h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

The 'Truth' Entry ends (near enough!) with: "In the meantime, if there are any absolute truths you would like to share with us..."

The reason that an entry on Truth isn't as simple as "This is the Truth: A, B, C..." is that there are no absolute truths (that humans can perceive).

To be absolute, truths have to be certain; objective. We are humans, and we don't have objective perception. So even if there *are* absolute truths out there, we could look directly at them and not perceive their indisputable correctness.

The belief that the Truth is "out there" is pretty damaging too. I make no absolute claims, but it seems to me that truth is a relative sort of thing, and tends to be defined by people or societies for their own purposes [1]. This having been done, the participants often band together and insist that their truth is self-evident and externally imposed. They had *nothing* to do with its definition!

I don't think the Truth is 'out there' [2], I think it's in here [3].

[1] This isn't necessarily a Bad Thing.

[2] Even though I make it a point of principle to believe anything Gillian Anderson says.

[3] Picture me pointing at my head as I say this; thank you.

I must commend you, Pattern-chaser. I like your way around the standard problem with the relativist claim that there are no absolute truths. (The standard problem being that the claim "there are no absolute truths" is, according to the relativist, an absolute truth, and thus the argument is logically incoherent.) Explaining that there may be absolute truths, but that our perspectival observation will prevent us from ever knowing them as such seems to have some merit.

However, I disagree with your footnote that people or societies defining truth for their own purposes is not necessarily a bad thing. Can you honestly say that societies who believe people of a different skin color to be less than human and societies who believe all people to be equal both have an equal claim that their beliefs are "true"? Do you want to accept all groups' beliefs as "true for them", regardless of their stance on abortion, homosexuality, female circumcision, the death penalty? Or if their beliefs don't coincide with your own do you think we should have a conversation and try to see if we can't figure out who's mistaken? If you can't accept all claims as having equal merit, you must refer your judgment to some criterion that transcends society -- the necessity of this criterion is the source of a belief in absolute truth.

The point of religion is often that the act of judgment should be deferred to God, as He (she, it, they, etc.) is the source of absolute truth, and the only one(s) capable of knowing it. Those less religiously inclined often believe that the source of truth can be found within the human mind, if we search diligently enough.

Saying "is not necessarily a Bad Thing" is NOT equivalent to "is a Good Thing". This 'if it isn't forbidden, it must be compulsory' mindset is one we fall into much too often!

Nevertheless, truth really IS relative, and we have no means of comparing them across societies, to determine which one is 'truer'. So when you ask "Can you honestly say that societies who believe [X] and societies who believe [Y] both have an equal claim that their beliefs are "true"?" I have to say yes, I do. In either case, a member of one community finds the views of the other impossible to understand or justify (by their OWN standards).

To accept that your own (self-evidently true ) values are no better founded than those of another society that seems to you to be less than your own (i.e. different ) is no easy thing. Work at it! You have no choice (except to ignore it and hope it will go away).

Pattern-chaser

Saying "is not necessarily a Bad Thing" is NOT equivalent to "is a Good Thing". This 'if it isn't forbidden, it must be compulsory' mindset is one we fall into much too often!

Nevertheless, truth really IS relative, and we have no means of comparing them across societies, to determine which one is 'truer'. So when you ask "Can you honestly say that societies who believe [X] and societies who believe [Y] both have an equal claim that their beliefs are "true"?" I have to say yes, I do. In either case, a member of one community finds the views of the other impossible to understand or justify (by their OWN standards).

To accept that your own (self-evidently true ) values are no better founded than those of another society that seems to you to be less than your own (i.e. different ) is no easy thing. Work at it! You have no choice (except to ignore it and hope it will go away).

Pattern-chaser

Fair enough on the first point, but allowing something that is potentially dangerous is just as dangerous as making it compulsory. Thus your point led me to my response, as I feel that it is allowing a dangerous belief system.

It's not so much a question about societies that believe [x] vs. societies that believe [y], as it is a question about societies that believe [x] vs. societies that believe [not-x]. The two can both be true relative to the context within which each was derived, but there is a fundamental contradiction between the two. The simple fact that a contradiction between the two can be perceived demonstrates that there is a greater context, within which the two can both be considered. If there weren't such a context, the two could not even be compared to each other and no contradiction could be perceived. And I disagree with your claim that "the member of one community finds the views of the other impossible to understand or justify (by their OWN standards)." I can fully well understand the logic and justification the European settlers used in 1619 when they began importing slaves from Africa. However, I disagree with the validity of their logic and justification. Their conclusions followed well from their premises, but the premises were incorrect. I would argue with any pro-slavery person on this point, with the intention of showing them that their logic is faulty, that their beliefs are false.

You're right that it is difficult to accept that your own values are no better than another society's, and I agree with you that it is a valuable thing to attempt. But it is just as limiting to assume everyone else is right as it is to assume that you're the only one who is right. If you really believe that every belief is right for whoever holds it, then you have no recourse if the two of you disagree. While this might seem like it would make the world a happier place, it simply doesn't work in practice. What happens when you and your spouse disagree on whether to abort an unintended pregnancy, because one of you thinks abortion is immoral and the other believes it immoral to bring a child into the world at a point when you cannot support that child, either emotionally or financially? If you both simply accept the other person as right in their beliefs, then you're both going to act without regard for the other's beliefs (because you can't change their mind, and there's no need for you to change yours), and you'll both be left believing that you've committed the more immoral decision "for you".

Any time you have ever disagreed with a person on something, any time you've had a debate or a conversation regarding a subject, you have implicitly bought in to the belief that there is some form of higher truth. If not, what is the common ground on which you claim to forge an understanding? If you cannot create any sort of understanding, why do you waste your energy in conversations such as this one?

Raelyn wrote "...I feel that it is allowing a dangerous belief system." Who are you to allow or disallow a belief that you think is dangerous? Yours *is* a dangerous belief, IMO.

Raelyn went on to say "It's ... a question about societies that believe [x] vs. societies that believe [not-x]. The two can both be true relative to the context within which each was derived, but there is a fundamental contradiction between the two." I believe we're discussing subjective truths here; the rules are not the same as those which apply to objective truths.

Two things which are objectively true cannot contradict one another. It isn't possible. Subjective truths can and do contradict one another without conflict. [The truth value of a subjective claim depends on the person who makes it; the truth of an objective claim is *independent* of any person's opinions or conceptions.]

I accept your correction. I should've said "...the member of one community finds the views of the other impossible to justify (by their OWN standards)".

"If you really believe that every belief is right for whoever holds it, then you have no recourse if the two of you disagree." Yes, assuming that the disagreement is not over objective matters (which can be conclusively proved or disproved), this is an accurate assessment. You have to agree to differ, or maybe fight to the death, winner proved right?

The ability to meet and overcome a disagreement where neither party can be clearly shown to be wrong is the most difficult lesson a person learns, but learn it we must, or we cannot live together. Society breaks down.

Accepting that someone's views are true *for them* is not the same as accepting that someone's views are true unconditionally. Nor does it mean that you won't present them with an alternative, giving them the option of changing their mind. All it means is that you can never turn to them and say "You don't think the same as me, so you must be wrong."

In the abortion example you quote, the partners have to find a way of overcoming their disagreement. Sometimes this proves impossible. This may result in an immoral outcome.

"Any time you have ever disagreed with a person on something, any time you've had a debate or a conversation regarding a subject, you have implicitly bought in to the belief that there is some form of higher truth." I have? How's that, then?

"...what is the common ground on which you claim to forge an understanding?" I don't remember making any claim. For a particular pair disagreeing on a particular issue, there may (or may not) *be* common ground. If not, there can be no understanding. Mostly, we *are* able to identify common ground, and thus reach some sort of accomodation.

"If you cannot create any sort of understanding, why do you waste your energy in conversations such as this one?" If I'd written this, I'd wish I hadn't. I'm assuming you wish this too.

Pattern-chaser

Sorry about the delay in replying. I've been busy.

Pattern-Chaser (quoting me): "'If you cannot create any sort of understanding, why do you waste your energy in conversations such as this one?' If I'd written this, I'd wish I hadn't. I'm assuming you wish this too."

I apologize if my sentence offended; if it did, then my intent has been mis-taken. I meant to imply that your position logically commits you to a belief changing others' beliefs is impossible, and thus that attempting is a waste of energy. I did not mean to imply that I consider this conversation a waste of energy. I'll try to elaborate my meaning better.

A relativist claim holds that what's right (or true) for one person may not be for another person, because truth and correctness are based on perspective and conditions, which are different for every individual. Which means that if you and I have different beliefs, each of us can simply say, "what I believe is right for me, and what you believe is right for you. What's right for me may not be right for you, and you can't be expected to understand why what's right for me is, indeed, right for me. And neither one of us is more right than the other." If you and I are standing on a railroad track, and we have differing opinions about whether the oncoming train is likely to kill us, one of us is most definitely right, and the other is wrong. (I don't think you'd disagree with me on this point, and I'm not trying to claim that your position commits you to disagree with me.) But if we both hold solidly to the belief that each person's beliefs are right for him or her, based on their individual perspective, all your attempts to get me to step off the track are for naught. I'll simply say, "yes, I understand what you're saying, but it just doesn't work that way for me. It doesn't seem to me that that train is going to hurt me." What's more, you are also going to believe that things don't necessarily work for me the way they do for you, so you're not going to bother convincing me that my belief is incorrect. I realize this example pulls on what you would refer to as an objective truth, and not a subjective truth. But I used an objective truth intentionally. It helps to demonstrate that what seems like a reasonable stance in one context can be shown, in a larger perspective, to lead to logical absurdity. And on the subject of the different "class" of truths...

Pattern-Chaser: "I believe we're discussing subjective truths here; the rules are not the same as those which apply to objective truths."

I thought your original claim was that there are *no* objective truths. Are you now acknowledging that there are some, and limiting the scope of this discussion to those that are not, or are you implying that there exist rules which apply to objective truths regardless of the fact that objective truths do not actually exist? I suppose the latter is possible, the rules existing as descriptors of something that humans have long held to be exist and need description...

Pattern-Chaser: "Who are you to allow or disallow a belief that you think is dangerous? Yours *is* a dangerous belief, IMO."

I'm not capable of either allowing or disallowing any belief. But I do feel that when I witness a belief, the holding of which has a reasonable chance of causing harm to people, I owe it to those people who could be hurt by it and to the holder of that belief to help them see the danger inherent in it. I also hope people will help me to see as such the dangerous views that I hold, and thus appreciate your attempt to do just that. Hopefully, if either of us is right that the other holds a dangerous viewpoint, eventually the holder of the dangerous belief will recognize it and change.

Pattern-Chaser: "The truth value of a subjective claim depends on the person who makes it; the truth of an objective claim is *independent* of any person's opinions or conceptions."

I think I understand your point, but to continue using the abortion example that I brought up earlier... If one person says, "abortion is wrong for me," and another says, "abortion is right for me," do I understand that you will hold these to be subjective truths, each right according to the person's perspective? What if their claims change to, "According to me, abortion is morally wrong and nobody should ever have one," and "According to me, abortion is okay, and people should have the right to choose whether to have one"? Are those then objective claims, the blatant contradiction of which can be resolved by determining that one is right and the other wrong? Or are those still subjective claims which create no problem in contradicting each other? And if the latter, then do those two people just have to agree to disagree, or are they justified in trying to convince the other one that their belief is right and the other is wrong? Because each probably believes that the other is inhibiting another's rights (either by killing the baby or by taking away the mother's freedom of choice), it seems to me that they have an obligation to try to change the other's beliefs.

But if you want to change the other's beliefs, then on what do you base the argument? Certainly not on the claim that your perspective is more right than the other's, as this is contradictory to the premise of moral relativism. So if you have no recourse to correctness of perspective, you have to rely on an absolute, on an objective "anchor" for the argument. It may simply be trying to show the person that one of their beliefs contradicts another of their beliefs. If this is the case, then you're at least relying on the principle of non-contradiction as a law for determining rightness -- as something that transcends perspective and approaches objectivity.

Pattern-Chaser: "For a particular pair disagreeing on a particular issue, there may (or may not) *be* common ground. If not, there can be no understanding. Mostly, we *are* able to identify common ground, and thus reach some sort of accomodation."

But what common ground can there possibly be? All knowledge, all beliefs, are based ultimately on personal experience. The one single common ground that all humans have is experience. But experience is an inherently individualistic act -- the origin of the very claim of relativism. One cannot possibly know what another's experience consists in, and certainly cannot know that another's experience coincides with his or her own. So the common ground is itself subject to the relativist attack, that your experience may not coincide with mine. So what is the basis for the common ground you ultimately find, or that you even look for? There has to be an absolute somewhere. The point that I'll agree with you on is that we can never know what that absolute is, or whether we've attained it, because of the perspectival nature of experience. But I feel that we're better off searching for it, always attempting a closer approximation to the reality, than in blindly accepting every possible belief as equally valid, right, or true.

To all readers (not just Raelyn): this post is quite long - if you're lacking in stamina or interest, you may not wish to bother!

Raelyn: Sorry about the delay in replying. I've been busy.

No problem.

Raelyn: Pattern-Chaser (quoting me): "'If you cannot create any sort of understanding, why do you waste your energy in conversations such as this one?' If I'd written this, I'd wish I hadn't. I'm assuming you wish this too."

Raelyn: I apologize if my sentence offended; if it did, then my intent has been mis-taken. I meant to imply that your position logically commits you to a belief changing others' beliefs is impossible, and thus that attempting is a waste of energy. I did not mean to imply that I consider this conversation a waste of energy. I'll try to elaborate my meaning better.

No, no offence taken, and I know none was intended. My beliefs certainly do *not* lead me to believe that changing others minds is impossible or pointless.

Raelyn: A relativist claim holds that what's right (or true) for one person may not be for another person, because truth and correctness are based on perspective and conditions, which are different for every individual.

OK so far.

Raelyn: Which means that if you and I have different beliefs, each of us can simply say, "what I believe is right for me, and what you believe is right for you."

Still OK...

Raelyn: "What's right for me may not be right for you, and you can't be expected to understand why what's right for me is, indeed, right for me. And neither one of us is more right than the other."

No, this is getting too silly, I can't go along with this. [I know you're trying to demonstrate an absurdity, which I accept.]

Raelyn: If you and I are standing on a railroad track, and we have differing opinions about whether the oncoming train is likely to kill us, one of us is most definitely right, and the other is wrong.

The probability seems very high, yes!

Raelyn: (I don't think you'd disagree with me on this point, and I'm not trying to claim that your position commits you to disagree with me.)



Raelyn: ...I used an objective truth intentionally. It helps to demonstrate that what seems like a reasonable stance in one context can be shown, in a larger perspective, to lead to logical absurdity.

Yes.

Raelyn: And on the subject of the different "class" of truths...

Raelyn: Pattern-Chaser: "I believe we're discussing subjective truths here; the rules are not the same as those which apply to objective truths."

Raelyn: I thought your original claim was that there are *no* objective truths.

Oh no! My claim was/is that there may well be objective truths, but we are not equipped to verify this. Human perception is not objective. If we were presented with an objective truth, we couldn't confirm that it was *objectively* true; we don't have the necessary equipment. However, our experience of life tells us (well, it tells me - I mustn't speak for you or anyone else|! ) that some of our perceptions have been repeated and tested so many times that we would be foolish not to rely on them without question in *most* circumstances. This difference may seem subtle, but I believe it's very important.

Raelyn: Are you now acknowledging that there are some, and limiting the scope of this discussion to those that are not, or are you implying that there exist rules which apply to objective truths regardless of the fact that objective truths do not actually exist? I suppose the latter is possible, the rules existing as descriptors of something that humans have long held to be exist and need description...

I acknowledge objectivity and objective things may (probably do) exist; it's just that I can't know this for certain. For practical purposes *objective* truths are an imaginary phenomenon. I claim that the search for *objective* truth is pointless, for the reasons I just expounded, but I also believe that the search for truth is worthwhile and desirable.

Raelyn: Pattern-Chaser: "Who are you to allow or disallow a belief that you think is dangerous? Yours *is* a dangerous belief, IMO."

Raelyn: I'm not capable of either allowing or disallowing any belief. But I do feel that when I witness a belief, the holding of which has a reasonable chance of causing harm to people, I owe it to those people who could be hurt by it and to the holder of that belief to help them see the danger inherent in it.

Yes, of course. Though if I refuse to acknowledge the danger presented by the oncoming train, you should leave me to it, and get off the track!

Raelyn: I also hope people will help me to see as such the dangerous views that I hold, and thus appreciate your attempt to do just that. Hopefully, if either of us is right that the other holds a dangerous viewpoint, eventually the holder of the dangerous belief will recognize it and change.

Can't argue with that!

Raelyn: Pattern-Chaser: "The truth value of a subjective claim depends on the person who makes it; the truth of an objective claim is *independent* of any person's opinions or conceptions."

Raelyn: I think I understand your point, but to continue using the abortion example that I brought up earlier... If one person says, "abortion is wrong for me," and another says, "abortion is right for me," do I understand that you will hold these to be subjective truths, each right according to the person's perspective?

Yes.

Raelyn: What if their claims change to, "According to me, abortion is morally wrong and nobody should ever have one," and "According to me, abortion is okay, and people should have the right to choose whether to have one"? Are those then objective claims...

No, they're not. They're attempts by each of the protagonists to impose their subjective views on others.

Raelyn: ...the blatant contradiction of which can be resolved by determining that one is right and the other wrong? Or are those still subjective claims which create no problem in contradicting each other?

I understand the problem here to be the intent to enforce one's subjective views on another.

Raelyn: And if the latter, then do those two people just have to agree to disagree, or are they justified in trying to convince the other one that their belief is right and the other is wrong? Because each probably believes that the other is inhibiting another's rights (either by killing the baby or by taking away the mother's freedom of choice), it seems to me that they have an obligation to try to change the other's beliefs.

My preferred resolution would be to allow choice, as the alternative proposal would force people into doing what they knew to be wrong, while choice would allow them to do what they thought was right, even though *others* might believe it to be wrong.

I believe that we all bear the responsibility for our own actions, and may be called to account for them. I can live with you thinking I did the wrong thing; the responsibility is mine, not yours. What I can't live with is being forced to do something that *I* believe is wrong. I accept that, the other way around, I may also have to accept your doing something I believe to be wrong. The same rule applies: the responsibility is yours, not mine. I don't have the right to make you do something you believe to be wrong, whatever I think about it. [Clearly, I'm assuming that what you wish to do doesn't directly impact on me, when we'd need to adopt a different view.]

Raelyn: But if you want to change the other's beliefs, then on what do you base the argument? Certainly not on the claim that your perspective is more right than the other's, as this is contradictory to the premise of moral relativism.

Yes indeed. I must therefore base my arguments on whatever it is that leads me to believe that my own perspective is the right one. You may, or may not, be convinced...

Raelyn: So if you have no recourse to correctness of perspective, you have to rely on an absolute, on an objective "anchor" for the argument.

Says who? This is where we diverge. Where did this requirement spring from? It certainly isn't a consequence of our discussion so far.

Raelyn: It may simply be trying to show the person that one of their beliefs contradicts another of their beliefs. If this is the case, then you're at least relying on the principle of non-contradiction as a law for determining rightness -- as something that transcends perspective and approaches objectivity.

I'm sure we all would like our views to be self-consistent, and mostly (sometimes? ) they are. It's an argument worth presenting, but it isn't guaranteed to succeed.

Raelyn: Pattern-Chaser: "For a particular pair disagreeing on a particular issue, there may (or may not) *be* common ground. If not, there can be no understanding. Mostly, we *are* able to identify common ground, and thus reach some sort of accomodation."

Raelyn: But what common ground can there possibly be? All knowledge, all beliefs, are based ultimately on personal experience...

...and grounded in our experience of reality, which experience tells us is similar for everyone.

Raelyn: The one single common ground that all humans have is experience. But experience is an inherently individualistic act -- the origin of the very claim of relativism. One cannot possibly know what another's experience consists in, and certainly cannot know that another's experience coincides with his or her own. So the common ground is itself subject to the relativist attack, that your experience may not coincide with mine.

No, it may not, but experience of life indicates that we can normally agree on the gross nature of the reality in which we live, if not all of the finer details.

Raelyn: So what is the basis for the common ground you ultimately find, or that you even look for?

Experience of life, the universe and everything, which is generally common to all.

Raelyn: There has to be an absolute somewhere.

*Has* to be? Why?

Raelyn: The point that I'll agree with you on is that we can never know what that absolute is, or whether we've attained it, because of the perspectival nature of experience.

Yes, agreed.

Raelyn: But I feel that we're better off searching for it, always attempting a closer approximation to the reality, than in blindly accepting every possible belief as equally valid, right, or true.

Searching for an absolute? No - it's a waste of time because we couldn't identify it as such even if we found it. Searching for truth? Yes indeed.

Pattern-chaser

Why is it that we mostly assume that there are many absolute truths in the universe?

It seems to me that an absolute truth must be very simple. The most logical would be that there is at some level one universal absolute truth on which all other truths build.

My guts feeling is that this one universal abolute truth may well be (to give it a human language expression) 'yes' or something like that. and be the answer to a question like 'does the universe really exist'.

But i'll go with 42, just to please all you DNA fans ...

~^M^~

"there are no ablolutes" I can live with the irony. I have to...

The problem I have with this argument is that it reaches so far beyond a tangible scope that anything could be said about it and be argued. My understanding of absolute truth is quite simple and I'll relate it as such:

2+2=4. 2+2 cannot equal anything but 4. This is an absolute truth.

This might be argued that this is, indeed, not an absolute truth but rather a fact. To which I would argue that facts and truths can resemble one another but and, in some instances, can be interchangable, but not always.

Facts can change and often do, making them not absolute. Take for example the size of the moon. If I were to measure it at this moment in time, it would be a "fact" that it would equal roughly such-and-such mass, and so-and-so miles across, with such-and-such diameter. However, the moon loses something roughly equal to 6ft of moondust each year to the earth (this figure is probably wrong, but I know that moondust loss occurs). So, if I measure the moon in a hundred years, this fact will have changed. Absolute truths do not change, which is why they are called absolute, no philosophy needed here.

At this moment in time, 2+2=4. A hundred years from now 2+2 will still equal 4. That will not change, making it a fact that IS an absolute truth. Put THAT in your book.