Why does someone have to be right?

[JohnGerard]

That’s a question that I’m not sure how to respond to when talking with a couple of my friends who are relativists.

“What’s true for you doesn’t have to be true for me” is the line of thinking they take, and then when I ask them if they think that that statement is true or not, they say “I don’t know. But why does it matter…why does someone have to be right?”

I’m not sure how to respond.

Just looking for other people’s thoughts.

Thanks.

 

[truthquester]

Good question. I equate it to live and let live, I understand things in my own way, different from you but not necessarily wrong because that’s the way I am meant to understand them. We don’t have to have matching thoughts, just mutual respect and consideration.

 

[Graceful_Lamb]

I don’t think anyone necessarily needs to be “right.” People can disagree/argue/discuss something and both still be right. People are entitled to their feelings and opinions. No one’s opinion (intellectually speaking) or feelings is wrong. Everyone is going to have different feelings and opinions about a variety of subjects.

Morality is on the right side of things, and immorality is on the wrong side of things. People who may be immoral are still entitled to their opinions and feelings.

 

[caitlinm]

Hmmm…that’s a pretty sticky situation. My brain hurts just trying to come up with an answer. I mean, you two can’t both be right so it would seem to follow that one of you has to actually be correct.I mean, if we all agree that the sky is blue but my color blind friend sees it as more of a gray, does that mean that the sky is only blue for some people and not others or is it still blue regardless of how we see it? I would say that it is a basic truth that the sky at daytime is blue, more or less, whether you personally see it as blue or not. That is a very, very amateur response that might not even be true, I’m just throwing one possible idea out there. Now all you philosophy majors can feel free to tear this answer to shreds

 

[dshix]

That’s a question that I’m not sure how to respond to when talking with a couple of my friends who are relativists.

“What’s true for you doesn’t have to be true for me” is the line of thinking they take, and then when I ask them if they think that that statement is true or not, they say “I don’t know. But why does it matter…why does someone have to be right?”

I’m not sure how to respond.

Just looking for other people’s thoughts.

Thanks.

It’s not about “someone” being right; it’s about the existence of truth itself.

You need to argue that it matters whether or not there is such a thing as objective truth, not that it matters that one person is right.

And it’s very, very easy to prove that objective truth exists. I suggest you browse the catholic.com materials on relativism.

 

[Randy_Carson]

That’s a question that I’m not sure how to respond to when talking with a couple of my friends who are relativists.

“What’s true for you doesn’t have to be true for me” is the line of thinking they take, and then when I ask them if they think that that statement is true or not, they say “I don’t know. But why does it matter…why does someone have to be right?”

I’m not sure how to respond.

Just looking for other people’s thoughts.

Thanks.

Hitler: I have a solution to the “Jewish problem”…we’ll just round them all up and gas them.

Bystander: Gee, murdering six million people seems like a bad idea…

Hitler: What’s true for you doesn’t have to be true for me.

 

[Exiled_Child]

That’s a question that I’m not sure how to respond to when talking with a couple of my friends who are relativists.

“What’s true for you doesn’t have to be true for me” is the line of thinking they take, and then when I ask them if they think that that statement is true or not, they say “I don’t know. But why does it matter…why does someone have to be right?”

I’m not sure how to respond.

Just looking for other people’s thoughts.

Thanks.

Because people have a fear of losing face.

 

[liturgy96]

Hmmm…that’s a pretty sticky situation. My brain hurts just trying to come up with an answer. I mean, you two can’t both be right so it would seem to follow that one of you has to actually be correct.I mean, if we all agree that the sky is blue but my color blind friend sees it as more of a gray, does that mean that the sky is only blue for some people and not others or is it still blue regardless of how we see it? I would say that it is a basic truth that the sky at daytime is blue, more or less, whether you personally see it as blue or not. That is a very, very amateur response that might not even be true, I’m just throwing one possible idea out there. Now all you philosophy majors can feel free to tear this answer to shreds

Not a philosophy major, but there are objective truths such as “The earth is round” that will always be true regardless of our feelings. These links may be useful (especially the last one):
catholic.com/blog/trent-horn/truth-and-ice-cream
catholic.com/quickquestions/what-is-truth
catholic.com/blog/matt-fradd/five-dumb-things-folks-say-about-truth

 

[JohnGerard]

I don’t think anyone necessarily needs to be “right.” People can disagree/argue/discuss something and both still be right. People are entitled to their feelings and opinions. No one’s opinion (intellectually speaking) or feelings is wrong. Everyone is going to have different feelings and opinions about a variety of subjects.

Morality is on the right side of things, and immorality is on the wrong side of things. People who may be immoral are still entitled to their opinions and feelings.

I agree that people are always entitled to their feelings and opinions, absolutely…and feelings can’t be right or wrong…they are just feelings.And people can disagree and both be right for some stuff, I think, like “What’s the best flavor of ice cream?” or “Whose the all-time best NBA basketball player.” Those are subjective cases.

But sometimes when people disagree…they can’t both be right (speaking the truth).

I’m thinking of things like:

Does God exist?
Was Jesus God?
Did Jesus really rise from the grave?
Is there really Heaven and Hell in the afterlife?

If people disagree on those things, it seems like they cannot both be right. I mean objectively right, not just how they feel about it.

I guess I don’t know what to say if one person believes Jesus rose from the dead, the other person doesn’t believe that, and then someone says “Why does it matter whose right? Why does it matter if someone is right or not?”

 

[JohnGerard]

Not a philosophy major, but there are objective truths such as “The earth is round” that will always be true regardless of our feelings. These links may be useful (especially the last one):
catholic.com/blog/trent-horn/truth-and-ice-cream
catholic.com/quickquestions/what-is-truth
catholic.com/blog/matt-fradd/five-dumb-things-folks-say-about-truth

Thanks for the links, liturgy96…those were really helpful. This one line from Trent Horn’s article:

“I respect your right to have beliefs that differ from my own, but shouldn’t we make sure our beliefs about the world are accurate?"

I think the person I am thinking of would respond, “Why? Why does it matter?”

Maybe this is just a “shake the dust from the feet” situation.

 

[eazyduzit]

Being “right” may not be popular these days but truth has its uses. Jesus said “the truth will make you free”, so a lie will hold you in bondage. Lies are the devils main weapon to increase his kingdom.

 

[eazyduzit]

Pontius Pilate asked, “What is truth?” He was thinking, I have my truth and you have yours.

 

[ChibiViolet]

I don’t think anyone necessarily needs to be “right.” People can disagree/argue/discuss something and both still be right. People are entitled to their feelings and opinions. **No one’s opinion (intellectually speaking) or feelings is wrong. Everyone is going to have different feelings and opinions about a variety of subjects.

Morality is on the right side of things, and immorality is on the wrong side of things. People who may be immoral are still entitled to their opinions and feelings.**

So, if one were morally wrong on a subject, they could still be intellectually right?

 

[johnnyc176]

That’s a question that I’m not sure how to respond to when talking with a couple of my friends who are relativists.

“What’s true for you doesn’t have to be true for me” is the line of thinking they take, and then when I ask them if they think that that statement is true or not, they say “I don’t know. But why does it matter…why does someone have to be right?”

I’m not sure how to respond.

Just looking for other people’s thoughts.

Thanks.

Ask them if it matters if a wrong is committed.

 

[JohnGerard]

Ask them if it matters if a wrong is committed.

Thanks johnnyc176.

That’s a good idea.

 

[icamhif]

That’s a question that I’m not sure how to respond to when talking with a couple of my friends who are relativists.

“What’s true for you doesn’t have to be true for me” is the line of thinking they take, and then when I ask them if they think that that statement is true or not, they say “I don’t know. But why does it matter…why does someone have to be right?”

I’m not sure how to respond.

Just looking for other people’s thoughts.

Thanks.

By saying, “What’s true for you doesn’t have to be true for me,” your friend is unwittingly making a statement about what is true for everyone (that is, that truth is relative to the individual). Thus, the statement is self-refuting.

 

[Joy2day]

Pontius Pilate asked, “What is truth?” He was thinking, I have my truth and you have yours.

Maybe he lived in a world full of lies & the ‘truth’ was a lost & forgotten concept. Maybe thats why he washed his hands of the Jews & their crucifixion, cause he was a man worn down by society’s corruption, & had no energy left to fight.

 

[edwest2]

That’s a question that I’m not sure how to respond to when talking with a couple of my friends who are relativists.

“What’s true for you doesn’t have to be true for me” is the line of thinking they take, and then when I ask them if they think that that statement is true or not, they say “I don’t know. But why does it matter…why does someone have to be right?”

I’m not sure how to respond.

Just looking for other people’s thoughts.

Thanks.

Pope Benedict:

"We are moving toward a dictatorship of relativism which does not recognize anything as for certain and which has as its highest goal one’s own ego and one’s own desires. The church must defend itself against threats such as “radical individualism” and “vague religious mysticism”. [emphasis added]

Commentary from the Practical Catholic:

“Pope Benedict does not play language games, he is unconcerned with the postmodernist’s corner on untruth. Neither should we be. Notice how he calls relativism a “dictatorship” instead of agreeing that no values and no Truth are the way forward for society. What many fail to recognize is that imposing nihilism and arbitrary tribalism is a form of dictatorship. Where untruth or half truth is the common order, there can only be oppression. Political correctness has asked us to abandon our value-laden language and to pick up a new language proper to the secular forum. However, this secular newspeak is value-laden against the traditional claims of the Western world and as such, is a poison rather than a new order. We can and should bring our own conviction laden language to the table, if we’re going to have any sort of real dialogue at all. Misinformation and restrained convictions are not the proper building blocks for a democracy.”

Or to quote the Hippies: “Do your own thing, man. Now your thing might not be my thing and my thing might not be your thing, but whatever your thing is, it’s cool.”

That is radical individualism which only leads to social fragmentation or tribalism. It’s a regression from a cohesive, healthy society with shared values.

Ed