Quote:
Originally Posted by NotConvinced  By my definition or relative morality, you can have your "view" of absolute morality. Both of us think our view of morality is right yes? Both of us think our version is true right? My relative morality let's it be true for both of us, however yours does not. |
No, yours doesn't. Your argument is
changing the meaning of my argument. I am stating that there are certain truths that are
always true no matter the context or perspective. You are saying that truth is always relative. Those are two mutually exclusive claims. If one is true, the other is false. To simply say they both fit is wrong, because that's not what I'm saying.
Quote:
|
Just because relative morality allows absolute morality to be true "for you," does not mean it's true for all cases. It does mean that you can think it's true for all cases, but it won't BE true for all cases.
|
Again, I am saying that there are certain truths which are absolutely true in all cases. You are doing a Straw Man on my argument to get it to fit into your argument.
Quote:
|
What I said was that I can view a societies supposed absolutist view exactly as I wish to view them, as right or wrong to me. I'm not changing their view, I'm simply judging their view with respect to my own views, resulting in me thinking their view is right or wrong.
|
But if there is not absolute truth, then it doesn't matter if you think it's "right or wrong" because nothing is absolutely right or wrong. It's all opinion. Nothing is wrong. Nothing is right. All is meaningless.
Quote:
|
If you think I'm 18 feet tall, it's true for you.
|
No, it's not. I am wrong. It does not "make it true" - that sentence makes no sense; it simply means "I believe that you're 18 feet tall." The
truth of whether or not you are 18 feet tall is inherent in reality - if you are actually 18 feet tall or not.
Quote:
|
If the very definition of Relative truth means that truth changes, then the definition of truth must change, and it will never be absolute.
|
Trying to prove a universal negative, eh?
"Truth will never be absolute."
That's quite an absolute claim, there, NC. "Never" means not in any case, regardless of others' opinions or perceptions of it.
Quote:
|
Therefor, when I say "false is true," the false that I'm referring to changes the definition of the true, therefor I don't have to first assume that true is always true.
|
To use the word "therefore", you must first assume that there is a prior statement that is true. You, however, are stating that a contradiction exists, and therefore you cannot use the word therefore.
If true is not always true, then there is no way to define true as false, because false has no meaning outside of an absolute true.
Quote:
|
Thus, the law of non-contradiction ceases to exist at all.
|
Another absolute truth claim, NC.
And again, to say something existed is to assume it did exist at one point. To say something ceased to exist is to assume it truly existed, therefore granting it truth in reality.