I was having a discussion with Cynthia about the Muslim reaction to the cartoon depicting Mohammed in a negative light (see previous post) and she brought up a point that I think would be interesting to tackle.
There are some, and I am not prepared to give any specific percentage of the population but suffice it to say I have heard this philosophy a lot, that EVERYTHING is relative. I will agree that in alot of instances, this is true; relative to Bill Gates, I'm broke, but relative to someone living in poverty, I'm suddenly doing pretty well. This logic can be applied to alot of things; beauty (it IS in the eye of the beholder, right?), intelligence, physical fitness, etc. Notice these things are all comparative, this person is more intelligent than that, or that person is more beautiful than this one. All are very subjective and are determined largely by the experience and beliefs of the person observing. I think Donald Trump is loaded, while Bill Gates could buy and sell him.
When this no longer holds true for me is when you apply this same rule to things that are completely objective and not subject to interpretation. Let me give a basic analogy that I hope will make my point:
My friend and I are standing at the curb when a shiny red Ferrari pulls up. We are both equally impressed, but it just so happens that my friend is color blind, so to him the car is blue. Now, the actual color of the car is red and the truth of this fact is not subject to interpretation. It is objectively true that the Ferrari is red, although, subjectively (to my color blind friend) it is some other color.
I think it is dangerous to apply the philosophy of relativity to everything because suddenly we live in a world where nothing is right, wrong, true, or false, because our own thinking determines which way is correct. I believe that truth is one thing which cannot be left to interpretation.
Do you believe truth is relative?
Can you provide a real life example where this is true?
If it is determined that truth is indeed not relative, what does this say about morality?
Monday, February 06, 2006
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
31 comments:
Hey Bullfrog: This is a good post. I am gathering my thoughts to write a post similar to this. Last weekend we were discussing this very issue. One lady (white) said she thought truth was truth until she started dating a black man. She said what she thought was truth he didn't think it was. She said it was at this point that she realized that truth is relative just like evil is relative. I will post on my blog shortly about what I mean about evil is also relative. You see, even when people disagree, a good discussion can ensue. Nice post...
02 08 06
Bullfrog this is a good post. I think that truth is totally immutable. It cannot be changed. The INTERPRETATION of truth varies. Just as the example that Cynthia mentions with the interracial couple. The White woman had a lack of exposure and changed her mind about somethings once she was with a Black man. But that doesn't mean that truth changed-only her interpretation of it. I tend to think that facts are NEVER relative, only how we choose to see them.
02 08 06
I started thinking about why I don't generally get along with liberals and I think it is because they routinely employ this flawed thinking. Saying that everyone "has a truth" or that truth is relative means that if I believe something to be true, it should be acceptable as the truth. one plus one doesn't equal two if I don't want it to. Nope truth and facts aren't relative at all! And I try NOT to commit the logical fallacy called moral relativism either. I think one thing that all humans agree upon (as a MORAL absolute) is that murder is wrong. Even in cultures where cannibalism is practiced, only one's enemies are eaten. Murder is killing without a justifiable reason. I cannot think of any society where this type of behavior is condoned. Although I freely admit that the justifiable reasons vary due to cultural norms etc. Good post.
Mahndisa,
If truth wasn't relative, why do we need multiple religions representing some type of truth? This is one of the reasons I don't get alone with conservatives, they don't like to hear the truth. As far as me, I'm a socialist. I believe in equal rights for everyone.
I see you don't have a problem with the government lying for its own purpose. What about all the lies the goverment is spreading in the black community. Surely, they must think it is moral to tell us that HIV exists in our community when it doesn't. This is relative truth. I don't see you stop supporting your Republican government for the relative lies it is spreading. Like so many black Republicans, you have a disdain for what is black.
First of all, I am glad you both decided to lend your thoughts to this discussion as I think both sides of this issue will be given equal time, which benefits everyone involved.
@Mahndisa: I am glad you used the word absolute to describe truth and morality. I think that it probably sounds like Liberal or progressive thinking to just leave truth to interpretation in the spirit of being "fair" (we wouldn't want to offend anyone, or suggest that they could be wrong would we?) which would explain the appeal. It also makes debating easy because you accept those things you want to be true and reject the rest as, "Not true for me." Pretty much a practice of continual denial of the absolutes. Instead of being scientific and finding the truth that is there, relativists "feel" their way through life, which I believe is nothing short of dangerous.
@Cyn: I think your use of the word "need" when referring to the hundreds (or thousands?) of world religions doesn't necessarily apply for a couple of reasons:
1. Most of these religions were just invented by some person or group for personal gain, so to say they honestly interpret the truth is probably not factual.
2. Religions are in direct conflict when it comes to the facts so to say they are all just "interpreting" the same events isn't accurate. I'll give a perfect example: Jesus Christ is a different person depending on which religion you ascribe to. Some say He was a wise man, a reincarnation, a prophet, or God Himself, others say He never existed at all. If everyone is saying something different, someone has to be right and someone has to be wrong. This is not something I feel is true, it is just a scientific approach to the facts presented.
It is ironic that most liberals think they are enlightened when their approach to the facts set before them is completely unscientific and based on rationalism and relativism. All of this in the name of "equal rights"and political correctness. The truth I stand on is not the "shaky ground" you describe.
It should also be noted that this "progressive" thinking is nothing new, philosophers have been using this line of thinking for hundreds, if not thousands of years.
mahndisa, I appreciated your contribution so much that I went to link to YOUR blog, which doesn't exist. What's the deal? With your approach to the issues, people can benefit from what you have to say.
02 08 06
Bullfrog: I am sorry about that. I havta change my profile to show my URL again. Thanks for adding me, I appreciate your perspective too. Your last comment sums up damned near everything I feel inside. Here is my blog URL: www.mrigmaiden.blogspot.com
Cynthia: You didn't read what I wrote and are approaching this from an emotionalist perspective. Please think about your training as a scientist now and realize this is a semantics issue. I am talking about cold hard facts; absolute truth that can never be changed. YOU are talking about interpretations of truth, which are always subjective.
Yet, as I said one plus one equals two and that is a fact! And if you know about Grassman space, there is no need to dwell on anticommutation relations or anything. ha hahahahahaha.
Seriously though, why do you say this:"I see you don't have a problem with the government lying for its own purpose. What about all the lies the goverment is spreading in the black community. Surely, they must think it is moral to tell us that HIV exists in our community when it doesn't. This is relative truth. I don't see you stop supporting your Republican government for the relative lies it is spreading. Like so many black Republicans, you have a disdain for what is black."
Cynthia: I am NOT a Republican at all. Cynthia you don't read my blog, even though I read yours from time to time. If you did you would know that I don't need to prove my "Blackness" to anyone, leastaways someone who is too dense to read my posts and is a self identified socialist.
Cynthia: I am a strong believer in Federalist principles. Did you know that even lawyers from the Federalist Society have issues with some of the GWB administration policies? Indeed, there is more alignment with so called liberals in areas of civil liberties than you would think.
Cynthia: You have shown yourself to be shortsighted and ignorant. I am sorry because you seem very interesting. Instead, like most leftists, you have resorted to name calling and belittling me. Hmmm I wonder why leftists always do that when they know they are wrong. Oh well.
Cynthia: It isn't a good idea to insult me and I would suggest that you don't do that. If you are the Black woman that you say you are, then you have shown a disdain towards another Black woman, aired dirty laundry in a GLOBAL medium and showed how misguided you are. Oh well I guess I will pray for you. And I am serious. I will pray that you open up your mind and stop blindly insulting people with whom you disagree. AND I will pray that God allows you to use your scientific thinking in broader areas of your life.
Bullfrog: Sorry for rambling here. I don't like ad hominems:)
Mahndisa: You are guilty of same thing you are accusing me of. If you had read the post, you would have known it was inspired by me. So when you talk about liberals in this instance you are talking about me. I made one statement about Black Republicans that you know in your heart is truth, and I'm called all sorts of name. You were definitely waiting in the wings to say this. I've read your site briefly and knew our views were too different. Out of respect for you, I didn't comment. I hope you have a long and prosperous life.
02 08 06
Rweddo:
Here is where she outright insults me and calls me a race traitor. I got unduly upset at the statement. Pardon me please.
"I see you don't have a problem with the government lying for its own purpose. What about all the lies the goverment is spreading in the black community. Surely, they must think it is moral to tell us that HIV exists in our community when it doesn't. This is relative truth. I don't see you stop supporting your Republican government for the relative lies it is spreading. Like so many black Republicans, you have a disdain for what is black."
Good question Bullfrog, I linked over from Mahndisa's site, and I would like to weigh in.
"Do you believe truth is relative?"
Yes, and no. I think a distinction needs to be made between universal truths, things that exist and are immutable, and contextual truths. You pointed it out above when you mentioned your comparison to Bill Gates. Since there is no hard and fast definition to what it means to be 'broke' or 'rich' then the truth of whether one is 'broke' or 'rich' is purely contextual in nature and defined by the individual or the groups.
But there is also universal truth, which I think can truly only be determined by faith.
Even though Mahndisa says 1 + 1 equals two, it only equals two in the manner in which we know it equals two, and it is not inconceivable that in another dimension that 1 + 1 equals 3.
This means that to truly have an understanding of immutable or universal truth, it has to be derived from a source that has infinite knowledge and therefore has a 360 degree perspective on all existence. IE God.
So the only immutable truths that we can know, are those that God has provided for us to know, and we can only know that through faith, because that is the only way you can know God.
This question is more philosphical than scientific.
"Can you provide a real life example where this is true?"
The nature of existence proves this is true.
"If it is determined that truth is indeed not relative, what does this say about morality?"
Morality outside of objective truth, derived by faith, is driven by those who have the power to create 'moral' systems. That is where relativism comes in in our post modern perception of the world. Since many disagree with deriving morality through means of an objective view of faith, it becomes 'floating' like we would say in economics. What seems 'right' by a consensus amount of individuals, becomes 'moral'.
And outside of an objective view of faith that is actually logical.
....
Remember this, all truth is relative from a human perspective, even so-called scientific truth, as science seeks to evaluate and interpret data, and as new data occurs, they change or create new theories to fit the data, meaning that scientific truth can really never be 'immutable' truth or universal truth, because A) for something to truly be universal, it must encompass the universe, as one deviation from a universal truth, shows it isnt universal, but relative, and B) humans will never have the ability to be omnipotent, omnipresent, and omniscience, all things necessary to absolutely prove that a universal truth is truly universal.
Universal truth only can be derived through faith.
Dell:
That is a very interesting and good analysis. Just to add, as long as people have different faiths, universal truth is impossible. The whole unfortunate incidence with the Muslims is proof of this. In Western societies, you don't kill or riot because someone insults your religion. You may think that person is crazy, but society dictates that we must act within a certain boundary and acting outside of this is wrong or evil. But this same offense in Muslim societies is considered evil and is punishable by death. This is how morality and/or truth are relative, i.e., it depends on the society you are living in. But, I think your analysis clearly said what I was thinking.
I disagree with your one assertion Cynthia, and that is that there is no universal truth.
I believe there is (universal truth), and that this truth is real regardless of differences in faith. I believe that this truth is in the form of Christianity, and faith in Christ.
But with that being said, I understand why others do not feel that way, and hence the debate on relativity.
At the end of the day, no matter what we think, we are all ultimately bound by the law of God, and we are bound on the other by the law of man, which is power and dominion. So in reality, we operate ultimately under universal law (ie truth) as our ultimate destiny, but we operate under the law of man (dominion and power) on the earth, where at the end of the day 'might' does make right as a general rule, even though from a universal rule right is not dependent on might.
LOL say that 5 times.
02 09 06
Dell: I think you are heading down a solipsist path in a way because I am gleaning that nothing can ever be known unless it is done via a faith. I am just trying to truncate what I read into. I am not sure if I agree with that at all, but I do think that there is a God. One object added to another object is two objects period and there are no other ways about it; whether you are in two dimensions or three addition works the same! Whether or not the sun comes up or you wake up are things you know happen or not-TRUTHS and FACTS.
I am still not getting how a so called scientist could not understand that. Truth isn't relative only interpretations of it. And the so called scientist was obviously too dense to get the joke about Grassman space earlier...Oh well.
That is not necessarily true Mahndisa, although it could be considered 'true' enough.
And you are correct, I believe no 'universal' truth can be known outside of faith, but contextual 'truth' can be known through logic and reason whereby one variable is related to another and a conclusion that is repeatable over time can be inferred. As humans we are finite in an infinite universe, meaning we are limited in our understanding in a universe of limitless possibilities.
Who knows what 1 + 1 equals in dimension X unless you are in dimension X. We accept that it does a priori and build systems around it because our experience has told us that it is 'true enough' to expect it not to change, but again, in a universe of infinit possibilities all things become statistically probably over a long enough period of time, unless contained by an equally infinite control.
We start with the assumption that we can assemble data to make theories that are reasonable, and reproducable, based upon another assumption of consistency based upon another theory and so on. Reductionism dictates that ultimately all theories occur from the first fundamental assumption made which had to be based upon faith (not necessarily in a higher being).
But imagine if you will a universe or dimension that operates with different rules of physics and laws. If we are incapable of seeing or comprehending this universe, then how can we 'theorize' as to what its systems are and therefore how can we dogmatically assert that in every dimension of every potential universe 1 +1 is universal across the board?
Therefore 1 + 1 equals two is relative. It is a contextual truth based upon our limited perception of our universe.
That doesn't mean it isn't universally true for all intents and purposes in our lives, but when we remove it from our human constraints of perception it very much is relative.
Contextual truth is relative, meaning something can be true under a certain context, and simultaneously be false under a different context.
Universal truth by definition cannot be relative, as it is universal, and therefore unchangeable.
I submit universal truth, can only be known through faith because we are incapable as humans of being 'universal'.
When it comes to moral relativity we must first define what is 'moral' and then define what is the 'moral' way of promoting 'morality' and restraining 'immorality'.
What makes it wrong to have sex with a ten year old?
What makes it wrong to rape someone?
What makes it wrong to murder?
Etc.
Before can first develop a case against moral relativity, we must first develop a paradigm by which morality can be measured.
Good points all around.
Dell: You hit on what I ultimately wanted to with this post, that we really must look to some authority higher than ourselves to find morality, truth, and peace. With our infinite minds, all we can do is feel around in the dark, hoping to stumble across some semblance of truth. It is pride that keeps us from accepting our inability to concieve of these things. I am no scientist, but I would think it behooves those who are uncovering facts through scientific methods do so with a humble heart. How else can you remain objective?
Just to add some clarity to my previous statement, I am not a religious universalist, I believe there is one God and that we have access to Him through the person of Jesus Christ. The "all roads lead to the same God" philosophy does not fly with me.
I agree Bullfrog
When you talk about universal truth, whose truth are you going to accept? I for one don't think that Jesus represents universal truth and many others believe the same way. It still boils down to the acceptance of someone's idea of universal truth. In this case, Jesus as the ultimate savior - thanks but no thanks this is not my idea of universal truth. Again, truth is relevant. It simply boils down to what the major society dictates and anything that deviates from that norm is evil or wrong.
Mahndisa: Kiss-kiss! LIve long and prosperous...
Universal truth is true objectively, so some (or even a majority) choosing not to believe it makes no matter. What major society dictates has fluctuated alot through the years so to say that is truth makes no sense.
Let me try and give you an example you may be able to appreciate: A girl grows up with an Irish father and a Portuguese mother. It just so happens that they live in a predominantly Irish neighborhood. For her own reasons, she makes a choice not to acknowledge the fact that she is Portuguese. She bonds with her Irish friends and makes more of an effort to understand her Irish heritage. None of these things makes her less Portuguese, it is in her blood. Her denial of the fact that she is of mixed heritage is purely subjective and does not alter the facts.
Your statement, "... this is not my idea of universal truth." is a total contradiction in terms because universal means without exception so you are not allowed to simply exclude yourself from what is true.
bullfrog: I loved the discussion. For the most part, it was really thought provoking.
One final thing: Universal truth means that everyone will have to agree that this is the truth. As long as there are different religions, this lets you know that universal truth does not exist in the capacity that we know. There are certain things that are absolute constants, but I don't think this is what we were talking about. That whole Jesus story can be proven false, therefore, it can never be universal nor truthful.
I really think this is one of those times we will have to agree to disagree. I really loved reading the different views.
Not necessarily Cynthia. Your are making universal acceptance equal to universal truth.
When the majority of people thought that the world was flat and few felt it was round, it didn't make it any less true because not everyone accepted it as round.
Ultimately no matter how many universes, how many dimensions, etc. there will be a universal truth(s) that transcend all of that.
I argue that it ultimately can only be determined by faith, because we are finite men in an infinite universe and therefore we can not know it ultimately but by faith.
But you raise a very valid point, in that even if Jesus is the universal truth, which I believe, we still have to work with those who don't know the universal truth in terms of creating government and policy.
So even if we are talking abstractly about this in theory, we still have to deal with the reality that all people don't have a homogenous view of morality.
That begs the question of what standards SHOULD we have in society?
I reject abortion as murder
Homosexuality as immoral
Racism as wrong
And Pedofilia as evil
If we have no set standard of right and wrong, then how do we make law?
Without a moral standard, there can be no morality. In order to create laws, you must have something to measure by, a plumb line.
The alternative is that we make laws from our own consciences, which are unreliable and subject to change.
Dell & Bullfrog: This is why the dominate society dictates what is right & wrong. And, this is why each society sets its own standards. Whenever you deviate from those standards that someone has set, then you are considered morally wrong. But, I still disagree on a universal standard or truth when it comes to morality. Morality is a human construct to keep people in line.
Now this is getting interesting. Using your line of thinking Cyn, murder is only considered wrong or immoral because we collectively agree that it is wrong. So, theoretically, at some point in the future, we could suddenly decide this is no longer immoral. Since the only thing guiding us is our own conscience, this is plausible. Consider what the mindset was towards things 50 years ago that have now become acceptable. Abortion, homosexuality, sex outside of marriage, single parent child rearing... all of these things which were once considered taboo have now not only become commonplace, but totally acceptable (seemingly, anyway). If morality really is a sliding scale, murder could eventually be considered a reasonable act and not carry any systematic punitive repercussions.
I think it would be interesting to compare our actions concerning morality to that of the animal kingdom.
Do animals murder? Or do they only kill for food or self defense?
I believe the answer is that animals do not murder. Does this mean humans are less moral than animals? If so, how did we get this way?
How does the assertion that we evolved from apes and are basically highly evolved animals ourselves impact this line of thinking? How could a species evolve from only killing for need, to murdering or killing without cause? This would seem like backwards evolution to me. Does this mean we evolved in some ways, but regressed in others? Could an animal species gradually revert to the same things that humanity has?
The questions are endless, but I think you get the jest of what I am saying.
My question as a black man Cyn would pretty much be who has the right to determine social morality period.
Just thinking back on our history, I have serious reservations about that.
Math is not truth. Math is an artificial set of rules, a descriptive tool, a study dealing with shape, logic and arrangement. 1=1. It’s in the rules. 1+1 = 2. It’s in the rules also. Now math, and things described with math often seem like truth because math has proven to be a very accurate way to quantify the physical world. Math deals with facts. Truth, with a capital ‘T’ is different from fact. Truth connotes significance. Fact connotes verification. So far as I know math isn’t useful in dealing with truth. But it deals with facts really well.
Btw, you don’t need an alternate dimension to have 1+1=12. You just need to state it in your postulates and work from there. I’m not sure what good it would do but go to town.
Bullfrog: I see your point. There was a time when it what moral to sacrifice humans, and now that is frowned upon. As you rightly pointed out, things and people have changed. Abortion and homosexuality was once considered immoral and now it is gaining. I do think morality is a sliding scale and it will change.
Dell: That is a good question. I think society needs to set some standards that are fair to all. And sometimes, what's in various religions are not fair to all. I think morality should be shaped by the will of the people and should change based on the times. This is what I think King and other leaders were trying to do, change the morality of this country. And to a certain extent they did. I don't know if this answered your question, because I think it is necessary for society to set laws, my point was that this is why morality is relative. Dell, everything that you said was immoral, I agree. But these are things that society has said are wrong.
Garble: I like your reasoning, in any mathematical equations, as long as the variables are identifiable, it really doesn't matter what the values are.
"Truth" is like "love" , we deal with it on an ad hoc basis. We tend to qualify it such terms as 'absolute truth', 'unmitigated truth' and 'whole truth'.
These terms (and perhaps scores of others) are neccessary to qualify, categorize or classify 'truth'. The nature of 'truth'is both subjective and objective because 'truth' may be influenced by perspective, interpretation and application. This is a case where 'truth' For example, the 'absolute truth' referred to by religiously faithful is not the same 'absolute truth' referred to in mathematics or logic.
What is true today may not be true tomorrow.
This is an unavoidable state of existance indicating that some 'truths' must change while others must remain absolute and also indicating that truth is instrumental to the creation, maintenance and survival of the universe.
Why did I ever get started? Now I;m all messed up.
02 11 06
"Truth, with a capital ‘T’ is different from fact."
Judging from Garble and Ripama's comments, this is a semantic issue. And you can prove that one plus one equals three, but it would be based upon a logical fallacy. Dell dimension isn't the term to use cuz whether you are in one, two , three or n dimensions, one plus one equals two.
Now, multiplication isn't always commutative in certain spaces, such as Grassmann space but no one caught that joke.
Cynthia, That wasn’t my point at all. My point was that people like to use math as the gold standard of truth. Math isn’t useful for TRUTH. You’re wasting your time with math in a moral debate. It’s like trying to use a soldering iron to change the oil in your car. Math is useful for relating quantities with in logical way. Math is a tool of science. (Well, it’s a science in its own right but if it weren’t for the rest of science math would be like philosophy, fun for those that like it but not that practical.) My point about 1+1 = whateveryouwant was that you can make it something else, but as soon as you decide it’s not equal to 2 it stops being useful and starts being a logic puzzle. Saying that 1+1 = 12 in another dimension makes me wonder if you really understand what you’re saying. Either your math education is a lot better than mine or much worse. Either way I don’t get what you’re trying to say. You can say that 1+1=12 but it won’t do anything useful. It won’t describe anything close to real. (Unless you want to start writing the number two the same way you write the number 12 now. Than it works out. We’ll use a square or star or something to represent the idea of 10+1+1.) I like facts, and data. I like it to a known decimal place with a well understood measurement error.
Btw Cynthia, do you really believe killing people was moral just because people thought so? I think abortion is still considered immoral. I don’t know too many people, even on the rapid edge of the pro-choice side that thinks abortion is *good* thing. Yes at times a necessary thing, but not a good thing.
Garble: What is with you? I'm not the one who came up with the argument about math. I never saw the point of it in this debate so when you said something about it, this was the only time I remotely in passing mentioned it. In fact, this argument was brought up to say I’m stupid for being a so-called scientists and not believing 1 + 1 = 2. I never saw how that was relevant to what was being discussed. The only thing I was trying to say was that I liked your reasoning because it appeared you didn't think this was relevant either. Now, if that was a mistake, so be it. I guess to keep down the confusion, I should have said you made some interesting points or maybe I should have ignored what you said...
When did I say I thought killing people was moral? I said society dictates morality and morality changes over time. Look at what is happening in Israel. Many people in this country think Israel has a right to steal the land and if need be kill the Palestinians because this society has deemed Israle to be the righteous ones and the Palestinians to be the evil ones. So in essence, this society has said it is ok for them to be displaced and killed. Is this moral?
FYI- People use math all the time to represent whatever they want as long as the variables ared defined, things will make sense. I didn't respond to this reasoning because it added absolutely no value to the conversation other than to insult me and now you have done the same. Geeze!
Post a Comment