Absolute truth

[James T]

Thanks James,

Actually, I have to apologize for what I wrote, I had misinterpreted "for all people" being in each person's opinion, rather than "applying to each, every and any person."

Please forgive me.

Absolutely, although you've no need to really. The transgressions here are usually much greater .

 

[SorensScapegoat]

Thanks James,

But I figure it's good practice. Then again, perhaps I am going to propose a heretical notion. Yes I believe I am. Is it possible that something could be absolutely morally correct for one person and not another? I mean relative moral correctness seems to make these distinctions all the time. It is morally correct for me to have sexual relations with my spouse but it is not morally correct for anyone else to have sexual relations with my spouse.

I guess, could it be that there is something that is absolutely good, but never the less does not apply to all each, every and any person?

--S

 

[Chrysalis Kat]

For what it's worth, I don't doubt there exists 'absolute truth' however I think that all we can ever know about it would be subjective so therefore the only knowledge we can 'posses' about absolute truth is by necessity, subjective truth.

 

[James T]

SorensScapegoat, I think the trick is to try to state the moral in a way that makes it possible to consider applying it equally to all people, assuming you want to come up with a notional absolute moral. Lets try with your example: -

It is morally wrong to have sexual relations with the wife of another man.​

There is an immediate problem, stating it this way places the blame on the person who is not necessarily aware that the woman is married. So let's restate: -

It is morally wrong for a married woman to have sexual relations outside of the marriage​

Still a problem , I think some would apply that requirement to the man as well. So let's try again: -

It is morally wrong for married people to have sexual relations outside of the marriage.​

That sort of seems OK, except ... how do we know that this is an absolute moral by which we have to abide? Who decides? And in cases where it causes no harm, why does it matter? If some parties break this moral, who enforces it?

 

[Scholar in training]

There is no absolute truth.

This argument is fallicious. If there is no absolute truth, then morality cannot be relative because if morality is always relative, then relativity becomes an absolute truth.

 

[SorensScapegoat]

Yea.

By the by, James I hate to think that I'm causing you to get angrier and angrier as the icons on your posts suggests. Seriously, I'll quit rather than tick you off, but I am interested.

I get what you're saying, it's kind of the purely rational being, blind chooser thing. To be honest, I get all squirrelly talking about absolutes, because like Archimedian points they have little relation to life as it is lived for the reasons you and Kat mentioned.

I suppose, to be clear, must all persons be of equal moral worth? I mean that's my own personal belief, but I couldn't necessarily justify it. Even Kant, I think would have some trouble; I mean he'd probably still have the categorical imperative about not using other persons as means to ends, but recognizing that humans are not purely rational beings, and are different, and so forth, shouldn't that point to the possibility of a difference in moral worth, or rather would Kant posit that human life, at least (perhaps only for the possibility of its occasional resemblance to rational life) is, if not of exactly equal worth, necessarily of a categorically greater moral worth than any temporal end?

--S

 

[James T]

SorensScapegoat, the post icon was at least partially because I thought it looked fun.

Absolutes are certainly a hassle to work with. On the one hand I think there are somethings that are. Yet I deny our ability to ever know them.

That all people are equal is definitely false. That the law treats people as equal is also demonstrably (in a statistical sense) false. That people get equal access to opportunities, also false. That we should act to make it equal, I would say is also false. To a very real extent people are the architects of their own solutions, forcing our solutions on equality onto them may make us feel magnanimous but at the cost of degrading a person's or people's own efforts.

I'm inclined to disagree with Kant and the universal rule. The difficulty is that so much that has happened in bringing society about is the result of individuals taking actions that would have been disastrous for the entire population to take. Take some leaders, agressive, egotistical and very very effective (at least some are) in creating a stable society that allows wealth to grow. Certainly to their own benefit but for some of the wiser ones the benefit is shared. What if everyone was like that? What if nobody was like that? Neither are good options.

 

[SorensScapegoat]

James,

I think I get your point. It does tend to run in circles, striving to Archimedean Objectivity to avoid prejudice ultimatley leads to conclusion that have little relation to life as lived. I suppose that's why I spent so much time with the Existentialists.

It's all arbitrary, ultimately rather meaningless, so pick yourself up, dust yourself off and create some mythology for yourself that allows you to withstand your awareness of the Benign Indifference of the Universe.

 

[jesusfreak3786]

According to the english language the is spelled like this......the ta da, now thats the truth!

God is truth.

 

[James T]

James,

I think I get your point. It does tend to run in circles, striving to Archimedean Objectivity to avoid prejudice ultimatley leads to conclusion that have little relation to life as lived. I suppose that's why I spent so much time with the Existentialists.

I guess I am still there .

 

[JustJack!]

Now saying Mary i coping CD's.
this can be right (if their her own CD's, and she will use them for personal use), or wrong (if their illeagaly down loaded.)

I would disagree with you that ripping cds of illegally downloaded music would be wrong. By what standard do you use to prove me wrong?

Actually, most philosopher's disagree with you. In fact, absolute truth is generally considered to be rather separate and apart from the common opinion. Absolute truth, is more frequently defined as a statement of being that admits of no exception, qualification or contingency.

Or more usefully, an absolute truth would be a statement to which nothing could be added that would render it more accurate, and from which nothing could be removed without lessening its accuracy.

Exactly.

2 + 2 + 4 = absolute truth.

Billy stealling a pencil is wrong = subjective, relative, human morality.

 

[JBrian]

There is no absolute truth.

Is this an absolute truth? If not, then it does not rule out absolute truth. If it is, then it is self-defeating.

 

[4christ88]

There is absolute truth. cos if there isn't this world would come to bonkers

i agree that sometimes when it comes to a few moral issues, it is reeaally hard to know what's right and wrong for me esp when it is not clearly referred to in the Bible. but that's just because it is left to our imperfect human reasoning and people's selfish reasons and biases

 

[RoboMastodon]

This argument is fallicious. If there is no absolute truth, then morality cannot be relative because if morality is always relative, then relativity becomes an absolute truth.

Is this an absolute truth? If not, then it does not rule out absolute truth. If it is, then it is self-defeating.

Great job on reading comprehension, this has already been addressed:

There are also things called provisional truths and I can say with provisional certainty that there are no absolute truths.

[2 + 2 = 4 is an absolute truth.]

2 + 2 = 5 disproof by counterexample. Just because analytical statements are true by definition, does not mean the definition is absolute. I can just as easily define 2+2 = 5 and just ignore the axioms of set theory.

 

[Scholar in training]

Great job on reading comprehension, this has already been addressed:

Insults aside, suffice it to say that I did not read the second page, and Phred stated his position as factual, not provisional.

There are also things called provisional truths and I can say with provisional certainty that there are no absolute truths.

Yet you yourself have not personally offered an opinion as to why absolute truth does not exist.

 

[RoboMastodon]

Insults aside, suffice it to say that I did not read the second page, and Phred stated his position as factual, not provisional.

Provisions are facts.

Yet you yourself have not personally offered an opinion as to why absolute truth does not exist.

It's been covered:

Absolute truth means that at all times, in all possible situations, to all people this thing is true. If you try and define away all possible interpretations but one, you will still have as many opinions about it as you have people who can understand it.

There is no absolute truth.

To add to that, there is no way of knowing that your senses are correct, or that your thoughts are not, for example, being corrupted by a Cartesian Demon, or that you are considering all posibilities. There is always a chance that you are wrong. Henceforth, come provisions: "as far as I or anyone can tell, X is true." X is a provisional truth. Science for example, deals with provisional truths. Mathematics or logic, deal with "absolute" truths, in the sense that they are absolute given their definitions. However, one can define anything to be anything they'd like so they are not really absolute.

 

[James T]

There is no absolute truth.

Is this an absolute truth? If not, then it does not rule out absolute truth. If it is, then it is self-defeating.

This is correct. The original statement denies the possibility of an absolute truth and in doing so undermines itself.

It's unreasonable to deny that absolute truths might exist. After all we might know one by accident.

So I prefer to state it as: -

There is no truth we know to be absolute.​

 

[JustJack!]

2 + 2 = 5 disproof by counterexample. Just because analytical statements are true by definition, does not mean the definition is absolute. I can just as easily define 2+2 = 5 and just ignore the axioms of set theory.

Ok. That doesn't change the fact that in the real world, 2 + 2 = 4.

 

[kedaman]

There is no absolute truth.

therefore your statement is false..