Is truth relative? objective or subjective?

[hermanntrude]

Hey Dex,

I understand everything your saying, but in regards to the above quote, I must point something out. Science is a slave to philosophy...

you are both right and wrong. Typically, a normal scientist will be subject to these kinds of bias, and the best he can do is be aware that he might be biasing his results because of that. Ideally, however, a scientist... a GOOD scientist, is completely objective and will do exactly as DS says... find the truth. This is what science strives for at all times if it indeed science. Often it turns out that what we thought was science was greed, lust or delusion.

 

[In Between Man]

My experience is that it usually can't be done, except with people who are already right on the edge and just need a little nudge.

Hey Dexter Sinister,

I was so tired when I posted to you last, and there is so much more I would like to touch up on. First of all, I failed to say thank you for replying. Secondly, quoting above, I realize that at my young age, I probably should seek a lot more knowledge/enlightenment if I ever want to accomplish these dreams I have. Dreams of being a leader amongst men. And that's what I'm after. That avenue to stand up, inspire and help people think more clearly. Get away from old thinking patterns. I know am I not the smartest person in the world, but I know I am smart. I know what I stand for, and try to stay humble and remember to learn from others as much as I can. Which brings me to the big question: How does one keep his own mind clear? How do you keep your rationale sharp to protect yourself from bad ideas, bad ways of thinking? There are lot of opinions out there, and I am afraid of being led astray. How do you do it? I'm thinking it comes with life experience? :?::smile:

 

[Dexter Sinister]

How does one keep his own mind clear?

Ah, the million dollar question. It's not easy. It's a learned skill called critical thinking and it takes effort and practice, like any other learned skill. Start here: http://www.skepdic.com/refuge/ctlessons.html

 

[In Between Man]

Hey Scott Free!

Scott Free you are awesome! You are incredibly smart and a champion debater. You are the exact person I was hoping to come across. People in my work environment/social life don't even know how to pick up a newspaper! I'm not kidding!!! Thank you for replying. Finally some stimulating conversation!:smile:

Morality is subjective. What is right or correct for one group of people can be entirely wrong for another.

I spent all day pondering everything you said. I had to put on a pot of coffee, and cancel a target shooting tournament. You really had me questioning my beliefs. I really had to examine myself. I dug real deep down Scotty, and this is what I came up with: I believe that your getting confused between value and behavior. You're confusing what is with ought to be. What people do is subject to change, but what they ought to do doesn't. It is easy to get confused between society's changing behaviors and an unchanging moral duty. Confusion#1: Absolute morals vs. Changing behavior. When refering to something like premartial sex, we nowadays just say" It's the twenty first century! Get with it!" But when refering to something more serious like rape or murder, we would never say anything like this, not matter how much of it occurs. Current behaviour doesn't dictate what's right and wrong. Confusion#2: Absolute morals vs. Changing preception of the facts. Different beliefs among cultures does not reflect essential differences in core moral values. Here's an example. Hindus revere cows, we eat them. This actually doesn't mean that there is a difference in core moral values, only cultural belief. Hindus believe in reincarnation, and believe the cow may posses the the soul of a deceased human or ancestor, so they don't eat them. Over here, we don't believe this so we freely eat cows. In final analysis, what appears to be a moral difference is actually a moral agreement. We both believe it's wrong to eat Grandpa! The core moral value that it's wrong to eat Grandpa is considered absolute in both cultures. We disagree on whether Grandpa's soul is in the cow. Confusion#3 Absolute morals vs. Applying them to a particular situation. People know right and wrong best by their reactions rather than by their actions. When people are the victim of bad behavior, they have no trouble understanding that the behavior is absolutely wrong. Yet even if two victims wind up disagreeing over the morality of a particular act, this does not mean a morality is relative. An absolute moral law can exist even if people fail to know what the right thing is to do in particular situation. Confusion#4: An absolute command (What) vs. a Relative Culture (How) There is a difference between the absolute nature of a moral command and the relative way in which that command is manifested. Here's an example. All cultures have a form of greeting, which is an expression of respect and love. However, cultures vary widely on how that greeting should be carried out. In some it's a kiss, a hug, handshake, a bow etc. What should be done is common in all cultures, but how it should be done differs. Failure to make the distinction misleads people to believe that because cultures have different practices they have different values. The moral value is absolute, but how is is practiced is relative. Confusion#5: Absolute Morals vs. Moral Disagreements Look at the hot button issue of abortion. The entire controversy exists because each side defends what they think is an absolute moral value. Protecting life or protecting liberty. The argument is over which value applies(or takes precedence). Moral disagreements does not mean there is not absolute moral law.

I think I've made some pretty rational points. Hopefully you can get something out of this. Please be honest, I know it hard for people to say they may have been mistaken about one of their beliefs. It's kinda late now Scotty, it feels really good to get all these thought out. Thanks a million for listening! I look forward to debating more with your if your up for it. Hopefully we can continue to learn new things from each other!:smile::smile::smile:

 

[In Between Man]

Ah, the million dollar question. It's not easy. It's a learned skill called critical thinking and it takes effort and practice, like any other learned skill. Start here: http://www.skepdic.com/refuge/ctlessons.html

Thanx for the awesome link Dex!!! This is really going to come in handy!

 

[Scott Free]

People in my work environment/social life don't even know how to pick up a newspaper! I'm not kidding!!!

I don't doubt it. That's why I like forums too.

I spent all day pondering everything you said. I had to put on a pot of coffee, and cancel a target shooting tournament. You really had me questioning my beliefs. I really had to examine myself. I dug real deep down Scotty, and this is what I came up with: I believe that your getting confused between value and behavior. You're confusing what is with ought to be. What people do is subject to change, but what they ought to do doesn't.

Who is the arbiter that decides what people "ought" to be doing? Such a decision is no less arbitrary than what they are doing. What people mean by “they ought to do this or that" is only that they would like to see them do this or that; obviously the person not doing whatever it is feels differently.

It is easy to get confused between society's changing behaviors and an unchanging moral duty.

Who decides what that duty is? The king because he needs soldiers? Metalica because they want to earn millions more? The Prime Minister because he wants more tax money? Big Pharma because they want to sell more pills?

Moral duty is nothing more than expectation dressed up to look important. Moral duty can be born of a society or a king but at the end of the day it is only a tool to make you behave a certain way; a way expected of you - it is your duty to act thusly.

Confusion#1: Absolute morals vs. Changing behavior. When refering to something like premartial sex, we nowadays just say" It's the twenty first century! Get with it!" But when refering to something more serious like rape or murder, we would never say anything like this, not matter how much of it occurs. Current behaviour doesn't dictate what's right and wrong.

The reality of right and wrong is only that it depends on what is in your best interest. It is wrong to eat rat poison but it is good to eat an apple. It is wrong to rape because you hope someone won't rape you. So you have decided to call rape bad so it won't happen to you. You turn it into a morality because you want to control other people’s behavior. By calling something "immoral" it imparts a certain authority and justification to punish. It allows you to seek violence against someone that doesn't behave as you want them to.

Morality is violence. Sometimes it is in everyone’s best interest and sometimes it isn't. That is what good is – whatever is in someone’s best interest. It isn’t good to steal because you don’t want someone stealing from you. It turns out that we can all pretty much agree on a set of behavior and establish a morality. That doesn’t mean it isn’t arbitrary, it is after all, based entirely on what we want and what we don’t want. For example some cultures don’t have a theft problem because everything is owned collectively. They might have a sharing problem but nobody steals.

Confusion#2: Absolute morals vs. Changing preception of the facts. Different beliefs among cultures does not reflect essential differences in core moral values. Here's an example. Hindus revere cows, we eat them. This actually doesn't mean that there is a difference in core moral values, only cultural belief. Hindus believe in reincarnation, and believe the cow may posses the the soul of a deceased human or ancestor, so they don't eat them. Over here, we don't believe this so we freely eat cows. In final analysis, what appears to be a moral difference is actually a moral agreement. We both believe it's wrong to eat Grandpa! The core moral value that it's wrong to eat Grandpa is considered absolute in both cultures. We disagree on whether Grandpa's soul is in the cow.

Morality is a set of absolutes according to a code of conduct. Thou shalt not... whatever.

It is only coincidence if two cultures morales are similar.

Some cultures it is wrong if you don't eat grandpa. Some cultures your considered a witch and killed if you live over 40. These seem strange to us but they are no more or less arbitrary than our own morality. They seem "wrong" only because we are unfamiliar with them.

I recommend reading a good anthropology book.

Confusion#3 Absolute morals vs. Applying them to a particular situation. People know right and wrong best by their reactions rather than by their actions. When people are the victim of bad behavior, they have no trouble understanding that the behavior is absolutely wrong. Yet even if two victims wind up disagreeing over the morality of a particular act, this does not mean a morality is relative. An absolute moral law can exist even if people fail to know what the right thing is to do in particular situation.

There is no moral compass in people. People want what they see as best for themselves or what they desire. You know something is wrong only when you decide you don't want it anymore (or want to stop as in when being beaten). Some people have religions that tell them what someone else expects of them; typically their prophet and they follow the tenants because they hope to go to heaven or hope not to burn in hell; again, motivated by self-interest.

If we see an act of violence we are repulsed and think it is wrong but only because we worry it might happen to us or we can relate to the person being hurt. A psychopath isn’t so moved and will act accordingly. They can do horrendous things because they can’t relate to other people. That is where our moral compass comes from.

Confusion#4: An absolute command (What) vs. a Relative Culture (How) There is a difference between the absolute nature of a moral command and the relative way in which that command is manifested. Here's an example. All cultures have a form of greeting, which is an expression of respect and love. However, cultures vary widely on how that greeting should be carried out. In some it's a kiss, a hug, handshake, a bow etc. What should be done is common in all cultures, but how it should be done differs. Failure to make the distinction misleads people to believe that because cultures have different practices they have different values. The moral value is absolute, but how is is practiced is relative.

Animals great each other too. We shake hands to show we aren't armed. Animals greet to show they don't want a fight or that they belong to the group. There is no difference. It is the same and motivated out of self interest, that is, our survival instinct.

Confusion#5: Absolute Morals vs. Moral Disagreements Look at the hot button issue of abortion. The entire controversy exists because each side defends what they think is an absolute moral value. Protecting life or protecting liberty. The argument is over which value applies(or takes precedence). Moral disagreements does not mean there is not absolute moral law.

Morality, traditionally speaking, is absolute truth handed down by god. The fact that there can be disagreements shows that morality isn't absolute and thus indicates the premise of universal morality is false. It shows actually that morality is subjective. Even more so if you don't believe in god.

I think I've made some pretty rational points. Hopefully you can get something out of this. Please be honest, I know it hard for people to say they may have been mistaken about one of their beliefs. It's kinda late now Scotty, it feels really good to get all these thought out. Thanks a million for listening! I look forward to debating more with your if your up for it. Hopefully we can continue to learn new things from each other!:smile::smile::smile:

I don't mind if people tell me I'm wrong. I love it even more if they can prove I'm wrong!

 

[In Between Man]

Hey Scott Free,

Thank you very much for replying!:smile: After reading your statements, I would like to reiterate and clarify a couple of my points.

Who decides what that duty is?

Nobody decides what moral duty is. We discover it. Let me show you what I mean.

The reality of right and wrong is only that it depends on what is in your best interest. It is wrong to eat rat poison but it is good to eat an apple. It is wrong to rape because you hope someone won't rape you. So you have decided to call rape bad so it won't happen to you.

This is one of the main points of my argument: Our reactions help us discover the moral law(right from wrong). When I was studying philosophy, we were covering a section on ethics. We were all assigned a term paper on any ethical topic of our choice. The requirements were to properly backup our thesis with reasons and documentation. This guy in my class, who I knew and was good friends with, handed a eloquently written paper on the topic of moral relativism. He argued, "All morals are relative; there is no absolute standard of justice or rightness; it's all a matter of opinion; you like chocolate, I like vanilla," and so forth. His paper provided both his reasons and his documentation. It was the right length, on time, and stylishly presented in handsome blue folder. After the prof read the entire paper, he wrote on the front cover, "F--I don't like blue folders!" When knucklehead got his paper back he was enraged! He stormed in the prof's office and protested,"'F--I don't like blue folders!'That's not fair! That's not right! It's not just! You didn't grade the paper based on it's merits!"
"Hold on sec! Wasn't your paper the one that said there is no such thing as fairness, rightness, and justice?"
"Yes"
"Then what's this you say about me not being fair and right? Didn't your paper argue that it's all just a matter of taste? You like chocolate, I like vanilla?"
"Yes, that's my view."
"Fine, then, I don't like blue. You get a F!"
The lightbulb totally went on in this guy's head. He realized that he did believe in some absolute morals. He at least believed in justice. After all, he was charging the prof with injustice, for giving him an F just for having a blue folder. That simple fact defeated his case for relativism. Knucklehead realized that there is an objective standard of rightness by how he reacted to the prof's treatment of him. I may not think stealing is wrong when I steal from you. But watch how morally outraged I get if you steal from me.

Some cultures it is wrong if you don't eat grandpa.

Something interesting about cultures that do eat humans. Even cannibals appear to know that it is wrong to murder. The may not look at their sacrifices as human, but chances are they do. Why else would they do elaborate expiatory rituals before taking the lives of their dinner? They wouldn't do so unless they thought there was something wrong with what they're about to do. Everyone knows that murder is wrong. Hitler knew it. That's why he had to dehumanize the Jews in order to justify killing them.

People want what they see as best for themselves or what they desire.

Remember, people suck, that's why it's important to realize the difference between value and behavior. As previously stated, a difference between what we do and what we ought to do.
We all know what we ought to do, even if you gotta look deep inside. Remember that thing called a conscience? That sense of right and wrong. That's a manifestation of a absolute, objective moral law. This is another main point of my argument.

It shows actually that morality is subjective. Even more so if you don't believe in god.

One who doesn't believe in God has already ruled out the notion of an objective moral law in his head. Their preassumptions argue their logic. Because for there to be an objective moral law, there has to be a moral law giver. And if someone didn't believe in God it would be hard explain where such a law comes from!

And that's the great debate. I'm really looking forward to bring up some other points that I have realized and learned. As I'm sure you can see, I have a passion for philosophy, but I've being applying it lot lately to things I've read in science. Now, I gotta admit I don't know everything about science, but I've rather some good arguments that I can't wait for you test!!!

Thanks for debating with me Scotty! Er...um...Mr. Free.... I genuily love it! Your're really good at this, and I wanna test everything I got. Talk to you soon bud!!!!:smile::smile::smile: