Relativism?

Question

Premise Conclusion Argument?
Argument against relativism?

Premise: Truth does not differ between person and person Conclusion: If truth does not change between person to person, then morality does not change between societies.

Does this work? Is it sound reasoning? Please make suggestions!

Answer 1

My problem is that truth is not morality. I love x, therefore everyone loves x because truth for one is truth for all. So if one person thinks murder is fine, then all should think it is fine.
Does it work logically, yes, if you accept the premise, you have to accept the conclusion. Of course since I am a relativist, I have some problems accepting the premise.

Answer 2

That doesn't work. You are assuming that "truth" (which is very difficult to define) does not change from one person to another, already suggesting that relativism is false.

One that works:


From wikipedia:

One common argument [15] [16][17][18][19] against relativism suggests that it inherently contradicts, refutes, or stultifies itself: the statement "all is relative" classes either as a relative statement or as an absolute one. If it is relative, then this statement does not rule out absolutes. If the statement is absolute, on the other hand, then it provides an example of an absolute statement, proving that not all truths are relative. However, this argument against relativism only applies to relativism that positions truth as relative – i.e. epistemological/truth-value relativism. More specifically, it is only strong forms of epistemological relativism that can come in for this criticism as there are many epistemological relativists who posit that some aspects of what is regarded as "true" are not universal, yet still accept that other universal truths exist (e.g. gas laws). However, such exceptions need to be carefully justified, or "anything goes".

Answer 3

Most argments along those lines are faulted simply because they assume absolutes that are greatly inaccurate, or at least open to interpretation. In this case the faulty absolute is the conclusion that truth = morality. There are truthful aspects to morality, and there are moralistic attributes to truth. But they do not equate to each other in their entirety.
I would further state that Truth does indeed differ between individuals. And we all know that morality is a cultural adjective. The nuances of morality even differ within a given culture or society.

Answer 4

It works as a syllogism, but so does this:
Preference differs between person and person. Moral truth is preference (premise of moral/cultural relativism). Moral truth differs between person and person.
--
You need to destroy the premise, proving that there is a rational basis for moral action.

Answer 5

What's the definition of truth in this posit? Is it moral truth (such as "depriving another of his life may be wrong")? Physical truth (such as "what goes up must come down")? Because the definition of absolute truth might be the crux of relativism...

Answer 6

I think there are a lot of missing intermediate premises, but you might be on the right track.

Answer 7

Oooo one of my favorite topics, relativity.

Yeah I suppose your argument works but mehhh.

A persons truth is a ratio of their own perception to other peoples reality.


Own Reality / Others reality /=/ Your reality / Others Reality

Answer 8

Absolutely. Morality is an absolute. It does not depend upon culture. It is a truth and truth never varies!

Answer 9

While you may find considerable opposition regarding the cogency of your syllogism, it is reasonably valid (although your premise is a bit difficult to prove, without Self-realization of Truth).

However, some comments:

God Is Truth; "I Am [the Name of God given to Moses for all generations] the Truth." If God Is, if Christ Jesus spoke truly, then the debate is concluded.

Hence, "What is 'Truth'?" is important to answer. "I don't see your God" is "proof" for an illogical atheist, who would have to be Omniscient and Omnipresent in all dimensions (and perhaps beyond) in order to claim she'd proven a universal negative such as "God is not," which is a subtext for all "genuine" a-theism.

So, your argument proposes that "God" and "Truth" Are, whether person 1 and person 2 recognize it, or not. The problem then is determining "What is 'Truth'?", when neither person is able so to discern.

At this point, neither drawing nigh to God nor being as a Son of God (e.g. Saint John)--"I and the Father are One"--will suffice. What is then left is Saint Paul's "Natural Law" or glory in-forming non-Scripture-blessed folks of an awesome Creation, hence, Creator, hence, reverence for Life and its creation.

This doesn't work, either, in that as mankind Babel or rachet up the matter manipulation as techno-darkness, God is less and less needed as a crop-protector, etc.--that kind of Cosmic Bellhop which nevertheless Comforts the naive, superstitious, and unscientific. Grow up, forget God, man is the center of relativistic value, per existential and post-modern relativism, is the materialistic conclusion.

Hence, no Truth Is, no God is provable, no Christ Jesus is very likely (he was a nice ethical teacher, of course), and even physics teaches us that Matter somehow always was (nothing comes of nothing, so some Thing had always to Exist...fortunately, though once in many billions of Universe-creating cycles, it forms a Universe such as ours, which permits organic life, but It's basically dumber than dirt, you see, so don't worry about those Commandments).

Thus, for the persons determinedly ignorant of God, let them continue to be ignorant, as Saint Paul writes, apparently in the hope that going to Babel-perdition will cause at least a few to realize their misery, ignorance, and repent and be saved.

This goes for "philosophers" as well. If Kant can't perceive anything beyond 5-sense data, then farewell Kant, no cant for you. Cleverness is always in season, and presently certain neurophilosophers find activity for all human awareness correlated with some one or another patterns in the brain. Therefore, there is no Mind, only brain. That illogic complements their desire to rule out God, as God gets in the way of their supreme humanism or egotism. Fairly soon, cyborgism, transhumanism, etc. will permit more control of the human body temple, and who cares to think or feel about God, when one is able to live for a century or more with lots of bells and whistles?

So, while your argument is logically sound, it depends upon aware individuals who have cultivated soul, awareness of Deity, and holy humility before inconvenient data, such as a Host of Light at Garabandal, Reverend Mary Baker Eddy's healing ministry, the life of Paramahansa Yogananda ("Mary Baker Eddy: Christian Healer," Yvonne von Fettweis; "Autobiography of a Yogi," Paramahansa Yogananda), etc.

"Psychoenergetic Science," William Tiller, Ph.D. , "Extraordinary Knowing," Elizabeth Mayer, Ph.D., "The Field," Lynne McTaggart, "The Reincarnation of Edgar Cayce?", Free and Wilcock, "Babies Remember Birth," David Chamberlain, Ph.D., and "Life before Life," Jim Tucker, M.D., are further examples of authors who discern something beyond Kantian 5-sense material data stream, and who are therefore worth reading for certain data-gathering.

"Watch Your Dreams," Ann Ree Colton, "Climb the Highest Mountain," Mark Prophet, "Education Begins before Birth," O. M. Aivanhov, "Expecting Adam," Martha Beck, Ph.D. (great book), and "University of Destruction," David Wheaton (ditto) are other examples of theories which attempt to show "more Is" than "man is a grown-up germ" materialism. Some are more compatible with current Christian theologic than others, but these particular authors are worth checking into.

Edmund Husserl, following in the footsteps of Plotinus' One Mind Soul realization and individuation, found "Pure Ego" (Plotinus' "One Mind Soul") distributing Rays of Light onto contemplated objects--he claimed to be able to teach Godly awareness in the laboratory for those few able to understand him. (One such was Edith Stein, Ph.D., who later became Saint Teresa de Benedicta of the Cross.) Such are the heights of philosophy regarding Truth as realized by such souls. "Interior Castle" by Saint Teresa of Avila and "The Path of Divine Ascent," by Saint John Climacus, are two examples of how a soul may prepare and enhance her appreciation of God.

Am aware this is not extremely well-organized. However, it does note the various trends and tendencies over the millennia, and the major "weakness" of your argument: if someone elects to remain dense and ignorant, even of such scientific and other reliable reports as those given above, then neither God nor Christ nor Natural Law has any "reality" for them, until and unless they move through Saint Paul's "perdition." Hence, they live in a general kind of "sowing and reaping" or "karmic" mode, perhaps for lifetimes, certainly until the "Second Opinion" given by a loving God upon their current life's passing from the screen of life.

For such, some "rules" or "ethics" such as some of the 10 Commandments, make for various "logical" or "rational" or "practical" sensibility, a la Hobbes. However, without God, all such humanist-based ethicism is nevertheless relative, post-modern, and existential. Thus, those who have the weight of the secularized masses win in the democracies per their legislators. This is what B. Franklin termed as a way for a morally-dumbed-down citizenry to lose their Republic.

A final practical and historical note: "Red Cocaine," by Joseph Douglass, Ph.D., a career U.S. intelligence officer and professor, who testified to Congress about Soviet 1950s "business" schools and "medical" testing on U.S. POWs to develop drug cartels in Latin America, for the Gramscian purpose of dumbing-down U.S. military around the world, U.S. youth and inner city populations. While an easy book to read, it is nevertheless an indication of how the game may be played: fallen angels influence godless and sometimes demonic communists to dumb down a Godly nation. (Of course, if one discounts Hebrew, Christian, and Muslim scripture, angels and fallen angels are fanciful items by superstitious writers such as Daniel, Ezekiel, Jesus, Mohammad (owbp), etc.) Thus, when a researcher is granted special access to normally-closed Kremlin archives of some of K. Marx' "other writings," the import of Reverend Richard Wurmbrand's "Marx and Satan" is not that such fanciful items existed for Marx, but simply that he thought somewhat along those lines....

cordially,

j.