Originally posted by FetchmyjunkI don't know why people say there is no absolute truth, when clearly, there is. It is absolutely true that humans exist, that there's a universe, that living things die, etc.
I have seen quite a few people on these threads make the claim "There is no absolute truth".
But the statement can only be true for everyone if it is a statement of absolute truth.
Think people who say this are really referring to morality, that there is no absolute standard for it. To some extent, that is true.
Originally posted by vivifyMight be easier to equate truth with knowledge. As finite human beings our knowledge of anything we believe to be true can never be absolute.
I don't know why people say there is no absolute truth, when clearly, there is. It is absolutely true that humans exist, that there's a universe, that living things die, etc.
Think people who say this are really referring to morality, that there is no absolute standard for it. To some extent, that is true.
Originally posted by FetchmyjunkThere are somethings we can be pretty damn sure of, like your statement about babies. But as a general rule, it's probably best to avoid speaking in terms of absolutes.
So you cannot be absolutely sure that the statement "torturing babies for fun is always wrong" is absolutely true?
Originally posted by Ghost of a DukeSo you believe any there are no absolute truths and only current truths that can be modified if better evidence comes to light?
'Actual' as in 'existing now; current.'
A current truth can be modified if better evidence comes to light. This can not be said of absolute truth, hence its fallacy.
Originally posted by vivifySome people in some contexts have tortured babies for fun - they just have.
There are somethings we can be pretty damn sure of, like your statement about babies. But as a general rule, it's probably best to avoid speaking in terms of absolutes.
We can share a moral standard that will always judge such behaviour to be wrong. For us that standard seems absolute.
Some people in some contexts would disagree. People can find all sorts of arguments to defend the most perverse behaviours, including the proposition that there are no moral standards except in your imagination, or perhaps the proposition that some groups of people can be treated as sub human and do not require respect. Think of the SS extermination squads in wartime Poland. They would have claimed a very strong moral code all their own to justify their behaviour. We would probably not debate the point and just prefer to shoot them . Or think of white racists in the Southern United States in the 20th Century and their lynchings and associated torture of black Americans, often after a church service and while a whole (white) community observed and approved.
We can agree that these people are mistaken. We can probably further agree that they are perverse or evil or both. But we cannot dispute that they exist and they disagree with us. If the moral standard were truly absolute it would have no exceptions. Nobody would or even could disagree.
So when you claim that your moral argument is universally correct, it is a fair claim when you intend that it is a standard to which you will never find any exceptions, but it is not a fair claim if it implies that everyone else is bound by your definitions of an absolute moral standard. Your crazy example does not manage to fit my definition of an absolute moral standard because it fails to gain universal acceptance. I wish it were otherwise.
Originally posted by FetchmyjunkIs that the junk you went to fetch?
I assume you would believe "genocide is wrong" is a current truth and not an absolute truth?
(Many 'current truths' are unchanging, but it is naive to talk in absolutes. - Could a Christian even state that 'genocide is wrong' as an absolute truth, bearing in mind some of the biblical accounts on the subject?)
Originally posted by Ghost of a Duke(Many 'current truths' are unchanging, but it is naive to talk in absolutes.
Is that the junk you went to fetch?
(Many 'current truths' are unchanging, but it is naive to talk in absolutes. - Could a Christian even state that 'genocide is wrong' as an absolute truth, bearing in mind some of the biblical accounts on the subject?)
So how do you know that current unchanging truths are not absolute?
Originally posted by finneganI think your post was meant for fetchmyjunk?
Some people in some contexts have tortured babies for fun - they just have.
We can share a moral standard that will always judge such behaviour to be wrong. For us that standard seems absolute.
Some people in some contexts would disagree. People can find all sorts of arguments to defend the most perverse behaviours, including the proposition that t ...[text shortened]... absolute moral standard because it fails to gain universal acceptance. I wish it were otherwise.