NationStates Jolt Archive

Okay, I was just pondering on what my history teacher told my class in the beginning of the year.

So basically, he believes that there is an objective idea of truth that exists - that is NOT to say an absolute idea of truth (I'm right, ur wrong, etc) one modern religion over others, but rather some concrete idea of truth.

This is in contrast to moral relativism, which says that all truths are relative. The problem I see with relativism is that if it says that all truths are relative, then what makes that statement so absolute?

I have come to the conclusion that although I do not know what this truth is, I believe that an objective (but NOT absolute) truth can exist. But since humans will differ in this interpretation of truth, it is also good to subscribe to what is known as Prudential Toleration - it means that even if you don't agree with somebody's idea of truth (or w/e), you still believe that they can hold that idea all they want.

Okay, I was just pondering on what my history teacher told my class in the beginning of the year.

So basically, he believes that there is an objective idea of truth that exists - that is NOT to say an absolute idea of truth (I'm right, ur wrong, etc) one modern religion over others, but rather some concrete idea of truth.
Are you not confusing truth with moral correctness. That there are objective states of the world, which if described accurately would give rise to absolute truths, can only be questioned by assuming some form of anti-realism regarding the universe. This does not mean though that any moral value is attributable to these descriptions.

This is in contrast to moral relativism, which says that all truths are relative. The problem I see with relativism is that if it says that all truths are relative, then what makes that statement so absolute?
The same confusion between moral values and truth. Truth is not restricted to moral truths.

I have come to the conclusion that although I do not know what this truth is, I believe that an objective (but NOT absolute) truth can exist. But since humans will differ in this interpretation of truth, it is also good to subscribe to what is known as Prudential Toleration - it means that even if you don't agree with somebody's idea of truth (or w/e), you still believe that they can hold that idea all they want.

I agree with the tolerence point about the beliefs of others. However why, and in what way is an objective truth, not an absolute truth? It is not dependent upon the person or belief or culture or perception. It is out there (not in the X files sense OK) in the world, and is the truth of the situation. Not the trruth for me or you, or that bunch of aliens, but the truth full stop. This, surely is absolute, in the sense used in this discussion.

There are certain truths that cannot be disproved (once they have been proved) because they are true. The sky is blue. The earth is round, trees are green, volcanoes erupt from time to time.

Other truths, mainly beliefs or morals cannot be absolute. Even the ones we take for granted like murder is wrong. Well the sociopath will view it as OK if it gets him what he wants, the executioner will say what he does isnt murder and therefor isnt wrong and various religions will say i have god on my side so it's OK to murder this group of infidels.

IMHO

Thing is, there's at least two uber-basic moral paths.

Benefit to society vs. benefit to self.

Beyond that, you have to define what is beneficial and what is detrimental, which is extremely difficult even if you remove all of the religious BS.

Thing is, there's at least two uber-basic moral paths.

Benefit to society vs. benefit to self.

Beyond that, you have to define what is beneficial and what is detrimental, which is extremely difficult even if you remove all of the religious BS.

There are rather more than just these two. The ones you give are based on utility, if I understand the basic meaning of benefit.
There are also duty based systems, such as that of Kant, or pleasure based systems, such as ethical egoism. Then there are complex systems of morality which mix and match features from these lines.

I still wish to know why truth is being linked to morality though?

There are certain truths that cannot be disproved (once they have been proved) because they are true. The sky is blue. The earth is round, trees are green, volcanoes erupt from time to time.

Sorry.. but I couldn't resist.. :p

The sky is not blue. It is in fact a lot of colours across the visible spectrum, but the violet end of the spectrum is scattered much more than the red side. This means violet is the dominating colour of the sky. However, our eyes are much more sensitive to blue than to violet, so we perceive it as blue.

The earth is not round. It is roughly spherical, but because it rotates it is a bit "squished" (imagine a soft ball and push at opposite sides). It is IOW not a perfect sphere.

Trees have different colours. Trunks are often brownish, green gray - while the colour of the leaves or needles varies per season.

Dead volcanoes finally don't erupt from time to time anymore - though for life ones your statement is quite corect ;)

I still wish to know why truth is being linked to morality though?

Me too because morality seems to be more about politics, paranoia, folklore and egocentrism as opposed to rational objectivity. I'd be happy to see the word thrown onto the dungheap for being the hokey, misused and abused concept it has been always.

Me too because morality seems to be more about politics, paranoia, folklore and egocentrism as opposed to rational objectivity. I'd be happy to see the word thrown onto the dungheap for being the hokey, misused and abused concept it has been always.

Slow down a minute there.
Just because an idea gets hijacked and misused by some politicians or religious nuts does not mean that there is nothing useful in the idea.

Morality is to do with the values that you, as a person, or your culture, as a whole, hold. These are judgements as to what is god and what is bad, what should be done and what should not be done. They underlie all legal systems, all possibilities of society functioning. What they do not do, which is why I am concerned about this propositon, is say what is and what is not. Moral values are about right and wrong, not about true and false.

Take any action allow'd to be viscious. Willful murder, for instance. Examine it in all lights, and see if you can find that matter of fact, or real existence, which you call vice. In which-ever way you take it, you find only certain passions, motives, volitions and thoughts. There is no matter of fact in the case

This is a argument against what is called the naturalistic fallacy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalistic_fallacy) which appeares to be an error that Super-power has made in the original post.

Actually, objective spiritual truth does necessarilary produce objective moral truth. If there is an abosulte purpose to existance then anyhting that interfere's with that purpose must be bad.

I tend to base my morality on personal feelings. I just don't like to see people suffer.

Actually, objective spiritual truth does necessarilary produce objective moral truth. If there is an abosulte purpose to existance then anyhting that interfere's with that purpose must be bad.

That objective values exist if there is a purpose to the universe, is not in dispute. That objective values exist when such purpose does not exist is the question.
Presuming an objective spiritual truth does presume objective morality. I, however do not accept the antecedent part of this conditional so the consequence is undefined.