Moral relativism....what is truth?

[Michie]

Interesting article. I thought it might spark some discussion.

WORDS ARE WHATEVER I SAY THEY ARE


Anything is possible if one has the power to change the definition of words. Take for example the word truth. Once upon a time truth had a concise meaning. Merriam-Webster's dictionary (M-WD) defines truth as "the body of true statements and propositions. Truth is the 'state of being the case.'" In other words, it's a fact. A fact is something that actually exists, or an actual occurrence. M-WD defines In truth as in accordance with facts. As Ronald Reagan used to say, "Facts are stubborn things."


In our post-modern culture a number of people have come to believe that there are no absolute truths. All truth is relative. They proclaim, 'What's true for you is not true for me" and "No one can know anything for sure." For the relativist there is no universal moral truth, only what each individual perceives as truth. We all have our own truth, so we mustn't push our views on anyone else. Even some self-professed Christians embrace the concept of moral relativism even though it's patently unbiblical. M-WD defines relativism as "A theory that knowledge is relative to the limited nature of the mind and the conditions of knowing (b) a view that ethical truths depend on the individuals and groups holding them."



Continued- http://newswithviews.com/West/marsha47.htm

[ExistencePrecedesEssence]

Interesting article. I thought it might spark some discussion.

WORDS ARE WHATEVER I SAY THEY ARE








[FONT=Georgia]Continued- http://newswithviews.com/West/marsha47.htm



It sounds like that philosophical relativism is based upon outdated academic epistemological assumptions.

Phenomenological ontology is a much better way at viewing the context of moral productivity. In terms of how the existents and phenomena that we witness determine and intricate into our values.

There is a difference between moral relativism's conception of absolute morality and objective morality(which are mistaken many times as one in the same).

[Criada]

It sounds like that philosophical relativism is based upon outdated academic epistemological assumptions.

Phenomenological ontology is a much better way at viewing the context of moral productivity. In terms of how the existents and phenomena that we witness determine and intricate into our values.

There is a difference between moral relativism's conception of absolute morality and objective morality(which are mistaken many times as one in the same).
:scratch:
I would love to discuss this - but you'll have to use shorter words...:)

[ladyt28]

:scratch:
I would love to discuss this - but you'll have to use shorter words...:)
ditto

[Joykins]

On the nature of WORDS...

You're holding it upside down!' Alice interrupted.


`To be sure I was!' Humpty Dumpty said gaily as she turned it round for him. `I thought it looked a little queer. As I was saying, that seems to be done right -- though I haven't time to look it over thoroughly just now -- and that shows that there are three hundred and sixty-four days when you might get un-birthday presents --'

`Certainly,' said Alice.

`And only one for birthday presents, you know. There's glory for you!'

`I don't know what you mean by "glory",' Alice said.
Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. `Of course you don't -- till I tell you. I meant "there's a nice knock-down argument for you!"'

`But "glory" doesn't mean "a nice knock-down argument",' Alice objected.

`When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, `it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less.'

`The question is,' said Alice, `whether you can make words mean so many different things.'

`The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, `which is to be master -- that's all.'

[Joykins]

:scratch:
I would love to discuss this - but you'll have to use shorter words...:)

Sounds like he's saying we should base our knowledge on our experience rather than wading into postmodern waters. I think... :scratch:

[Michie]

^_^

Truth based on experience?

I dunno about that. In some cases yes. But in terms of absolutes, no.