Vorkosigan

I guess I would be even more picky though, I don't think that a definition qualifies as an absolute truth, its merely an assertion or a priori statement.

So I guess that would make your statement...an absolute truth

Michael

Adrian Selby

"Objective truth is manufactured by testing observations against external reference points (either others' opinions or repeatable measurements). However, such objective truths are not absolute, their applicability is bound by the (localized) circumstances that bore them."

OK, I didn't actually say you refuted objective truth incidentally my quote in your post says that.

The point of the dragon example was to illustrate something that others could have an opinion of or measure, i.e. whether they could see or measure the existence of a dragon within the confines of my garden.

Now the experiment. If everyone who saw out of my bedroom window at that point in time, and all the measuring equipment there ever was was used to try to detect a dragon was in that garden, and no dragon could be perceived or measured, would this not give the statement, 'there is no dragon in my back garden' an objectively true status. In other words, for that time, in that place, there was a statement made that truly described that place, i.e. it described it without describing a dragon. Some part of the universe then was objectively described.

Usually, the response would be that even if every person on the earth somehow were able to view my garden at that point in time, we could only ever intersubjectively agree the statement was true. Which made me wonder whether that meant objective truth was impossible by definition, or that with so many uniform agreements about my garden the burden of proving the truth wasn't objective would shift to the person denying it.

I can see now John that absolute truth for you is something that needs to be known at all times in the past and future. I'm not sure if this means that there can be no objective truth that relates to given moments in time, because someone in the past couldn't know something that hadn't yet happened. Are you therefore looking for statements that would be agreeable to anyone in the past? If so, could I not hypothesise that if anyone in the past looked out of my bedroom window at this point in time I'm referring to, and they didn't see a dragon, would this not therefore qualify the statement as objectively truly describing this part of the universe as it is in at least one respect?

Adrian

xoc

Well there is obviously a neccesary distinction that must be made between "subjectivity" and "objectivity." The objective world is something that every subject only knows subjectively; yet we continue to presume it's existence beyond and apart from ourselves (except for some philosophers or sociopaths).

Morality is a whole different arena. It assumes the personal; it needs the personal. Material objects don't exude any kind of "morality" in themselves; so determing what is "objectively" wrong is of course difficult since the moral judgments must always proceed from a "person" or set of people.

The Judaeo-Christian position finds the two differing kinds of "knowledge or thought" to have one source. God is the One who both knows everything objectively, as-it-is, (perceives and understands all phenomenal relationships, gets all the "radiation" of transmission of information on the "radar", ie is omniscient) and, as a "Personal" Being, has a moral perception. This deals, as it does with humans(although obviously in a different scope), with concepts like "offence", and violation of rights etc. While we could say "objectively" that joe is offended by bob's action, we can't neccesarily say that bob's actions are "offensive" in themselves, objectively... because there is nothing of the "Object" in offence, it is a judgment of "subjects" even if a universal one.

The real deal with the "moral Relativist" is that while one may say "all moral views are equal", like anyone else they will usually act and speak as if their own moral, "mere opinions" are the real truth of the matter and if only those other dullards would see it... you can believe in a "moral relativism" but must act and live by these opinions nonetheless and make judgment on people who violate your own moral code or system. To live in society we need to make moral judgments and we can't allow everyone to have their own moral opinions about everything (and act on these opinions) although we definitely can allow some variation on opinion. There remains a degree of difference on "what the community must accept/agree to live by" and "what the individual can decide." That being said we not only can but need to make certain moral judgments, even in the abstract, on people with differing "moral opinions."

[ March 04, 2002: Message edited by: xoc ]</p>

Vorkosigan

The real deal with the "moral Relativist" is that while one may say "all moral views are equal", like anyone else they will usually act and speak as if their own moral, "mere opinions" are the real truth of the matter and if only those other dullards would see it... you can believe in a "moral relativism" but must act and live by these opinions nonetheless and make judgment on people who violate your own moral code or system. To live in society we need to make moral judgments and we can't allow everyone to have their own moral opinions about everything (and act on these opinions) although we definitely can allow some variation on opinion.

This post is redolent with the language of power and control. "we can't allow" -- "you must make judgement" "We can allow.."

In a free society anyone can hold any opinion they please. Period. "We can't allow everyone to have their own moral opinions." Pshaw. How can we stop them? Are you proposing some form of mind control?

"WE" don't give or withhold permission for any act. Rather, in a democratic society, people choose what the laws will be, and then choose to live by them. In an authoritarian society, like a Church, those choices are made for the people by some authority.

There's nothing in moral relativism that says I can't prefer certain values to others. There's nothing in moral relativism that says I can't fashion a society, such as American society, where people treat rules for interactions as binding on all members of that society. As a moral relativist, I realize that those rules are enforceable only because we have all agreed that they be enforced.

The moral relativist doesn't recognize that all beliefs are "equal." This is a meaningless caricature. The moral relativist simply realizes that she isn't in a position to give others orders based on her personal morality alone, and that other people are not inherently wrong for having different sets of values.

The ad hoc nature of moral relativism is one of its prime strengths; it changes as new information and new situations come up. By contrast, the benighted followers of the Canaanite sky godling YHWH are permanently stuck with a set of rules appropriate for a gaggle of feuding tribal clans. That probably explains why they spend so much time killing each other and non-believers. Killing is one of the prime signals of absolutism; it is common in authority systems like Communism, Christianity, Facism, Islam, and so on, but rare among us tolerant relativists.

Michael

svensky

Would you prefer if it if I said, that the taking of innocent life is wrong ? That would be a definition of murder, but it says what it is.

Jason

svensky

No there is a rule effectivly that says, you may make up the rules you like, becasue all such rules are merely opinions.

Jason

Vorkosigan

You've missed a key point moral relativists emphasize that authoritarian absolutists ignore: moral behavior is negotiated between members of society. I am free to make up any rule I like, but I have to propose its adoption through some process involving others. In the absolutist view, there is no negotiation, there is not even society, there are just orders. For moral relativists, other people are the bottom line, for absolutists, other people do not even exist.

Michael

Vorkosigan

It's still not there. You'd need a definition of "innocent."

Michael

John Page

The 'objectivity' is still proscribed by the scope of the experiment. Maybe there's another dimension? What is the definition of dragon? etc.

Do you agree that an objective observation is an approach to being independent of the observer, but what you end up with is less subjectivity, not absolute objectivity?

John Page

Originally posted by svensky:

Would you prefer if it if I said, that the taking of innocent life is wrong ? That would be a definition of murder, but it says what it is.
Jason

... and "wrong"?

[ March 04, 2002: Message edited by: John Page ]</p>