Absolute or Relative Truth?
Truth is a matter of perspective–a thought I always keep in the back of my mind whenever I read anything. (I was born suspicious.) Whether it’s U.S history textbooks (history is written by the winners), Newsweek or religious literature.
Let’s say two people take this plate and notice two things about it.
Person A:
1. It has two chips in it.
2. It is round.
Person B:
1. It’s blue, brown and white
2. It’s shiny
They’re both right, but they draw upon their own experiences and psychological make up to decipher what the ‘truth’ is to them. Put them together and you have a semblance of what the truth is.
Same with everything else. I see a seed of truth in most of the popular religions...(though I notice a great deal of hypocrisy in ALL of the Big 3) put them together and I see what ‘God’ is–a Someone who cannot be defined by one religion alone.
I think I’m wandering off the subject...I don’t think there are any absolute truths because there is always an exception to a rule, some factor that may compromise what you believe to be right.. Speaking for only myself, naturally. An example: If a person believes in absolute, non compromising truth, they can’t turn around and say, in the case of abortion, that it is ok to perform it even if the mother’s life is in danger. According to absolutism, it’s either right or wrong no matter what.
So no. I don’t believe in absolute truth. Life would be simpler if absolute truth did exist, but there are too many variables, too many areas of grey in the world to live in terms of good and evil. I'd rather live according to what is right or wrong.
posted by Valkyrie @ 1:07 PM
14 comments
14 Comments:
You said:
"I don’t think there are any absolute truths because there is always an exception to a rule"
Two Questions:
Are you absolutely sure about what you say?
If so...
Is it absolutely wrong to violently rape a woman or molest a child?
It is wrong to rape or molest anyone: man, woman, child or animal. Anyone who does something that heinous should be punished.
But the world revolves around more than that-- and you can't choose what to apply Absolute Truth to and what not to. It would be a contradiction.
So I take each situation that comes up and consider the pros and cons of choices I could make.
I want to do what is right, not necessarily what is good.
Wow – I am surprised that you said that. Most people refuse to admit that it is absolutely wrong - I give you props!
While there are instances of truth that are gray, such as observing the picture of that plate, there are certain absolute moral laws which applies universally to all people, of all cultures and all religions.
Such as, it is absolutely wrong to rape a woman or molest a child. It is absolutely wrong to commit adultery. It is absolutely wrong to fornicate. It is absolutely wrong to be a homosexual. It is absolutely wrong murder unborn babies. It is absolutely wrong to take the life of an innocent human being.
Moral truth is not a relative term. There is such a thing as absolute right and absolute wrong. If someone believes a plate has two chips in it and is round, while someone else believes it is blue, brown, white and shiny is irrelevant to right and wrong.
You say that you “want to do what is right, not necessarily what is good.”
What is right is always what is good. And what is good is always what is right. The two go hand and hand together. Doing what is wrong cannot be good, just as doing what is right cannot be evil.
Originally, the word rape was akin to rapine, rapture, raptor, and rapacious, and referred to the more general violations, such as looting, destruction, and capture of citizens that are inflicted upon a town or country during war, eg. the Rape of Nanking. Today, some dictionaries still define rape to include any serious and destructive assault against a person or community. --Look it up it's from Wikipedia.
Then what the Neocons want to do to the gay community by taking away their rights as American citizens by excluding them from marriage (and perhaps even imprisonment) could be basically considered rape. Therefore morally wrong. Old school definition, certainly not mine.
Gay people pay taxes, which support everyone, and pour money into the economy. They vote and live and have feelings just like everyone else. They worship, they die, they contribute to the welfare of those less fortunate. They deserve the right to BE Americans with all that entails. All America's people do have a right to pursue happiness, even if others don't agree with them.
Let's face it: We have more serious problems than to control gay people. I propose that we worry about the decay of our government officials and the extravagancy of their spending.
As for doing what is wrong...
Is it right to watch someone suffer when they are dying? I think you should do whatever is necessary to prevent needless suffering of a loved one.
My brother-in-law had so much pain. He looked like a skeleton, ravaged by cancer.
I don't approve of suicide, but neither do I approve of letting someone linger on when it is apparent they are going.
Let someone die with a shred of dignity and not shitting in some bed in a nursing home, crying out for help, crying out because cancer is making a gourmet meal of their guts.
I’m not sure what to say. You seem to be extremely sensitive to these issues, especially homosexuality, and you are taking my comments as personal attacks. I am beginning to understand that no matter what I say, you will continue to be willfully ignorant of the Truth and your heart will become even harder.
I know all too well the reality of watching someone wither away from cancer. My Aunt died a few months ago, and in her last days, she too looked like a skeleton, ravaged by cancer. But no matter how much pain she was in, she never complained, she remained thankful, and we all wanted to treasure every last moment with her because we loved her so much.
We do not have the authority to take another persons life, nor would we even conceive of the idea.
Wretched, absolutely wretched!
Peace be with you,
Dani
Dani, I think to stand up for what one believes in is admirable.
Our truths are not the same--the way we interpret things are not the same. It was unfair of me to put those labels on you and I do apologize for that, but we have different perspectives. That is NOT a bad thing.
Please do not mistake my passion to defend the people I know and love as personal attacks to you.
Yo, r!
Some folks are mischief-maker. I have known their ilk far too well.
There are people who go around seeking the newest and most scintilating whiffs of "new revelation," and who accumulate a patchwork of disjointed fragments of policy to stack up around their positions and keep them almost upright, if wobbly. They strengthen their own temorous (prolly mispelted) positions by attacking the stances of others. They have itching ears that seek after exciting new thought-celebrities, and to shore up their belief system they go seeking after signs and miracles. Such people attack obliquely, then cry "Defensiveness!" as an accusation of weakness in argument, or bias.
Yeah, r, you do get a bit defensive about things you feel strongly about ... when attacked. And even if the attacker uses pillows to blunt the hard, cold, bitter instrument inside, it is still an attack.
Many people quote a verse from the Judeo-Chrisitan bible that says (and I don't have the time to look up the exact quote or citation), the servant of the L~rd must not strive. There's a lot of misapplication of that little shred of scripture. In the original language, the term "strive" indicates "debate."
Iron sharpens iron ... when the two move against each other in controled strokes at close angles. When iron strikes iron, sparks fly and both swords gather dints and chips and become dull and ragged, unsuitable for "surgical" cuts. Clashing tit-for-tat is not about building up oneself or another in faith. It is about domination and conquest in order to lend external support to an internal weakness.
In the Apocalypse, the Nikolaitans were chided as being displeasing to the Almighty. Nike is a Greek word, mispronounced by Americans using the brand name, and means to conquer. The Nikolaitans were famous for a professinal priesthood that dominated the "laity."
When our eyes are blasted by the fireworks of dispute, and our ears numbed by the thunder of cannon (AND "canon"), it becomes very difficult to discern the still small voice that says, "THIS is the way. Walk ye in IT."
Peace out
"It is wrong to rape or molest anyone: man, woman, child or animal. Anyone who does something that heinous should be punished."
Nope. Animals rape all the time. It's wrong for me and I am sure anyone reading this, thus we condemn it. It is still a thoroughly relative thing.
Two words, "heinous" and "punished." OK how do we punish such a person? That is purely a cultural consensus related to what is acceptable in terms of punishment.
There is no absolute Good, or Evil; no Right, or Wrong. It's ll a matter of what we believe collectively and these things change over time.
What was right to our Roman ancestors is no longer right today and what is right for us will be wrong in the future.
"there is always an exception to a rule"
Sounds to me like "always" is an absolute!
If 'always' isn't absolute, then it isn't 'always'.
You constructed a self-contradicting, illogical statement.
Valkyrie said...
"Our truths are not the same--the way we interpret things are not the same."
Apples & oranges Valkyrie !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
First half of your declaration was about "truth". The second part was about 'interpretation'.
You changed subjects in the middle of the sentence.
"IF" you die as a result of a car accident, your death in not open to "interpretation". How you died may be but not the death. And you do not get a second chance to 'interpret' the absolute truth of your death.
Ok. My "former" blog is called Neurotic Nonsense. It's not supposed to make sense.
If there is one thing I've learned, life (and truth) are often in shades of gray.
To be honest, I didn't change subjects. I was comparing truth, in this case, as to how we see the world.
For example, if I see a guy racing down the highway in his car for no apparent reason...I might call him a jerk and that would be the truth to me.
Now, take that same guy and see things from his perspective. Because I couldn't see into the car, I neglected to note that he had a wife in labor and he was rushing to get her to the hospital.
Everyone has a right to their own beliefs but no one has a right to their own truth.
Your plate illustration proves that you do indeed believe in Absolute truth. Truth is by definition: That which conforms to reality. You asked two questions which are both true because they both conform to reality. Now if you were to ask if someone believed that their were a monkey on the plate this would not be true, because it doesn't conform to reality that a monkey is truly on the plate. Are we to accept that a person believes there is a monkey on the plate when there really isn't or are we to call that neurotic nonsense?
So....... Valkyrie in your example, are the man's actions justified because his wife is pregnant? If he runs over a 2yr old child in his haste, even from his perspective, I see it as wrong.
I got a ticket one time because the cop said I left a parking lot through the "in" gate. I was furious. I said,"You gotta be kidding me! I could see that it was clear,no one was coming"! He said," did you break the law or not"? I said "YES, I broke it. And he was right. If someone came around the corner fast enough I might have hit them. The abosute law was put in place to keep people from justifying our wrongs. You see, it's in our nature to rationlize our bad behavior.
I feel that one the ills of society today is situational ethics. I had a teacher ask me, back in the 60's; If a gun was held to your head, would you kill an innocent man and would it be right or wrong?my thought was, let's ask the man's family if the action I took was right or wrong. Yes people can have different perspectives but they're not all equally valid.
Post a Comment
<< Home