it is entirely possible for a person to use judgment to realize a truth.

 

[tobias]

Since truth implicitly means that it cannot change (objective) it has to be a norm outside of reason or rationale which are by nature subjective. Coming to acknowledge a truth has to be done through reason. Acknowledgement of truth is subjective, knowledge of truth is objective. The inability of an individual to acknowledge a truth does not make that truth subjective