• You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community, you will have access to additional post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), view blogs, respond to polls, upload content, and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free, so please join our community today! Just click here to register. You should turn your Ad Blocker off for this site or certain features may not work properly. If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us by clicking here.

What's your take on absolute truth?

Recoleta

No me digas, che!
Joined
Aug 8, 2007
Messages
600
MBTI Type
ISXJ
I don't think this topic has been discussed here yet, but if it has, sorry...please disregard.

This is something I have been thinking about a lot lately, and in the end I have come to the conclusion that there is a need for absolute truth, because if absolute truth does not exist, then what standard do we live by?

Sure, I could say that "I live by my own standards and morals," but that is really just saying, "Hey, I can do whatever I want because it's right for me." There is absolutely no accountability or standardization of right and wrong....it's all relative. So basically, following with that line of thought, everything should be permissable given certain circumstances.

Yet, I find it amazing that once "our own standards and morals" are violated by someone else we are the first to appeal to a higher authority by saying, "Hey, that's not fair/right." For example, you've been waiting patiently in the post office line for the last 10 mintues, you are the next one to be helped when all of a sudden some guy just breezes in to the post office and totally cuts you (and everyone behind you) off. Chances are, you or someone else is gonna tell that person to get in the back and wait their turn. But what if he responds, "Well, I'm late for work, and getting to work on time is more important than waiting in line so I'm sure you all won't mind if I just go next." Well, this guy has no problem cutting in line, because he puts his own needs/wants in front of everyone else's. If what is right and wrong is truly relative then you really have no authority to tell the man to get to the back of the line, right?

To me, relative truth seems like a catch 22. What do you think? I'd like to hear your thoughts.
 

Metamorphosis

New member
Joined
May 9, 2007
Messages
3,474
MBTI Type
INTJ
I don't think that there is an absolute right and wrong. We do what we want and society (or other people) create consequences. The things we view as morally "right" are typically the things that benefit society as a whole, rather than just the individual.
 

Recoleta

No me digas, che!
Joined
Aug 8, 2007
Messages
600
MBTI Type
ISXJ
So it's society (or other people) that says it's wrong for a husband to beat his wife into submission? If society said it's perfectly ok for husbands to be abusive towards their wives, then it's ok?

I just can't believe that life is a free-for-all where we do what we want and only come up against consequences because of what society deems acceptable. Even if it was just me and one other person in existence (as in, no society, therefore no consequences or accountability) and I started beating the other person to death just because I felt like it that still does not make it acceptable.
 

disregard

mrs
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
7,826
MBTI Type
INFP
There are absolute truths and absolute morality in some circumstances, but not all. One must be able to recognize a situation in which the latter is true.
 

sassafrassquatch

New member
Joined
Jul 20, 2007
Messages
961
What would be the source of this absolute truth/morality? God? Even if one does exist why should I care what it says? Is it that something “just is” right or wrong? How is that?

I don’t have a problem with relative or subjective morality. No one wants to be killed, raped, beaten, robbed, etc, so we punish murder, rape, assault, theft, etc. Society says it’s wrong for husbands to beat their wives because no one wants to be beaten.

At least in this part of the world, go to some Islamic hell hole and it’s another story. Islam’s absolute morality says it’s ok to beat women. Both Islam’s and Christianity’s god given morality command some horrible things and prohibit others which are perfectly healthy and harmless. No one has ever ran into a police station crying for help because someone else drank alcohol, smoked weed, had unmarried or non hetero sex, or committed any other victimless crime. So any kind of divinely revealed morality is right out.

I don’t see how you could institute a system of absolute morality. There’s no authority to command it. Things should be wrong because they are demonstrably harmful to others.
 

Metamorphosis

New member
Joined
May 9, 2007
Messages
3,474
MBTI Type
INTJ
So it's society (or other people) that says it's wrong for a husband to beat his wife into submission? If society said it's perfectly ok for husbands to be abusive towards their wives, then it's ok?

It has been in many cultures for centures. Do I think it's good? No, but that doesn't mean that there is a mystic rule that declares it to be so.

I just can't believe that life is a free-for-all where we do what we want and only come up against consequences because of what society deems acceptable. Even if it was just me and one other person in existence (as in, no society, therefore no consequences or accountability) and I started beating the other person to death just because I felt like it that still does not make it acceptable.

In your opinion. Then again, you were brought up in this society, as was I. What makes it unacceptable? Is a human life worth more than an animal life or a plant life? If so, why?

edit to add: It's not ok for us to kill, but it's ok for the government to kill. Does the absolute truth make it so?
 

Wandering

Highly Hollow
Joined
Dec 24, 2007
Messages
873
MBTI Type
INFJ
I believe in an absolute morality. But I also believe we cannot fully fathom/understand it. We can only do our best to try to approximate it. So depending on our angle of study, absolute morality will be like the fabled elephant: it will look like a tree, or a snake, or whatever.

Even relative morality is an approximation of the absolute morality, IMO: it's grasping at the truth that absolute morality is not linearly aligned with our human mind and world. Absolute morality *does* lead to different moral codes depending on the human circumstances one lives in.

That's my take on it.
 

Kiddo

Furry Critter with Claws
Joined
Sep 25, 2007
Messages
2,790
MBTI Type
OMNi
This is something I have been thinking about a lot lately, and in the end I have come to the conclusion that there is a need for absolute truth, because if absolute truth does not exist, then what standard do we live by?

That is actually a logical fallacy called an "appeal to the consequences of a belief." An example would be:

"God must exist! If God did not exist, then all basis for morality would be lost and the world would be a horrible place!"

Sure, I could say that "I live by my own standards and morals," but that is really just saying, "Hey, I can do whatever I want because it's right for me." There is absolutely no accountability or standardization of right and wrong....it's all relative. So basically, following with that line of thought, everything should be permissable given certain circumstances.

If you are arguing against moral relativism, then it's determined the position that moral or ethical propositions do not reflect objective and/or universal moral truths, but instead make claims relative to social, cultural, historical or personal circumstances. That's actually how it is. The "absolute" truths you are arguing for are only defined by human beings. They are defined in books written by humans, such as the Bible, or political philosophies written by humans, such as the Constitution, or in sciences defined by human measurement scales, such as physics. They are ultimately defined by the perceptions of human beings, and subject to the changing of those perceptions.
Yet, I find it amazing that once "our own standards and morals" are violated by someone else we are the first to appeal to a higher authority by saying, "Hey, that's not fair/right." For example, you've been waiting patiently in the post office line for the last 10 mintues, you are the next one to be helped when all of a sudden some guy just breezes in to the post office and totally cuts you (and everyone behind you) off. Chances are, you or someone else is gonna tell that person to get in the back and wait their turn. But what if he responds, "Well, I'm late for work, and getting to work on time is more important than waiting in line so I'm sure you all won't mind if I just go next." Well, this guy has no problem cutting in line, because he puts his own needs/wants in front of everyone else's. If what is right and wrong is truly relative then you really have no authority to tell the man to get to the back of the line, right?

Culturally defined morals and ethics usually supersede personally defined ones. Thats just the reality of majority rules.

To me, relative truth seems like a catch 22. What do you think? I'd like to hear your thoughts.

Not at all, I would say absolute truth only exists in the human mind.
 

Metamorphosis

New member
Joined
May 9, 2007
Messages
3,474
MBTI Type
INTJ
I would like to break it down to the essentials (imo).

It is all about survival. Strength is in numbers. We don't want to kill our neighbors because that eliminates our collective strength...just like we don't steal from them or rape them. The weak pay to the strong, and acquire discipline in the form of morals, in exchange for protection. That's all that government really is. The strong make the rules and we follow them or we lose the strength of the nation/culture.
 

redacted

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 28, 2007
Messages
4,223
there is no absolute truth.

what you can do, though, is define a frame and draw true conclusions inside of the frame. for example, in the physics frame, F=ma. so you can observe an event (from a physics perspective), get the force and mass, and extrapolate acceleration. but you can't do that same thing in any random frame.

ethics is a much harder task, though, since each person has their own frame with their own principles, and we can't automatically see where they overlap. so one thing can be "justified" for one person and "evil" for another.

it's all about your set of assumptions.
 

The_Liquid_Laser

Glowy Goopy Goodness
Joined
Jul 11, 2007
Messages
3,376
MBTI Type
ENTP
I believe in an absolute morality. But I also believe we cannot fully fathom/understand it. We can only do our best to try to approximate it. So depending on our angle of study, absolute morality will be like the fabled elephant: it will look like a tree, or a snake, or whatever.

Even relative morality is an approximation of the absolute morality, IMO: it's grasping at the truth that absolute morality is not linearly aligned with our human mind and world. Absolute morality *does* lead to different moral codes depending on the human circumstances one lives in.

That's my take on it.

Heh, you stole what I was essentially going to say. So I'll go with, "Uhm...yeah whatever Wandering said is right."
 

ygolo

My termites win
Joined
Aug 6, 2007
Messages
5,981
I essentially agree with Wandering and LL, but would like to add my 2 cents anyway.

Since the question kind-of touched on truth then moved on to morality, I'll start with truth, since its easier in my opinion.

To me truth is based off of principles

Principles:
  1. are absolute, but may not be known absolutely.
    I will use the example of F=m*a. This is still as good as true for most applications. But at the time it was codified it was believed to be an absolute truth. It still approximates absolute truth very well.​
  2. may or may not apply to a situation.
    Knowing that F=m*a can help you design a building, but has little bearing in comforting a crying child.​
  3. are accessible to anyone who can recreate the situations that illustrate these principles (and therefore do not require dogma, or "authority")
    You can verify it you self by plotting out the planets, creating a stable structure, doing some controlled mechanics experiments. There is no need to rely on an authority (except as a means of reducing work).​

I am less sure about morality but believe it to be based off of principles with the same properties.

In other words, Moral Principles:
  1. are absolute, but may not be known absolutely.
  2. may or may not apply to a situation.
  3. are accessible to anyone who can recreate the situations that illustrate these principles (and therefore do not require dogma, or "authority")
 

Athenian200

Protocol Droid
Joined
Jul 1, 2007
Messages
8,828
MBTI Type
INFJ
Enneagram
4w5
I don't think this topic has been discussed here yet, but if it has, sorry...please disregard.

This is something I have been thinking about a lot lately, and in the end I have come to the conclusion that there is a need for absolute truth, because if absolute truth does not exist, then what standard do we live by?

Sure, I could say that "I live by my own standards and morals," but that is really just saying, "Hey, I can do whatever I want because it's right for me." There is absolutely no accountability or standardization of right and wrong....it's all relative. So basically, following with that line of thought, everything should be permissable given certain circumstances.

Yet, I find it amazing that once "our own standards and morals" are violated by someone else we are the first to appeal to a higher authority by saying, "Hey, that's not fair/right." For example, you've been waiting patiently in the post office line for the last 10 mintues, you are the next one to be helped when all of a sudden some guy just breezes in to the post office and totally cuts you (and everyone behind you) off. Chances are, you or someone else is gonna tell that person to get in the back and wait their turn. But what if he responds, "Well, I'm late for work, and getting to work on time is more important than waiting in line so I'm sure you all won't mind if I just go next." Well, this guy has no problem cutting in line, because he puts his own needs/wants in front of everyone else's. If what is right and wrong is truly relative then you really have no authority to tell the man to get to the back of the line, right?

To me, relative truth seems like a catch 22. What do you think? I'd like to hear your thoughts.

I don't like it when other people press me to accept absolute truths I don't believe in, so I have to say no.

I also don't feel that I only live by "my own" morals or standards, but rather an idea of what is right given a certain situation. There is an ideal solution, the one that falls between harming the fewest people, and permitting freedom of choice. This is important because freedom and life are important. This has nothing to do with truth, it has to do with ethics. Truth is about determining the nature of something, ethics is about evaluating an action as right or wrong. You see patterns in it recur throughout societies. There are distortions unique to each one, but the general pattern of what people consider ethical always seems to be there. What's true, on the other hand, always seems to be refined and changed slightly with new information.

So truth is relative, but ethics aren't. You can do something unethical and get away with it, but if people know you did it, they're going to feel you were wrong and hate you because of their sensibilities. Truth affects your perception, through which you apply ethics, but the ethics themselves don't change.

Did that make sense?
 

Wandering

Highly Hollow
Joined
Dec 24, 2007
Messages
873
MBTI Type
INFJ
In other words, Moral Principles:
  1. are absolute, but may not be known absolutely.
  2. may or may not apply to a situation.
  3. are accessible to anyone who can recreate the situations that illustrate these principles (and therefore do not require dogma, or "authority")
That's exactly along the lines of what I had in mind, but it's much better explained :)

This has nothing to do with truth, it has to do with ethics. Truth is about determining the nature of something, ethics is about evaluating an action as right or wrong. You see patterns in it recur throughout societies. There are distortions unique to each one, but the general pattern of what people consider ethical always seems to be there.
Give me just one example of such universal ethics, please.
 

Athenian200

Protocol Droid
Joined
Jul 1, 2007
Messages
8,828
MBTI Type
INFJ
Enneagram
4w5
Give me just one example of such universal ethics, please.

Well, most agree that killing others is negative, but that it's necessary in some situations such as war.

So, intentionally killing people who were generally thought of as valid human beings without provocation was considered wrong in most societies.

Any example I give you can probably be distorted by communicating it, so you may find an exception to this...
 

Wandering

Highly Hollow
Joined
Dec 24, 2007
Messages
873
MBTI Type
INFJ
So, intentionally killing people who were generally thought of as valid human beings without provocation was considered wrong in most societies.

Any example I give you can probably be distorted by communicating it, so you may find an exception to this...
Not so much an exception as pointing out that you've already tried to cover the obvious hole ;) Killing people who were generally thought of as valid human beings. IOW: that general rule is NOT general, since it is founded on something that was never universal to begin with.
 

Totenkindly

@.~*virinaĉo*~.@
Joined
Apr 19, 2007
Messages
50,145
MBTI Type
BELF
Enneagram
594
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
When people refer to "absolute truth," are they referring more to:

1. A Platonian "Ideal" of some sort -- there is a higher reality and higher abstraction of truth that we can appeal to, of which we are only shadows?

or

2. Some sort of "constant" that is bred into human beings physically, operated on by the general constraints of reality, so that what is "best" and "most effective" for human and cultural growth and development in a moral sense is fairly standardized or at least can be reduced to some general principles?

(I.e., is "Absolute Truth" some ideal outside of us, or is it a description of the realistic premium human workings?)

In the former, truth is separate from us; in the later, truth is distilled from us.
 

Randomnity

insert random title here
Joined
May 8, 2007
Messages
9,485
MBTI Type
ISTP
Enneagram
6w5
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
I think there is absolute truth, but we rarely stumble upon it, and only then by coincidence....both sides always think that they know it, but it's rare that either side actually does.

I don't think there is absolute morality. Morality's essentially derived from the internal ethics of the majority of people....although evolution likely drives us to more beneficial ideas of what is right and wrong (protecting your family, self preservation, not killing, etc).
 

Ghost of the dead horse

filling some space
Joined
Sep 7, 2007
Messages
3,553
MBTI Type
ENTJ
I guess it's like this.. mind an analogy? As per newtonian & relativistic physics, there's no fixed place in the universe, but it doesn't matter. We live on earth, it's pretty stable.. we can use it as our frame of reference for most of the things. If not, then we have other frames of references to use.
 
Top