.
In a world that is becoming increasingly relativistic, it’s sometimes hard to believe in, and much less stand up for, something you know to be true.
Maybe you’ve heard, or even used the argument, “Well, what’s right for one person may not be right for another person”, or “You have your truth and I have my truth, and that’s fine”.
I know there was a time in my life when I thought this sounded reasonable. We shouldn’t impose our beliefs on other people because everyone has their own version of truth, and it may be different from our own, individual versions. If you subscribe to this belief, I really challenge you to think about what it must mean for the way you approach life in general.
I refuse to believe that the same number of people who supposedly subscribe to this belief can also believe that, for some people, things like selfishness, cowardice, stealing, murder, cheating, or lying are okay simply because some people chose to believe them so. The same people who would argue that we all get to create our own definition of truth would (I hope) be singing a different tune if someone who didn’t agree with their “opinion” acted on their belief that it’s okay to steal a neighbor’s car. In reality, though, to get upset about that and to demand your car back would be imposing your view of “truth” on somebody else.
I think that most people, when it comes down to it, do believe in some sort of absolute truth. Those same people inevitably impose their belief in this absolute truth on those around them. That’s why it bothers me so much when I hear these people saying things that you can only logically say if you don’t believe in any sort of objective truth.
If you believe that stealing, lying, murder, cheating, or cowardice is wrong, you are hereby never allowed to utter the phrase, “You have your truth and I have my truth“, ever again. 
However, maybe I’m wrong here. Maybe some people are okay with others thinking that selfishness, cowardice, etc. are right. Maybe there are some hardcore Nietzsche-loving people out there who really believe there is no such thing as objective truth. But even to those people—I have to call your bluff. To be that person, you would have to believe in one objective truth: that there is no such thing as objective truth. You moral absolutist, you.
I couldn’t agree with you more
Awesome post Mary!
I think you’re taking that phrase a little to literal. There are obviously universal truths that we all accept, for instance murder and stealing. I don’t know of anywhere where murder and stealing is not against the law, or at least looked down upon by members of society in general. Sure there are cultures where human sacrifices are universally accepted but I’d like to think we’re a little bit past that here in the U.S. In the United States, it is illegal to take someone else’s life, not because the Bible says it’s wrong, but because as a society we agree that nobody has the right to take your life away against your will. When people say “you have your truth and I have mine” they’re definitely not talking about illegal actions like murder and stealing and to say that they are talking about that is absolutely absurd because I’ve never met anyone who believes murder is okay. And cowardice is perfectly normal and acceptable in some situations like say if you were mugged in a back alley, you may forever be a coward when it comes to walking in back alleys, but that’s perfectly justified because you had a horrible experience in one. I’m pretty sure that phrase is meant to apply to differences in culture and religious beliefs because no one can say that any one religion is correct or incorrect as a fact, we can only believe so. Your religious beliefs are protected by law, people HAVE to accept your religious beliefs. That’s why the door greeter at wal-mart can’t say: “I’m sorry but I can’t let you in if you’re going to wear that cross on your necklace”. BY LAW, he must let you in no matter how much you are advertising your religion because you are protected by the law. So I guess you could argue that in that case, the law is imposing it’s beliefs on society, but the laws are obviously agreed upon by the vast majority, and those that aren’t, are subject to being voted upon by members of society. I don’t think you can compare murder, to trying to get somebody to convert to your religion. You have every right to tell me why I should believe what you believe, just as I have every right to say that I don’t believe it. But as a country that protects religious and cultural differences (so long as no one is breaking the law obviously) no one can put you in a situation where you are forced to adhere to the morals and standards of any one religion. I bet you wouldn’t be very happy if laws that were based on a different religion that contradicted your beliefs started to pass and you were forced to comply. So that’s why this country tries it’s best (emphasis on the word “tries”) to remain impartial. If you want to go to church go, if you don’t, don’t. If you want to be a chaste individual then do so, if you don’t, don’t. If you want birth control pills get them, if you don’t, then don’t. It’s not about who is right and who is wrong, it’s about doing what is right for you……as long as you don’t break the law.
I’d like you to take a step back and look at your argument. You start out saying “There are obviously universal truths that we all accept, for instance murder and stealing”, and then a few sentences later you admit that not all countries agree on those. It’s just that we in the U.S. are “more advanced”. By whose standards are we “more advanced”? Who are we to say that human sacrifice is wrong? It’s all about what’s right for them, right?
“In the United States, it is illegal to take someone else’s life, not because the Bible says it’s wrong, but because as a society we agree that nobody has the right to take your life away against your will.”
If it’s illegal to take someone’s life simply because we as a society agree it is wrong, then that means this is only subjective and therefore can change. What if we as a society decide that taking someone else’s life is fine, does that mean it isn’t evil or wrong anymore? Of course not, because we know that murder is objectively evil. The only way that morality exists objectively is because of God. Without God, everything is subjective and might makes right. We naturally recognize the problem with this, because we have written on our hearts God’s truth.
Laws do not always equal morality. There are such things as unjust laws. You wouldn’t agree that just because slavery was legal that it was a good thing, would you? The majority of people agreed with it, so it must have been ok, right? Wrong. Morality is not a democracy.
The point is that there is objective truth in this world, and we have the power to discover and know it through our reason.
You’re right that you have a right to not believe something, but that doesn’t mean it isn’t true. Things are either true or false, and your opinion about them doesn’t change that. You can not believe in gravity all you want, but that doesn’t stop it from pulling you down at terminal velocity if you decide to jump off a cliff.
It IS about who is right and wrong, because in the end we aren’t judged by our standards, we’re judged by God’s, and His standards don’t change based on the whims of societies.
But if we lived in a society where we all agreed that murder wasn’t wrong, then it wouldn’t be evil would it? But the point is that as a society, we do believe it’s wrong, at least here in the United States. And human sacrifice is wrong in our country, it’s illegal, so by OUR standards, yes it’s wrong.
“The only way that morality exists objectively is because of God”
So you’re implying that people who don’t believe in God are not moral, and I don’t believe that’s true. There are people who may live their lives very similar to the way that people of God live it but they may not necessarily live it that way because they believe in God but rather, because they simply believe that it’s a good way to live their lives.
And you’re absolutely right, morality is not a democracy, and there are laws that are unjust but that’s why I said that we TRY to be impartial. We try because it isn’t always possible. There will always be someone who will be unhappy with a certain law but we do the best we can to make it fair for everyone but obviously not everyone will be happy with the outcome.
And I never said that just because someone doesn’t believe something it isn’t true. I’m just saying that not everyone in this country believes in any one God or religion, so you can tell someone about your religion and why it is true all you want, and they can deny it as truth and go and tell someone else about their religion and why it is true. If something is either true or false then only one religion is right. So which is it? And how can anyone prove it to be so? So when you say we’re judged by God’s standards, you’re right to a certain extent, but you’re not right for everyone because not everyone believes in the same God as you. So you can say that YOU are judged by God’s standards because you believe that, but you can’t say that for someone who doesn’t even believe in Him. That wouldn’t make sense.
I totally agree Jake! I would also like to point out that we do allow murder of unborn babies. However, we will prosecute someone who murders a pregnant women for double homicide. What does that say? It says that murder is okay unless you choose it. I believe it was in the UK where a mother gave birth and stabbed the baby and she was acquitted since the baby was still attached to her. So yes, Mr. Anonymous…you can use murder as an example of this phrase. My heart breaks every time I think of a young and impressionable woman making that decision because it shouldn’t be an option or a decision to be made but our society not only allows but promotes the mentality “Well, what’s right for one person may not be right for another person.”
I believe everyone has free will and that yes, you may choose a different path then me but that path can not be detrimental to any one else or society (or else we become a degenerative society). Whether you want to accept it or not we all have the same moral compass and that doesnt come from thin air.
You’re missing the point. Also, you’re flip-flopping on your beliefs of objective morality from paragraph to paragraph to suit your needs. It doesn’t work like that.
The point is not that as a society we believe murder is wrong. What if we one day sat down and had a vote, and somehow the American people decided that murder was no longer going to be illegal. The point is that even if were to happen, murder would still be wrong. Murder isn’t wrong because society has decided it is and passed a law against it; murder is wrong because it is evil and opposed to God’s law.
“So you’re implying that people who don’t believe in God are not moral, and I don’t believe that’s true.”
That’s not what I’m saying at all, please reread my statement. What I was saying was that the only way for morality to be objective is for it to come from God. That doesn’t mean that people who don’t believe in God can’t be moral, it means that unless God exists, there is no such thing as morality in the first place. If God doesn’t exist, then you have no real argument about why someone can’t steal your car or kill you. You may think you have one, so let me state your argument before you have to. “Yes I do, the argument is that society decides what’s right and wrong.” Once again, what if society decides its perfectly fine for people to steal your car or kill you. What argument do you have against them then? None. There’s a reason that in the Declaration of Independence the founding fathers invoked God or the Creator, whatever it is you want to call the eternal, omnipresent, omnipotent, omniscient being that runs the universe. They draw from God the basis of our rights because that’s the only way that they are objectively fixed and true and solid. (cont)
(cont).
If we aren’t endowed by our Creator with certain inalienable rights, among which are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of happiness, then we don’t really have these rights. If these rights came from society, than society can take them away. A right that can be taken away isn’t much of a right at all. I actually speak on this point a bit more in another blog post. http://tkdjake.blogtownhall.com/2009/02/04/government_and_the_business_of_rights.thtml
As far as your last paragraph is concerned, I think you need to look a little deeper into philosophy. It’s simply incorrect to state that it can’t be proved whether or not one religion is true or false. It may not be able to be proven according to whatever standard you have set, but that doesn’t mean that things can’t be proven philosophically. You can’t state that only things which can be scientifically proven can be true, since of course this statement itself fails that criteria.
Once again, if I go around speaking about my faith, more people believing it doesn’t make it true and more people disbelieving it doesn’t make it false. The same for other religions as well. They are either true or they aren’t, regardless of how we feel about them. We can, however, make logical, persuasive arguments as to why our belief is true, and it’s up to others to try and debunk our arguments.
“So when you say we’re judged by God’s standards, you’re right to a certain extent, but you’re not right for everyone because not everyone believes in the same God as you. So you can say that YOU are judged by God’s standards because you believe that, but you can’t say that for someone who doesn’t even believe in Him. That wouldn’t make sense.”
No, I’m not only right to a “certain extent”. Once again you miss the point. If my God truly exists (which I believe He does, and if you want to cover that in a separate discussion I’m more than happy to oblige you) then no matter what you believe, you will be judged by His standards. Therefore, my statement makes perfect sense. Once again, if God truly exists (which He does), then not believing in Him doesn’t make Him go away. We may be able to ignore Him and His Truth here during our mortal lives, but when death comes there’s no running away or covering our eyes anymore. You’re going to have to face His judgement, and His Laws don’t change based on your feelings. That’s why this discussion is so important, so that people will recognize the reality and the gravity of morality, and live their lives accordingly, both for their own personal benefit and for the benefit of the world as a whole.
Well it’s pretty clear to me that I’m not going to convince you otherwise of your opinions, and I can guarantee you that you’re not convincing me otherwise either. So at this point, I just have to politely agree to disagree…which is ironic because that’s sort of what the original post was about in the first place. Well, either way, although I don’t agree at all with anything you say, I fully respect your right to say it.
I also respect your right to an opinion, but I do wish that in a discussion like this you would argue with your head and not your heart. Feelings have a place in discussion, but logical discourse calls for us to meet the other person’s arguments with our own. Failure to do that is to reduce a genuine discussion to soap-box speeches.
I can’t help it, my heart speaks before my brain…it always has.
I hope you’re not taking any of this as me triyng to insult you. I really think it’s awesome that you’re passionate and care about issues like this. Passion is what fuels interesting and important discussions. I just think it’s important to think logically as well as passionately when engaging in such discussions.
I’m not taking anything personally. I’m not trying to have a professional political debate or anything. All I’m really trying to do is bring up a few points. I didn’t write my comments down on paper or get them peer reviewed before I posted them and I’m not going to sit here for an hour and think to put together a post that is a perfect balance of logic and passion just because you think it’s important that I do so. I just find you rather condescending and there’s nothing I dislike more than a person who thinks they are better than someone else.
Anonymous,
I think Jake’s point was that he didn’t know what your points were, because they seemed to contradict one another. If you have the time, go back and read your comments and maybe you’ll see what I mean.
Just as an example, these quotes both come from the same comment:
“But if we lived in a society where we all agreed that murder wasn’t wrong, then it wouldn’t be evil would it?”
and then a little bit later….
“And you’re absolutely right, morality is not a democracy,”
I just don’t really see how a person can hold both of those beliefs at the same time, that’s all.
Respectfully,
Mary
By the first comment I meant that, if nobody truly felt that murder was wrong, how could it be evil, not that it wouldn’t be wrong because we all voted on it or something. Evil things are things that are wrong, and even still, it was a complete hypothetical idea. But either way, the whole thing is getting blown out of proportion. It was simply a comment, not an invitation to an upscale debate.