Three sides to every argument...

[moosicman]

I started to post this in another thread but I said to myself, "self, why don't you post this in a thread of its very own & see what people think"! but hang on if you have the stamina, because this will need a bit of context.

beginning note= when I refer to right & wrong I do not refer to civil law (police, state, federal law or lawbreaking), though that does not exclude it.

If you accept the idea that there is a truth in this world (meaning the idea of a standard, a right & wrong, or a moral law) then I put forth that there are 3 sides to every argument (& boy do we argue in this day & time about everything from christmas trees to abortion to gun rights to war to whatever). those 3 sides are: your side (your opinion), my side (my opinion), & that which is true, or the standard.

Bear in mind that what is true (or right or wrong) for you also MUST be true for me (not just shared opinion, but truth-regardless of wether or not you or I agree on it). For this NOT to be the case, then truth would indeed be relative, which means that I may say it is ok for me (ok, meaning not wrong) to boil my neighbor in a stew & eat him for supper because that is my opinion, or my truth. I put forth that we know in the core of ourselves that this is morally apprehensible based not on shared opinion that this act of murder is wrong, but that it goes against some moral law or standard beyond ourselves (not the civil law, but THE REASON for the civil law).

So if we do have these 3 sides, here is the crux: every now & again, your or my opinion will line up with truth. This presents a problem in our world today because we have this entitlement to our "opinion" that trumps that which is true (or right & wrong) making the boundaries of truth blurred and hazy.

We wanted our cake & wanted to eat it too OR said differently, we wanted truth (the standard we live by), but only truth based on our opinion. Should someone come along with another opinion, then we say it is not valid because it makes life too hard & no "fun" for us, therefore "our" opinion is all that matters. We, with a justifiable aire, say that you can have yours but don't let it get in the way of mine (& we throw out the door whatever might be true along with anyone's opinion for the sake of our convenience, because it muddles up our lifestyle; and who dare tell us how to live our life, right?).

i'm just throwing this out for everyone to chew on....so...what do YOU think? agree or not? is truth relative, or is it absolute? i can't wait to hear your answers

[GruPoo]

I propose splitting the truth. Truth as a current standard and truth as a historic standard.

[PlatypusMan]

..For what is Truth?--is it unchanging Law?

We both have Truths---are mine the same as yours?

[navyhmc]

In the grand scheme of things, everything is relative. Relative to your position, to your personal views, to your ethos and morals, to even your position and view of a scene unfolding. Even that which is a fact can be argued at some level. a case in point is that if a vehicle is going a specific speed in a straight line, If I am a mile off it's path, from my point of view, the only time that the vehicle is going the speed it is actually going on it's path is when it is directly in front of me, otherwise, it's speed as precieved by me is ever changing-thin kthe dopler effect.

A truth is only a truth when it can be agreed to be a truth.

Be honest moosicman, you're taking a philosphy class, aren't you?

[BouzoukiJoe A.K.A. wrecker130 AKA Chuck Norris AKA joeforbroke (banned)]

If you are a polytheist then some things can be both right and wrong, pleasing to some god and displeasing to another.

Personally I believe the division between right and wrong is a lot like the division between short and tall or rich and poor. There is a lot of gray area in the middle. Some things are clearly right or wrong, other things are not so certain.

As for truth, I am not arrogant enough to presume that I could know what is true and what is not.

Anyway, true or not true is only relevant for for simple single-faceted arguments. I think you'll find that most arguments are more complex, having multiple facets and assumptions. You might also notice that the most vociferous arguments occur between sides that each have only part of the truth.

[moosicman]

Boy, I missed all these posts somehow...sorry I'm just now replying to some of them as it got by my "new posts" query. I respond in the following posts.

[moosicman]

We both have Truths---are mine the same as yours?[/quote]

I'm not sure if I follow what your question poses, but you say that we both have truths. Therefore, this is my response. Please allow that I may be misunderstanding you.

Remeber-my post is speaking of the MORAL law.

To your, "we both have truths" as in more than one truth, i.e. yours and mine.

Well, that was why I put it in some sort of context: namely, wether or not we agree that there is "some" truth or standard we should both ascribe to. If we were to both have truth's that are different, that makes truth relative simply to what we think they are. This is important because what happens in the event that my truth violates yours (irrespective of wether you are personally harmed in any way). If my truth is right for me and your truth is right for you then how can you possibly hold me accountable for any wrongs committed against your truth. Reasonably, you can't. For you to do so would violate my truth the same as if I attempted to hold you accountable for breaking mine. This seems fine and dandy as long as my "wrong" (according to you) were something as "harmless" as....gluttony, perhaps. What happens if my wrong (according to you) is more greivous, maybe that I think it is morally right and nothing wrong at all to rape whomever I please. If you prefer something a bit more palatable, say I think it is right to cheat someone at a buisness deal. You have no basis for holding me accountable for such being morally wrong, because it is MY truth and noone has any claim to challenge me. That is, if, in fact, truth is relative, as your senario would yield. I hope I am making sense.

[Puffer Fish]

Yup, that pretty much covers it. Hey, anyone know when the SI swimsuit issue is coming out?

Sadly, I would say there are little to no trues in the world. Except perhaps that power defines what is "true" at the moment. Speeding is wrong because someone gets to define that and has the power to do something about it. I can assure you that no one is running the world the way I think it should be run.....but I don't have the power to do anything about it.

Originally Posted by moosicman

We both have Truths---are mine the same as yours?

I'm not sure if I follow what your question poses, but you say that we both have truths. Therefore, this is my response. Please allow that I may be misunderstanding you.

Remeber-my post is speaking of the MORAL law.

To your, "we both have truths" as in more than one truth, i.e. yours and mine.

Well, that was why I put it in some sort of context: namely, wether or not we agree that there is "some" truth or standard we should both ascribe to. If we were to both have truth's that are different, that makes truth relative simply to what we think they are. This is important because what happens in the event that my truth violates yours (irrespective of wether you are personally harmed in any way). If my truth is right for me and your truth is right for you then how can you possibly hold me accountable for any wrongs committed against your truth. Reasonably, you can't. For you to do so would violate my truth the same as if I attempted to hold you accountable for breaking mine. This seems fine and dandy as long as my "wrong" (according to you) were something as "harmless" as....gluttony, perhaps. What happens if my wrong (according to you) is more greivous, maybe that I think it is morally right and nothing wrong at all to rape whomever I please. If you prefer something a bit more palatable, say I think it is right to cheat someone at a buisness deal. You have no basis for holding me accountable for such being morally wrong, because it is MY truth and noone has any claim to challenge me. That is, if, in fact, truth is relative, as your senario would yield. I hope I am making sense.[/quote]

[wheelman]

I was drafting a reply but it might take a few drinks after work... And that is the truth.

[moosicman]

Originally Posted by navyhmc

In the grand scheme of things, everything is relative. Relative to your position, to your personal views, to your ethos and morals, to even your position and view of a scene unfolding. Even that which is a fact can be argued at some level. a case in point is that if a vehicle is going a specific speed in a straight line, If I am a mile off it's path, from my point of view, the only time that the vehicle is going the speed it is actually going on it's path is when it is directly in front of me, otherwise, it's speed as precieved by me is ever changing-thin kthe dopler effect.

A truth is only a truth when it can be agreed to be a truth.

Be honest moosicman, you're taking a philosphy class, aren't you?

I will break down your response and deal with each point individually.

To your: "In the grand scheme of things, everything is relative. Relative to your position, to your personal views, to your ethos and morals, to even your position and view of a scene unfolding."

See my post in reply to Platapus Man.

To your: "Even that which is a fact can be argued at some level. a case in point is that if a vehicle is going a specific speed in a straight line, If I am a mile off it's path, from my point of view, the only time that the vehicle is going the speed it is actually going on it's path is when it is directly in front of me, otherwise, it's speed as precieved by me is ever changing-thin kthe dopler effect."

Though I understand well your argument, your point of view doesn't make the vehicle move the speed that you percieve. It is a fact that doesn't change due to your perspective, proving the fact's unrelativity. It is argument for argument's sake.

To your: "A truth is only a truth when it can be agreed to be a truth."

Still, this logic has not broken the bonds of relativity, for in this logic we would all simply be accepting the fact that our truths happen to also coinside with our shared opinions and that we can all agree to MOVE the standards of our truth (or standards of right and wrong) from one point to the next at any time without ramifications. As an illustration of what I mean, I think we can all agree that pedophelia is morally wrong. But there are some in this country that think it is an acceptable practice and are even working to change the mindset of our society into accepting this as "normal" behavior. Suppose, for whatever reason, we all woke up one day and decided that we've erred on this point and now we all agree that this is OK. Does our agreement nullify this acts moral wrongness? What if the issue was human sacrifice? If we all agreed it was ok, would that make it right? I would allow that we may all agree that we LIKE it, but that doesn't make it morally right. That simply points to the condition of the human heart. We have a natural bend to want the wrong thing. We may agree that pornography is evil and not at all a morally healthy. That doesn't mean that we will dislike it--no, in fact we apparently like it. When I was a child, my mother didn't have to teach me to be selfish. She did have to teach me to share with my brothers and sisters. I naturally wanted to be selfish. Get your own dang M & M's. LOL Rights and wrongs are not so just because we agree on them. It is simply illogical to think that murder would be morally right because we agree it is acceptable.

To your: " Be honest moosicman, you're taking a philosphy class, aren't you? "

LOL...I am honestly NOT taking (nor have I ever taken) any sort of philosophy class in college. We are ALL students of philosophy in life. Find me one person who doesn't have a world-view and I'll show you someone who isn't taking the philosophy class of life. The only class I have this semester is Environmental Science. I will say that I am not sleeping when it comes to thinking about life and God and meaning and purpose in life. I have some incredible books by noted scholars and men of intellect on the subject if anyone is interested.