A dangerous thought?

Question: A dangerous thought!?

What if you are a relativist who believes that a belief in the objective truth of a single belief system is necessary for a smooth functioning and orderly society (and you believe a smooth functioning and orderly society is a good thing)!.

Then you have to commit yourself to claiming as truth something you think is at best relative - or else commit yourself to proclaiming a truth (the relativity of belief systems) which you beleive is objectively destructive to society!.

Which course of action ought one take!? To deny known truth (the relativity of systems of thought) and uphold the moral order - or to damage the moral order in the name of truth!?

This question weighs on me especially heavily since I worry I might be lying to myself in this regard, claiming to myself the existence of objective truth simply because I believe mankind needs objective truth and not because I am convinced of its existence!.Www@QuestionHome@Com

Best Answer - Chosen by Asker:

Awesome question!. I believe that it "is" necessary to have order in society for the stability of humanity, and even for those who believe in "chaos"!. In a funny way objective truth would be necessary for us to have an opinion of it, or reject it!.Www@QuestionHome@Com

For a monotheistic religion society running functionally is best, but is unrealistic becasue every one is differnet!. Objectively distructive to society, no, any religion that celebrates people for their love and compassion of human existence will not follow the idea of destructive results and what is the moral order, suerly the moral order is what each individual decides it should be!. One lady said to a vicar "I believe God is a metaphor for everything that is good" still unsure of the end of that conversation!.Www@QuestionHome@Com

Perhaps it would be wise to weigh which course of action might do the least harm to ones self and to all others as well as which course of action would be the most beneficial to ones self and to all others!.

As truth, the truth and any truth is purely relative and subjective in its nature, what might appear to be true at this moment might not appear so in the next as there are no absolutes!.

Knowing ones self is of utmost importance and, perhaps, ones should seek that knowledge first and foremost as that will lead one to an understanding of all that exist and ones relationship to and with the same!.

Be well!.Www@QuestionHome@Com

At the root of this question is the deeper question!. Should one lie to others in for the better good!? And further, will it eventually lead to me lying to myself!?

It's both a slippery slope and a question all intelligent people need to address almost every day!. Once the moral question of lying is breached, where is the line!?

Personally, and I hope this doesn't sound self-righteous, but the older I get the more I find the absolute truth is more valuable than a charade, almost in every circumstance!. I included the word 'almost' in the last sentence because there are exceptions to every rule!.

As far as expressed religious beliefs go, I would argue with your first assumption!. Religion, morality, and social order are not tied together!. So it behooves one to be true to themselves and reveal it to others when it's felt to be needed!.Www@QuestionHome@Com

Look to the Quantam Field!. It is the scientists in this field that are proving the existence of God!. We are all energy, and energy is always moving (particles disappear and reappear and they dont know where they go to) and everything in this known Universe is made from the same energy - we are all one so that only proves that a single belief system is the way we are all headed!.Www@QuestionHome@Com

yes, you are lying to yourself!. humankind only thinks it needs objective, functional truth, whereas in fact, what the world REALLY needs is scientific, mathematical truth; the kind of truth that can be proven time and again!. belief systems are the fatal flaw in human nature, and the further we can get away from them the better!.Www@QuestionHome@Com

i'm a panentheist, and i believe what hindus (apparently) believe: that any spiritual acquiring of truth, meditation, THINKING is good!.
this is a very tolerant view!.
i think you should tolerate relative truths if they do not hurt anyone and impose rules on people!. going to church is okay!. thinking women are worse because god made them out of a man's rib --- and then disrespecting women is not okay!.

let the name of truth be known to you and your friends!. why impose your own vision of the truth (which may be objective, who knows!?) when you would not want to have that done to you!?

i think tolerance is more important, although it's not great: everyone knowing and accepting an objective truth would be better!. but we can only dream of that :D maybe in our next livesWww@QuestionHome@Com

I may be wrong but this sounds like an atheism v's religion argument!.
It all centres around disillusionment perhaps!.
Disillusionment should be celebrated as it is the revealing of the truth yet it is feared because the truth would destroy the systems that govern us!.

Admitted I am only guessing here!.Www@QuestionHome@Com

I personally can get by without believing in objective morality!. I'm also not too bothered about 'ordering society'!.
Do not lie to yourself!. Instead, invent your own morality and live by that!. It may be relative, but it gives life a meaning!.Www@QuestionHome@Com

All you have to do then is to ACCEPT the fact that EVERY known and unknown social system has its positive and negative side!.
And this is truth!.
And simple to understand even for a "relativist"!.Www@QuestionHome@Com

I prefer the truth, the greatest disservice among human kind is to lie to another person and even worse is lying to oneself!.

Truth may hurt but it's always for the better!.Www@QuestionHome@Com

Anyone understand what is going on!.

Anyway I suggest you cahnge the coolant and interface with the proten beam; therefore reducing the calming effect of the dispersal field!.Www@QuestionHome@Com

the problem here is the word "truth"!.

have an open mind on what truth is, could be or might be
and then the questions are answered!.!.!.Www@QuestionHome@Com

I think humankind can just start by being nicer to each other!.Www@QuestionHome@Com

A dangerous mindWww@QuestionHome@Com

About as Dangerous as a can of baked beans!.Www@QuestionHome@Com

ummm!.!.!.i didnt do it!?!Www@QuestionHome@Com

This is asuming that there is a conflict between the moral order and the truth: this need not be the case!.
The truth is that if people follow a higher moral code, this is in line with absolute truth anyway (absolute truth being from a higher source than humans, who [as you rightly say] can only view truth subjectively)!.
Anything that is produced by an imperfect mind is going to be imperfect, would you agree!?
Therefore I have chosen to follow a moral code which is flawless, produced by a higher intelligence!. It is contained in the Bible, and after a lot of research I have not found another way of life that addresses all of the kind of issues you raise as well as the Bible does!.
Don't wanna sound preachy, but there you go!
I'm not stupid (I!.Q!. of 'bout 160) and I've not lived a sheltered life; I've reached this decision through years of study and experimentation!.
Mankind does need an objective truth, and if you look for it, you'll find it is real, after all!.Www@QuestionHome@Com

Why (and how) would you believe that mankind needs objective truth while remaining a relativist!? Is that intellectually sustainable and coherent!?

(Yeah, I know, answering a question with a question isn't ideal!.!.!. ;) I do hope to devote some more thought to this and answer further later)

My initial ,very provisional response is that it would be wrong to force oneself to believe in what effectively has become the pretense of an objective truth (or something that has the form, but not the substance of an objective truth) while simultaneously rejecting the notion than (an) objective truth is knowable or can exist!. That way would madness and delusion lie!. But the same would apply were one to uphold a moral order than one regarded as not philosophically or intellectually sustainable!.!.!.

None the less, it is only a dangerous thought if you believe that the human intellect does not have the capacity to work through it and come to at least provisionally appropriate and legitimate and coherent conclusions!.!.!.!.

-----
(later)

OK I think I see the potential danger (at least the potential for this argument to be used abusively), in as much as, in the scenario you outline, the establishment or acceptance of a set of ideas that has the appearance of reflecting objective truth – but that is known to be nothing of the sort, because no such thing exists (according to this argument) – could be used to deliberately mislead (or even enslave, intellectually, or even in other terms) people…the creation of a deliberately misrepresented school of thought could be used for utterly cynical and dishonest purposes!. (I can certainly think of instances in which this sort of device has been, and is, used, for the cynical purposes of those with the position and power to create such a philosophy: say, contemporary North Korea or, at least until very recently, Turkmenistan!.!.!.I'm sure you can think of countless other such instances throughout history)

Even if not intended so cynically, one could regard this creation of an intentionally fallicious “truth” as effectively reducing philosophy to the role of something like a toy – an intellectually demoralising exercise!. !.!.!.!. and one that is degrading to human intelligence and personality!.

In the longer term such an approach, or indifference to truth could be expected to result in the “smoothly functioning and orderly society” that this ideology had been intended to create breaking down, once the reality that its very intellectual foundation (or, in marxian terms, superstructure) had been based around something that was not, and was known not to be, an objective truth despite having been described as one became public knowledge – as it surely would, eventually!.

So - my conclusion is, it's best not to lie! Or to use partial truths cynically or instrumentally!.!.!.!.!. It is surely better to accept that a degree of uncertainty about the absolute validity of all aspects of one's belief system will always exist alongside faith in that belief system- and maintain a certain degree of doubt (and acceptance of the possiblity of the validity of other approaches) - and allow the questioning of that belief system (which will, in any case, help it to evolve organically), than it is to set up something that is patently reliant upon falsehood for its very existence!.

So, of the two courses of action that you present: I don't think it's an either/or situation!. Truth and the moral order are too closely connected for damage to one not to impact on the other!. But accepting some degree of uncertainty - even if that does not permit the construction of a "controlling ideology" from which you hope to ensure social stability - has to be better, more moral, and more consonant with integrity, than enforcing a "false truth" could ever be!.

--- EDIT: Or to sum this up in one line: you can't apply the strictures that may be appropriate where the presence of absolute truth to a framework in which relativism is fundamentalWww@QuestionHome@Com

i am not convinced that we can directly understand or experience anything objectively yet we we are bound to a perception illusion where everything, including our bodies, is an object!.
i will only hold on to the thing which can not be thrown out or rejected and that is beyond any belief system or ideology!. socially, the position most conducive to peaceful living is the one that does not demand or proclaim a specific system of belief!. Every culture or group/family of people will naturally cohese based on a common need for survival and adaptation to their environment!. Part of this adaptation is the sharing of daily experience and the re-telling of this daily experience!. Through this exercise a common group understanding of its collective experience is built!. The problem starts when someone steps in to attempt to direct or control this understanding!. That is when systems are created!. These systems are intended to directly indoctrinate new members of this collective into the understanding of this common experience and the group TRUTH!. It is completely mechanical and synthetic and cannot take the place of spontaneous shared experience!. Eventually, the method and symbol of TRUTH become disconnected from the reality of the group experience!.

If you separate the social idea of TRUTH from the reality of truth you have no real alternative but to choose reality!.Www@QuestionHome@Com

A dangerous thought may be but it is a serious consideration too that I have come across here for long time!. Having said that, I would proceed to assert that any truth inherent only to one believe system will only be ‘objective’ therein, and in the mind of an outsider it could be a doubtable fact until proven to be true by the reason of common understanding!.

I believe that ‘a smooth functioning and orderly society is a good thing’ as part of ideal perception of my world, as I understand that nothing can ever fully live up to its ideals, and nothing can be perfectly in a realistic world!. I however might proceed religiously and proclaim my beliefs as such, but this mainly for the purpose of my ultimate vision that in turn would instruct me for my realities aims and objective in life!. Therefore I can begin to come toward the solution now of the dilemma of your question, as I say that no society, or a person, could ever be properly moral without being committed to improvement, and progression by means of a better knowledge and understanding of its inherent as well universal principles of goodness and morality from what it is to what it can be both in from and in its function!.

I would say that that ultimate objectivity in the mind about ideal notions, that truth is just the one, comes in form of an attitude that is a way that should bring us ever so closer to truth, a never ending search – the objective is to be pointing to the truth as the right direction and therein, I believe, is morality and goodness of all things aspiring to be good, to be on the way of good!.

I would therefore seek to redefine ‘moral society’ as a society that would allow you the freedom of your belief, and also the freedom to refine your exiting beliefs without imposing any of its own, as society that would basically seek improvement through search for facts closer to truth!.

In your conflict between ‘the moral order’ and ‘the known truth’, you need to cause damage to none you just need to find yourself in a position where we can keep searching and finding for yourself!. If the is some system so obviously imperfect in place even then you could use that as a counter reference to what you believe is true, or what is your ’known truth’!.

The first paragraph of your question detail is fully assertive of you’re the way you form your beliefs!. I things we never compromise with what we belief is wrong or ‘destructive to society’!. It is then your duty to present in the best way you could what you think and believe is the ‘best relative’, as then it will be known!.Www@QuestionHome@Com

If you only beleive in relative truth then it doesn't matter what is true or not because you would recognize that what you think is true may not be true for others!.!.!.!.!. If your truth is different from others but equally valid, then you have no right to interject your truth into their lives because by your own reasoning your truth is not true to them!.!.!.!.!. therefore it is valueless!. also if a concept as basic as truth (reality) is relative, then every concept must be relative as well including your ideas of societal danger!.

So!.!.!.!.!. if you believe in relative truth you should make it a rule to keep your mouth shut at all times, because you are in effect disagreeing with yourself whenever you say something is untrue!. If you cannot make a legitimate logical negative statement, then you can never posit any legitimate logical affirmative statement!. If you cannot say that an apple is definately not an orange you cannot prove it is an apple!.

Personally I think their is objective truth!.!.!.!.!. it is something that can be discovered like mathematics!. It exists in spite of noone knowing what it is!. I think that things that people call "truth" is in actuallity opinion or quesswork!. Truth may forever be unknown, but regardless it exists!. The worst example of misuse of the word truth regards religious matters, where opinion and conjecture runs rampant under the false banner of truth!. It is so far from truth that it is mindboggling (unless of course it happens to be true!.!.!.!. which is illogical and improbable)

For instance, I am either a man or a woman!. You may believe that I am one while I am the other!.!.!.!.!. you may believe I am the gender that I am in reality!.!.!.!.!.!. You may never know my gender at all!. Regardless of all those unknowns, falsehoods, whatever I still have a gender!. The fallacy of subjective truth lies in the elevation of people in their own warped minds!. Ask a scientist about subjective truth and they will laugh in your face!.!.!.!.!. probably because they are busy trying to discover the objective truth that exists!.Www@QuestionHome@Com

I JUST DO WHAT I WANT I AM AN ATHEIST AND ALL MY FAMILY BELIEVES IN GOD IT'S AMERICA AND WE ARE FREE TOO!.Www@QuestionHome@Com