“All truth is relative.”
This comment was posted on a message board I frequent, in a conversation in which I was a part, and the person who wrote it apparently expected it to go unchallenged—as if lobbing a hand grenade into a room might go unchallenged.
I disagree with this statement and here explain why in detail, which I could not do there.
Truth is relative in many circumstances. Two longtime spouses quarreling over who should clean the garage is a hard situation to untangle, and the truthful answer to the question: Who should clean it? very relative. Perhaps the man agreed at one point to handle all outdoor work, the wife indoor, and the garage is some liminal space that could be either. Perhaps the wife is (understandably) angry with the man because she has done all the cleaning and he has not held up his end of the social contract.
The world is full of countless, similar examples where both sides seem right, or at least share a version of the truth that point to a conclusion that all truth is relative. These range from small and domestic to the largest scale, i.e., wars between great powers.
However, there comes a point where truth is no longer relative. And when disagreement on what is true is dangerous, even hideous, and cannot go unchallenged. Particularly when applied to morality, which I believe at certain levels passes into an objective truth. At least, objective enough that we must all embrace it.
For example, take the following statement: Dashing an infant’s head against a wall is bad.
Is this only relatively true, based on the circumstances? Is bashing an infant to death permissible, even good, in some circumstances?
Or, It’s acceptable not to rescue a someone drowning in a pool. Is it OK to watch someone drown if the suit you're wearing is of sufficient high quality? When you’re perfectly capable, because you don’t want to get your nice clothes wet?
Of course, we can get absurd here on some theoretical, abstract plane that will never occur in real life (“what if you knew the baby would grow up to be Hitler?”) (“what if you thought your suit would weigh you down and you might drown?”) etc.? You might as well just say, “well I think we’re all living in a simulation and so nothing is real, and nothing matters!”
The fact is, we cannot know these things, and everyone with a healthy mind should recoil from these assertions. And that truth is truth.
On a philosophical/logical level, the statement “all truth is relative” is untenable, because it would mean truth can never be known—which is a statement of absolute truth. It's not a coherent statement, but a self-contradiction.
If you argue that "all truth is relative" because truth can only be understood through the subjective lens of an individual, that has a kernel of truth... but if everyone else sees the facts differently you are very likely, objectively wrong, and have misapprehended the truth. Which exists independent of you.
But the more important Truth of the matter is, having a coherent and broad set of rules about ethics and social mores that values human life is entirely necessary for a functioning culture. For example, if we can’t say, “hard work and discipline is a virtue,” but equally value sloth, then things will fall apart, very quickly. And life will become a hellscape. And I think even the postmodernists would agree that an ordered life is better than anarchy and apocalyptic disintegration.
“Truth is relative” allows you to absolve yourself of adult responsibilities. It might make you popular at parties of high culture. But it doesn’t do well when it meets reality.
We need responsible people to avoid the descent into barbarism. Which, despite my love of sword-and-sorcery, is not an outcome I find acceptable.
Objective mortality exists, regardless of culture or upbringing, faith, creed, or race.
If you lack the capacity to understand this, a few things are at play that are worth looking into.
- You may be mentally deficient, in which case you are worthy of sympathy and social support.
- You are weary of life and in a bad place, as I have been at points in my life. You have my sympathy; keep fighting and one day you will emerge from this malaise.
- You might be a postmodernist thinker, and simply enjoy arguing in the abstract. In which case, I will simply disagree and take my ball somewhere else.
However, if you refuse to recognize and differentiate good behavior from bad, and actively seek to tear down the social fabrics that allow us to enjoy some measure of order and security, I’m quite comfortable calling you a psychopath. If you desire to burn down the courts and our system of law and order, please read Grendel and start over at Go. Do not collect $200. You have embraced the Dragon, have arrived at the point where naked Power is the only arbiter of truth, hoarded gold the only value, and revealed yourself as the monster.
The good news is, there is always a path back to the truth for those willing to seek it. This too, is true.
11 comments:
Truth is not relative, but the truth is often complicated. The people who say that the truth is relative don't go into the investigation necessary to find the truth. At best that's just lazy. It's also weird that the same types of postmodern thinkers can be judgemental as a religious fundamentalist. Only worse since they only go by their feelings.
Truth is "the real, actual answer." As in, "fact." Saying "Truth is relative" is the equivalent of saying "alternate facts." You can have differing opinions, differing values, differing accounts, but you can't have differing Truth.
Matthew: Something to that, definitely. "Truth is relative" also saves people from making hard judgements on thorny issues that nevertheless require decision making and action.
Baron Greystone: Correct. I was giving examples here of moral truths, but there are also the truth of material facts.
I would argue there is a meaningful distinction between "truth" (with a small t) and "Truth" (with a large T). Our perspective is always subjective. Our understanding of what is true is, therefore always an approximation. The map is never the territory. Often we don't notice this because the matter isn't important. Or because the gap between our subjective understanding of truth and underlying objective Truth is small. But I'd argue it is always the case on some level. Obviously, some approximations are closer to objectivity than others. I don't argue that everything is relative - that approach is incoherent. But I think the subjectivity of our perspective goes a long way towards how two different people can arrive at different conclusions in good faith. Both believe they are true...and both may be right within their own frame of reference. Yet if one account of events is more congruent with external reality than the other, we can say it is truer. That doesn't mean the other person is necessarily wrong - it just means they haven't adequately accounted for all the observed features of external reality.
Ian: I don't disagree, and also differentiate Truth (moral/emotional truth derived from perception) from truth (material facts/world as it exists). What I was trying to say was, one can misapprehend the Truth and/or deliberately distort it by claiming that individual subjective experience trumps overwhelming consensus.
Brian, you say: “Truth is relative” allows you to absolve yourself of adult responsibilities.
That's nonsense.
Did Einstein's belief that "time is relative" absolve him from being punctual? Did it turn him into a clock-smashing hooligan with no regard for bank holidays? Unlikely.
Understanding that something is relative does not suddenly make it irrelevant. Its relevance simply becomes contextual.
I do not believe in objective morality. But within the context of my existence as a human being living in a lawful society, I can still apply moral judgements to my behavior and act like a good person. I can even "believe in" shared moral judgements and hold them to be "true" relative the contexts in which I am operating.
But if I zoom out far enough, I can also recognize that bashing babies is ultimately no different than asteroids killing dinosaurs or stars exploding or cosmic dust floating around in interstellar space. Energy coalesces and moves around and interacts, and on a cosmic scale, no particular configuration or exchange of energy is any more "good" or "bad" than any other.
The universe does not have the capacity to empathize. It doesn't care if I kick puppies or if species go extinct or if my neighbor doesn't recycle or if little Suzie cheats on her spelling test. But my understanding of the relative nature of morality does not prevent me from caring!
Michael: I very much disagree that a rational human actor choosing to bash in babies' heads is in any way comparable to an inert, unthinking asteroid killing dinosaurs.
Accepting that there are things we should and shouldn't do, as human beings with free will, is adulthood.
Brian! Great essay and thanks for linking all your previous ones, a fascinating and delightful series. I, too, abhor the 'All truth is relative' excuse just as much as the despicable 'My perception is my reality,' because they are only oh so thinly 'true' in their appealing offering of escapism with a creed of ephemerality so readily and easily embraced these days.
Thanks Jason. Moreover people who claim to believe this sort of thing certainly don't behave like they do.
Read literally any explanation of what anarchism is, maybe. So much of "order" and "security" are actually artificial hierarchies imposed by a threat of violence (from those "keeping order") that make you feel nice and safe, but do active harm to others.
"For example, if we can’t say, “hard work and discipline is a virtue,” but equally value sloth, then things will fall apart, very quickly. And life will become a hellscape. And I think even the postmodernists would agree that an ordered life is better than anarchy and apocalyptic disintegration."
Like this. I can only guess what you mean by "sloth", but this type of boomer shit is an example of hierarchy of "goodness" that punishes people with ADHD/ADD who you'd just call "lazy" and "bad". Because they're not "virtuously" working themselves to death every hour of the day. (then again, maybe you'd excuse their "mental deficiency")
I don't believe "hard work and discipline is a virtue". Hard work does not mean you'll be rewarded for it, nor are you inherently a good person if you work hard. And "discipline" can mean wildly different things to different people.
Again, if you wanna do this kind of layman philosophy, at least do some reading, or like google what anarchy means.
Well I admire your passion but believe you are very misguided re., the presence of anarchic non-government as some sort of evidence that all truth is relative. Surely for example the taking of innocent human life is still to be frowned upon in said society; surely hard work would still be a sought-after "good" quality to possess and lift up your fellow brethren. I would invite you to attempt to live in a society where no one works hard; you'd find yourself in darkness with no insulin.
Post a Comment