"What's true for me may not be true for you". How is this a fallacy?

[Iron_Donkey]

I’m not sure you understand the difference.

What is your favourite ice cream, Fred?
Vanilla.

That is a relative statement. It is true dependant only on what Fred thinks.

What’s Fred’s favourite ice cream, Bert?
Vanilla.

That is an absolute statement. It is true whatever Bert or anyone else thinks.

What you are saying is that if you phrase the question so that it is addressed to a variable “you” and is asking this variable “you” about their opinion, then it is relative. What I am saying is that that’s fine, but each instance of the asking of such a question, if the “you” is replaced by whoever “you” refers to at that time, is an absolute question. Further, there is an absolute “matrix” of solutions even if you don’t absolutize the question ie:

What is your favorite ice cream?

Addressed to:  Fred        Bob            ...
Answer:        Chocolate   Peanut Butter  ...

So while you can ask relative questions, there’s not much intrinsically relative about them or the data that their answers reveal, and they certainly don’t suggest that each person has his own reality.

But you are suggesting that the only way to find this ‘objective truth’ is to be all knowing and have perfect reason. Maybe you can see where this takes us. But us poor mortals, not being granted the means to reason perfectly and not being omniscient cannot access this ‘objective truth’. In which case, the question of whether it actually does exist becomes moot.

I did not mean to imply that that’s the only way, only that that is the fool proof way. The idea is that we know things that are (to the best of our knowledge) true, and that we reason based on them in ways that are (to the best of our knowledge) correct, and so arrive at results that are (to the best of our knowledge) absolutely true.

It’s entirely possible that we messed up somewhere, but if so, that’s a problem with what we did, not with the truth itself.

Likewise, it’s entirely possible that we didn’t mess up, and most of us believe that we haven’t messed up on each particular thing that we believe (while generally believing that it’s possible that we may have messed up on some few unspecified things).

The fact that people disagree means that if this ephemeral objective truth exists, then we have no way of knowing how to access it. As you explained above.

Not so. We know how to access it, we just don’t always follow the process perfectly.

Morally bound? To what? You have just said that you cannot access it. That you don’t know what it is. Yet you feel quite entitled to say that you should be bound by it. Doesn’t that strike you as being a nonsensical position?

Morally bound to follow a course of action. And what I said is that what we are morally bound to do depends on what we “know”. Objective morality is what we would be bound to if what we know is right, subjective morality is what we are actually bound to.

Example: it is Catholic teaching that (consummated sacramental) marriage is indissoluble. We say this is objectively true. Thus, if someone who knows this attempts a second marriage after a first indissoluble one, they are violating both objective morality and subjective morality

But the Catholic Church recognizes that a lot of people don’t believe this. If a protestant, say (someone who’s marriage was sacramental) attempts a second remarriage, according to Catholicism the second marriage is still invalid since objective truth applies to everyone, and ideally that protestant should not have tried to have a second marriage, but he has no moral guilt for doing so (assuming due diligence and all of that in forming his beliefs).

So, we know HOW to access it - reason and observation - we just also know that occasionally we mess up, and that our well intentioned mess ups done despite due diligence etc (while they may have bad consequences, because doing bad things is bad) may not be moral failings.

Exactly. It’s true for you. No problem there…

And what about this question makes it different from the question of, say, climate change? Is it true for Fred that anthropogenic climate change is happening, and for Bob that it is not? If that’s impossible, then why? Why would morality magically be different?

It’s not Fred that is confused. You have already maintained that he would need to know: ‘absolutely everything there is to know about everything and reasons perfectly’.

Nope, see above.

He’s in exactly the same position as you. The same position as me. He makes decisions relative to his own beliefs and his own circumstances.

Yes, that is the position we are in, but that doesn’t mean that we aren’t right or wrong, or that we can’t correct our beliefs to conform to what is true as we discover (to the best of our ability) what that is. We act according to our beliefs, sure, but our beliefs can be right or wrong.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

True. But neither does universal acceptance imply that an absolute answer exists. And still no-one seems able to tall me how to access it.

If by “it” you mean the comfort zone of the lion, why should we have to tell you how to access it since you are not a lion, nor are we? We simply judge the best way we can what would make the lion comfortable and go with that. Since comfort is a subjective reality, we cannot know objectively what makes others comfortable and what does not. That why we ask our house guests if they would like us to turn up the heat or air conditioning. The same approach can be used by asking ourselves whether the lion seems to behave as if claustrophobic or is relaxed in his surroundings.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

And by the way, whether you consider something to be morally acceptable or not does not change that fact. If you maintain that, for example, that sex outside marriage is objectively wrong, then that is only true for you.

Or for the wife of the adulterer, or for the children of the adulterer if they find out, or for the spouse of the person with whom one is committing adultery when he finds out, or for the children of that party when they find out, or for the children that may be born as a result of that adultery, or for the society that may have to pick up the tab for the children of that adultery, or for the babies that will be aborted as a result of that adultery, etc., etc.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

In order for a person to be morally bound to do what they think they must do, it must be possible for them to be morally bound.

Precisely.

To be morally bound one cannot be a moral relativist.

For this reason, the law prohibits murder as an objectively evil act.

We cannot allow that for some murder is O.K. if they like it, while for the rest it must be verboten.

 

[Bradski]

I did not mean to imply that that’s the only way, only that that is the fool proof way. The idea is that we know things that are (to the best of our knowledge) true, and that we reason based on them in ways that are (to the best of our knowledge) correct, and so arrive at results that are (to the best of our knowledge) absolutely true.

But, good grief, you are describing relative concepts. We make decisions based on our personal knowledge of any given situation. If there is only one foolproof way to know what an objective truth is and we do not have that ability, then neither of us are going to know if anyone has it. It is literally worthless.

We know how to access it, we just don’t always follow the process perfectly.

Well, if by accessing it you need perfect reasoning and omniscience (as you have already said), then we can’t access it at all.

And what about this question makes it different from the question of, say, climate change? Is it true for Fred that anthropogenic climate change is happening, and for Bob that it is not? If that’s impossible, then why?

You are still confusing the two concepts. If Fred thinks that climate change is happening or not, then that is relative. It is relative to his knowledge and his beliefs and quite possibly his politics. Whether it IS actually occurring is an objective fact.

Yes, that is the position we are in, but that doesn’t mean that we aren’t right or wrong, or that we can’t correct our beliefs to conform to what is true as we discover (to the best of our ability) what that is. We act according to our beliefs, sure, but our beliefs can be right or wrong.

If you have no way of getting to a point where you know if you are right or wrong and if you readily admit that your beliefs may be wrong, then it’s game over. Thank you linesmen. Thank you ball boys.

Since comfort is a subjective reality, we cannot know objectively what makes others comfortable and what does not.

You need to talk to Iron Donkey. He thinks we can do it objectively.

Or for the wife of the adulterer, or for the children of the adulterer if they find out, or for the spouse of the person with whom one is committing adultery when he finds out, or for the children of that party when they find out, or for the children that may be born as a result of that adultery, or for the society that may have to pick up the tab for the children of that adultery, or for the babies that will be aborted as a result of that adultery, etc., etc.

Was someone talking about adultery? I must have missed that. Let me check…Ah, I see. I mentioned that sex outside marriage was a relative concept and you thought I was talking about adultery.

 

[cpayne]

" “What’s true for me may not be true for you”. How is this a fallacy?"

Hi, Ben Sinner. Do you mind if I just ignore all the stuff in between and directly address the question?

If this person means “opinion” as “what’s true for me,” then the statement is trivially correct. It just means, “I have an opinion that is different from yours.” Some other people have pointed this out in their answers already.

If the person means, “Something can be true and not-true at the same time,” then the fallacy is that he violates the law of excluded middle. His statement cannot logically be true, ever, under any circumstances.

So his statement is either logically false or philosophically trivial.

 

[cpayne]

Bradski: As we look at the ends or directedness of sex, we see that it promotes bonding between two people (bonding in many different ways: social, psychological, spiritual, emotional, etc.) in such a way that leads to commitment to each other. Biologically, it also leads to babies. Pleasure is a side product of sex, but it is not the point.

So: Bonding and babies. These things help establish families and hold families together. Sex outside of marriage (with no real intention of bonding or of establishing a family) tears apart the bonding and stability necessary for optimal families. It is contrary to the directedness of what sex is actually for. After a while, it is actually confusing to those involved.

If one ignores this and pursues sex basically for its own sake, one is headed toward a lesser life. The self-deception required also causes one to begin thinking inaccurately in all sorts of areas–as evidenced by your other posts in this thread.

But the pull of sex is strong. People will justify all sorts of weird thinking as long as they can continue on in their sex life without submitting it to moral reasoning.

 

[Iron_Donkey]

But, good grief, you are describing relative concepts. We make decisions based on our personal knowledge of any given situation. If there is only one foolproof way to know what an objective truth is and we do not have that ability, then neither of us are going to know if anyone has it. It is literally worthless.

Does the fact that people make arithemtic errors make math worthless? The achievements of science and technology would seem to differ - the fact that we can’t carry out a process flawlessly every time does not mean that the process isn’t valid or has no merit.

And what, precisely, is a relative concept? Again, there are things which are matters of opinion and are subjective (what flavor of ice cream you prefer), yet the fact that each person has his opinion is not relative. I am not disputing that different people have different opinions, merely that this fact implies that each person has his own reality where properly unambiguous questions (no “variable yous” to distract from the fact that tastes and opinions are absolutely associated with the people who have them, clear definitions, etc) have contradictory answers.

Well, if by accessing it you need perfect reasoning and omniscience (as you have already said), then we can’t access it at all.

Again, you don’t have to be perfect all the time about everything to access absolute truth at any given instance, just like you don’t have to be immune to math errors to solve a math problem. You’ll access the truth correctly in a specific instance if the information that you use is true, and if the reasoning you use is valid in that instance (and maybe even if not, if you get lucky).

You are still confusing the two concepts. If Fred thinks that climate change is happening or not, then that is relative. It is relative to his knowledge and his beliefs and quite possibly his politics. Whether it IS actually occurring is an objective fact.

The statement that “Fred believes X” on the subject at a particular time is objective. It is true or false. That statement does not change from true to false depending on who you ask. It contains no variable yous or similar (and if it did, it would be easy to remove them if we were talking about Fred).

The closest thing there is to Fred’s position on climate change being subjectively true “for Fred” is that Fred will base his actions and moral decisions on this position, and what he is subjectively morally bound to do will vary based on this position. But if Fred is wrong, then he will likely make the wrong decisions because they are based on false information.

Just like if Bob is wrong about the objective immorality of sex outside of marriage, even if he manages not to be committing subjectively immoral actions because of his confusion, he will make the wrong decisions and be acting objectively wrongly, because he is basing his actions on false information.

If you want to call a preference “subjective,” or belief “subjectively true,” then I won’t argue so long as we admit that the preference can be stated objectively, and subjectively true things can be objectively true or false, such that the person who believes them is either right or wrong. So that each person is in the same reality with the same actually true statements, but simply has their own preferences and (correct or incorrect) beliefs. They have a subjective view of reality, but not their own reality.

If you have no way of getting to a point where you know if you are right or wrong and if you readily admit that your beliefs may be wrong, then it’s game over. Thank you linesmen. Thank you ball boys.

Because the fact that people make arithmetic errors, and so may get the wrong answer in a math problem, (and that most engineers admit that on the first run through they may have made a mistake) means that it’s impossible to get to the point where you know how much cement to pour in a foundation to keep a skyscraper from falling over, right?

Or perhaps the human capacity for error doesn’t completely destroy the human capacity for getting things right after all. You just double and triple check - you exercise due diligence to make sure you’re not misinformed, and do the best you can, and it’s at least reasonably likely that you’ll arrive at the right answer.

You need to talk to Iron Donkey. He thinks we can do it objectively.

Well yes. We ASK them, and if they are honest, they tell us that it is too hot or too cold for them, and now we know. And if we don’t trust them to be honest, we could use polygraphs and brain electrodes and the like, or vary the temperature of our house while staring at them intently to watch how much they fidget. But they might not come back if we do that.

Which is more or less what Charlemange III said, so I suspect we are just using the word objective in different ways. I have been focused on the …absolutivity? of facts about preferences, so as to emphasize that different preferences don’t imply the existence of different realities as were discussed in the OP. But it is certainly clear that different people have different preferences, which we can’t know without checking somehow. But the fact that we can’t know without checking doesn’t mean that we have some sort of personal reality where they aren’t actually there.

 

[Bradski]

So: Bonding and babies. These things help establish families and hold families together. Sex outside of marriage (with no real intention of bonding or of establishing a family) tears apart the bonding and stability necessary for optimal families. It is contrary to the directedness of what sex is actually for. After a while, it is actually confusing to those involved.

You are making way to many assumptions.

Firstly that sex bonds people together and leads to commitment in all cases. Secondly that sex and babies are only worthwhile if you are married. Third, that sex and babies hold marriages together. Fourth, that pleasure can be a by-product of sex. Fifth, that sex outide marriages tears apart bonding between two people. Sixth, that it leads to confusion. Seventh, that it leads to a lesser life. Eighth, that is a matter of self-deception. Ninth, that it will lead to inaccurate thinking about other matters.

I was hoping to get to ten, but I think you have enough there to justify in any case.

…you exercise due diligence to make sure you’re not misinformed, and do the best you can, and it’s at least reasonably likely that you’ll arrive at the right answer.

Not to keep repeating myself (and I think I’ve said all I can), but your answer will not necessarily be the same as mine. I will claim I am right and you will do likewise. Each to his own.

 

[cpayne]

Hi, Bradski. At least I do have some empirical data on my side, after a few decades of the Sexual Revolution. It has turned out to be one of the most wide-ranging catastrophes in the history of America. It is really difficult even to estimate the toll that “sexual liberty” has had on our family life, on our moral health (we are so crude today), or even indirectly on our financial well-being as families and as a nation. And I’m not even mentioning abortion! (Although I just did.) The ones who push for continued sexual liberty, at this point, are those whose incomes allow them to “ride above it all,” along with those who desire to emulate them.

So it’s not simply “assumptions” on my part. I think it is safe to say at this point that the Sexual Revolution has been an abject failure. I really cannot think of a single good aspect of society that has come out of it.

If I continue on, I might “hijack” this thread into a different topic. So you can have the last point made, if you wish to respond. Best, Craig Payne

 

[Iron_Donkey]

Not to keep repeating myself (and I think I’ve said all I can), but your answer will not necessarily be the same as mine. I will claim I am right and you will do likewise. Each to his own.

Yes of course, at least to the bolded part. And not to keep repeating myself, the fact that I say that I am right and you say that you are right does not mean that we are each right, but rather that at least one of us is wrong (assuming we disagree). Our disagreement does not magically create different realities where your conclusions are right in one and mine in another.

What I say is either true or false, not just “true for me” by the power of my assertion that it is true. Likewise with you.

 

[ChristianDude]

Primarily, “truth” has zero meaning in this statement. It is the exact same thing as saying, “I have my opinion, and you have yours”. Whether our opinions are “right” or “wrong” doesn’t matter. The person either shows he/she does not believe in “truth”, or believes that truth does not matter. So, it’s a pointless and meaningless statement.

OR you can point out that the statement is based in circular logic (by presuming a definition of “truth” which they have yet to demonstrate). Since it’s based in faulty logic, it refutes itself.

OR, you can look at it from a different angel. It’s the exact same thing as saying, “I have the truth, and you have something different than that, but by my authority I grant you the right to believe something other than truth, and I won’t hold it against you.” (A.k.a., I’m right and you’re wrong, but I will allow that.) Again, they beg the question (circular reasoning).

Either way, it’s based in faulty logic and they are “refuted” that way.

This is precisely what I was thinking. As you said, such a mindset treats truth as opinion, when in reality truth is truth; there is only one truth, and everything that is not the truth is false. At least that’s my take on this issue.