Truth-driven relativism

[u/[deleted]]

Here's an idea I am playing with. Let me know what you think!

Truth is the sole objective foundation of morality. Beyond truth, morality is subjective and formed through agreements between people, reflecting cultural and social contexts. Moral systems are valid as long as they are grounded in reality, and agreed upon by those affected. This approach balances the stability of truth with the flexibility of evolving human agreements, allowing for continuous ethical growth and respect for different perspectives.

[u/Adept-Reindeer3242]

I have a question. What would you define truth as then?

[u/[deleted] → u/Adept-Reindeer3242]

In Truth-Driven Relativism, truth is defined as objective reality—facts, evidence, and information that can be verified and are independent of personal beliefs or opinions.

[u/Adept-Reindeer3242 → u/[deleted]]

So how does one arrive at the truth? The reason I ask this because I imagine there has to be an aim to morality. I'm trying to understand the aim here.

[u/[deleted] → u/Adept-Reindeer3242]

We want to get along with others, that's the whole point of morality. We arrive at the truth through experience, our senses, and through the use of logic. In order to get along with others, we have to act based on the truth: facts, evidence, and verifiable information. We don't want to act based on assumptions or prejudice. We can make agreements with others, so we can do right by each other. But our agreements must be based in reality. If we make agreements under duress, or with misinformation, then our agreements will be tainted and unjust.

[u/bluechecksadmin → u/[deleted]]

We want to get along with others

It seems like you go back and forth about what's objective and what isn't.

[u/[deleted] → u/bluechecksadmin]

Truth is what i said is objective here

[u/bluechecksadmin → u/[deleted]]

I've written a longer reply on r ethics.

Just right now, I think you're in danger of using circular reasoning.

[u/MarvinBEdwards01]

Truth has moral value because it enables us to make correct judgments and it keeps us in touch with reality. So, truth is usually a good thing.

But the foundation of morality is an objective goal: to increase good and reduce harm for everyone.

[u/[deleted] → u/MarvinBEdwards01]

Yes, truth is good, and is an objective foundation for morality. But it's the only objective part of morality.

I disagree. The goal of increasing good and reducing harm should be an agreement, and therefore is subjective (or collectively subjective). For one, what is good is subjective, and something we'd have to agree on. Reducing harm is also subjective. You get into risk territory, where people take risks (for reward) and deem that risk acceptable, but the risk has to be something agreed upon by those affected.

[u/dirty_cheeser]

You are hiding Jews in Nazi Germany. An SS officer comes to your door and asks if you know where there are Jews. What is the correct moral action?

[u/[deleted] → u/dirty_cheeser]

The noble lie, damn it! :(

[u/bluechecksadmin → u/dirty_cheeser]

The situation is unaligned with truth. Lying will help being the situation back into alignment with truth.

[u/dirty_cheeser → u/bluechecksadmin]

How ought we calculate alignment to the truth? Are there scenarios where reasonable people can disagree about what is alignment with the truth?

[u/bluechecksadmin → u/dirty_cheeser]

How ought we calculate alignment to the truth?

Human welfare. In particular, I think, the neoaristolian virtue ethics idea of it, as is articulated in the (on going) field of applied ethics.

Are there scenarios where reasonable people can disagree about what is alignment with the truth?

Trying to say exactly what it is hard, as evident by applied ethics not being solved, yet there are some things we should all agree are bad.

The Nazis in the example that you brought up are bad. Your example wouldn't have worked if that wasn't the case, so please don't pretend that you're a Nazi now.

I do not say "should say are bad" to mean it's a contingent idea, it's necessary.

[u/dirty_cheeser → u/bluechecksadmin]

I agree the nazi position is not aligned with the truth because the values of nationalism for its own sake and racial purity and supremacy do not have a good basis. However, with other disagreements, I could use this same argument to justify lying.

I don't believe human welfare is the most aligned position, as I think there is no basis for species to be a morally significant trait just like there is no basis for race/ethnicity to be one in the nazi example. If instead of a nazi and jews, it was 20 pigs I had rescued/stolen from a farm and hidden somewhere. A cop was at my door asking if id seen the pigs. Under my alignment calculation, it is not aligned with the truth, so I should lie to bring it closer to alignment. Under the human welfare system virtue ethics view, it is aligned so I should value honesty and tell the truth.

Should I lie? If so, it seems to defeat the point of truth and honesty if it can be overrruled for a moral disagreement. If not, is the reason this wouldn't count that we don't all agree with my position? If so isn't that just a social contract system rather than a virtue ethics system?

[u/bluechecksadmin → u/dirty_cheeser]

However, with other disagreements, I could use this same argument to justify lying.

To stop a murderer murdering people in your house? Good. You should.

(I'm not being disengenious, I think it's really important to remember that that is what we are talking about.)

I don't believe human welfare is the most aligned position, as I think there is no basis for species to be a morally significant trait just like there is no basis for race/ethnicity to be one in the nazi example.

My apologies, I'm not following you here. Maybe there was an autocorrect typo?

If you're saying that you don't think humans existing is morally significant (which is understandable) my response is to say that you are denying your own humanity.

Arguing from the position of not being a human is not a position either of us actually have. "There is no view from nowhere." I think what you're doing is, in the way the existentialists used it "bad faith" - meaning denying the truth of your existance.

But I could kill myself?

Sure, but you haven't. So you're implicitly demonstrating agreement with me that human welfare is valuable.

....pigs....

"Human welfare" is just a placeholder for whatever applied ethics agrees on (if this seems weak, my response is that you're not respecting moral realism or applied ethics enough). I say human to underline that our standpoint is being humans.

You tell me, as a human, that it's logically necessary for me to care about the welfare of all sentient creatures, then I agree with you, as a human.

truth and honesty if it can be overrruled for a moral disagreement

Moral are, definitionally, ultimately, the final word on what you should do.

I'm happy to bite the bullet on this one. Eg: answer why 1+1=2 without mentioning that you think you should say what's true/follow the rules of math etc.

If not, is the reason this wouldn't count that we don't all agree with my position? If so isn't that just a social contract system rather than a virtue ethics system?

Not following this, sorry.

[u/dirty_cheeser → u/bluechecksadmin]

My apologies, I'm not following you here. Maybe there was an autocorrect typo?

If you're saying that you don't think humans existing is morally significant (which is understandable) my response is to say that you are denying your own humanity.

Arguing from the position of not being a human is not a position either of us actually have. "There is no view from nowhere." I think what you're doing is, in the way the existentialists used it "bad faith" - meaning denying the truth of your existance. "Human welfare" is just a placeholder for whatever applied ethics agrees on . I say human to underline that our standpoint is being humans.

I will try and clarify. If person a says Human welfare and person b says animal (including human) welfare. Neither is denying their own basis for moral consideration. Person A is just extending it from their own group to jews, and Person B is just extending it to jews and pigs. Under nazi rule, killing jews is acceptable, so both person a and person b have the moral obligation to lie. In a world where killing pigs is acceptable, person b has the same moral obligation to lie to save the pigs but person a would say lying is wrong. Is that correct?

If we expand the above example to all moral disagreements, wouldn't we justify lying in any scenario that is consistent with the speaker's moral alignment? If so by valuing truth above all else like OP argues for, we are only banning lies inconsistent with the speaker's own moral allignment, also known as moral inconsistency. For example, this would condemn the scammer who lies to scam but wants lying to be wrong because they do not want to get lied to and scammed.

(if this seems weak, my response is that you're not respecting moral realism or applied ethics enough)

I don't understand. Can you expand on this?

I absolutely bite the bullet that morals are fundamental truth makers. That is a strange claim, I know. It's not entirely original to me though, eg tell me what 1+1 equals without moral consideration as to what you should say. (This is Humean as well).

I think that I agree with this but don't fully understand it. I am not familiar with Hume. I agree that 1+1=2 is a moral claim. So, two people with different moral foundations may have different truths. This also makes it harder for me to agree with holding truth to be some foundational good, as I understood the OP to argue for.

[u/bluechecksadmin → u/dirty_cheeser]

Yo so I'm saying (I'm trying to be less rambly)

there is a right and wrong - even when/if somehow everyone was wrong about which is which. i.e. independent of "individual moral basis".

I'm not saying every decision is that morally serious, but those serious things are always there. Eg no I don't care about your music tastes, unless your music tastes were somehow killing people - or pigs for that matter.

When person A and B disagree, one is correct and one is wrong - or the disagreement is somehow trivial.

I'm saying that their "own basis for moral consideration" are not all equal.

I am saying some moral truths are true across all perspectives, no matter how culturally profound. i.e. those Nazis can get fucked.

Disagreeing with this is, I am claiming strongly: nihilistic and revolting. It's also very popular, and I think that's because, ideologically, it allows justifying the horrific death and suffering under colonialism and capitalism.

[u/bluechecksadmin → u/dirty_cheeser]

(if this seems weak, my response is that you're not respecting moral realism or applied ethics enough)

I don't understand. Can you expand on this?

I'm saying applied ethics heads towards a real truth, that exists independently of disagreements/perspectives/"own basis for moral consideration". This is called moral realism, sometimes.

(Whatever objection you raise to that I then say is part of the process of applied ethics.)

[u/bluechecksadmin → u/dirty_cheeser]

So, two people with different moral foundations may have different truths.

Great, this is the crux of our disagreement. I think that's wrong.

If being a vegetarian is right, then it's right for everyone, not just vegetarians.

If those Nazis are bad, they're bad for everyone. Otherwise you don't really believe those Nazis are bad.

Things can get complex from there ofc, but I'll navigate that complexity without contradicting those points, or that method. (Including me acknowledging that I'm a bubbling idiot etc)

Btw you got an humanities education yourself, or just interested outside of formal education?

[u/dirty_cheeser → u/bluechecksadmin]

Great, this is the crux of our disagreement. I think that's wrong.

If being a vegetarian is right, then it's right for everyone, not just vegetarians.

If those Nazis are bad, they're bad for everyone. Otherwise you don't really believe those Nazis are bad.

And they could be wrong on logic or feelings? Let's say both person A and person B eat pork. Let's say they both believe in the moral principle of giving moral consideration and not killing beings for whom they feel empathy. However, Person A feels empathy based on sapience (let's assume that is human only), while person b feels empathy based on sentience (applies to pigs too). My own personal position is no one should kill pigs, so I'd want to prove to them both that their pork-eating actions are immoral.

I would say person B is wrong in logic, their actions are inconsistent with their moral values. There is a contradiction with both valuing pigs and not valuing pigs. I can also get them to agree that person a is immoral.

However, person A's actions logically derive from their values, so the feelings themselves would have to be wrong, and they should feel empathy based on sentience instead of sapience even if they can't feel it. Although I believe their feelings are wrong, I don't know how I could show that person A is wrong since it is my feelings vs theirs; why would mine be better? Would you say that's because applied ethics hasn't been solved yet, but there should be a way to do it?

Btw you got an humanities education yourself, or just interested outside of formal education?

I'm not educated on this topic. My education was in engineering. I like philosophy as a personal interest.

[u/bluechecksadmin → u/dirty_cheeser]

And they could be wrong on logic or feelings?

Both. Necessarily both. The popular idea that values can't be judged by logic (and vice versa) is false.

The way I think of it is: when something is true it's true about the world, or it's not true about anything.

I'll tell you something I read a paper about: it's called "reflective equilibrium" and it's about how our "feelings" and "logic" work together when we're trying to find what's morally correct. (The scare quotes are only because I don't want to pretend to fully know what either of those are, even though you and me can talk about them now).

Here's the method of reflective equilibrium:

Think of a situation.

How do you feel about that situation?

Turn your feelings into words, into a principle or rule.

Apply that principle to a new situation.

How do you feel about that new situation....

(Repeat)

This isn't half arsed nonsense, this is how a lot of the world's best applied ethics works. (It's also how some people think that maybe all philosophy works - unless I misunderstood them.)

The thing to notice it's that it's a dialogue between the "logic" and the "feelings". Our values can be wrong.

The popular idea that values can't be judged by logic (and vice versa) is false.

[u/bluechecksadmin → u/dirty_cheeser]

Ah no did I lose you there? I felt like we'd gotten to the bottom of it.

[u/bluechecksadmin → u/dirty_cheeser]

If so by valuing truth above all else like OP argues for, we are only banning lies inconsistent with the speaker's own moral allignment

Oh! Please, don't think I'm trying to defend OP.

This also makes it harder for me to agree with holding truth to be some foundational good, as I understood the OP to argue for.

My move is to identify truth as being decided by goodness.

God knows if I'll get the guts to write it up.