Relativism and Truth

Truth is a statement that conforms to reality. Relativism, on the other hand, means there is no reality outside of us to conform to. It means that Truth is relative to what each person believes. You make your own truth and I make mine.

Allowing everyone first to make their own truth and eventually gathering a majority to impose it, promotes absolute power. Sooner or later a power elite controls the “truth”, conforming it to theirs "in the name of the people", who in turn decides what principles and rights are valid by majority rule, resulting in a dictatorship of Relativism. Therefore, they justify their rule in the so called "public opinion" and reject the consensual higher moral standards that apply to all.

Does life have an inherit meaning? Relativism says it does not have a meaning by itself and each one of us has to create their own meaning. Such convictions promote chaos in society and chaos gives birth to tyranny. Those reaching positions of power through the manipulation of chaos in their own benefit, decide to establish order according to their own particular truths. They pose themselves as populists first to consolidate their incipient power in their road to tyranny.

Relativism points to a goal of "what do I want to do" and my alleged right to do it no matter what and in spite of the feelings of those being harassed or repressed, leading to the wants of a dictator becoming messianic because his morals prevail no matter the consequences for the repressed. That is the end result of the unfortunate doctrine of relativism implying that all beliefs -or belief systems- are equally true.

It is certainly a truism that many things are relative in life; science in particular teaches us many relative values, but science also has fundamental truths that do not depend on human interpretation. According to this same perspective, a society becomes stable when it chooses to rest on fundamental principles and follows rules of conduct based on inherent and inalienable.rights ─ Rules of conduct preventing my conveniently fabricated truth or that of the oppressive ruler to prevail.

Therefore, moral relativism is not an option but a subtle form of repression. The President of Planned Parenthood Federation of America once argued that "…teaching morality doesn't mean imposing my moral values on others. It means sharing wisdom, giving reasons for believing as I do - and then trusting others to think and judge for themselves". Studies indicate 75% of American college professors currently teach that there is no such thing as right and wrong, that is all a matter of judgment. Rather, they treat the questions of good and evil as relative to "individual values and cultural diversity". The problem with this teaching is the promotion at the educational level of a world not as it is, but as they want it to be, while annoying questions about moral absolutes and unacceptable behavior are usually left unanswered or considered irrelevant.

Paramount among the US founding fathers, George Washington stated in his September 19, 1796 Farewell Address to the nation: "Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, Religion and Morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of Patriotism who should labor to subvert these great Pillars".

Law and order rests in the solid foundation of absolute moral truths. If humans decide by majority rule about fundamental principles and rights based on this pervading relativistic moral, they may approve a law against my right to live because I am old enough and the country will have more food for the younger ones and more money from the pension I receive. Or they may pass a law to infringe in my right to express my opinions or to write this article because it creates feelings of dissatisfaction in the population.

Without a clear set of fundamental principles in place, societies cannot survive for long. In today's world, morality is frequently thought of as belonging to a particular religious point of view, but by definition, we see that this is not the case. What we mistakenly name as "the Western civilization" is in reality a world-wide civilization that adheres to judeo-christian principles (not doctrine) that have evolved through the ages to be solidly embodied in the internationally recognized instruments of human rights and fundamental freedoms.

If you, respected reader, abide only by your own moral "truth", is it then a lie that morality relates to our behavior as members of society: 1- to ensure fair play and harmony between individuals? 2- to help make us good people in order to have a good society? and 3- to keep us in a good relationship with Creation?

Are those three questions a lie? How can we achieve our goals in harmony if your moral truth is different than mine? Shouldn't we all be following the same fundamental principles?

Note that we are not talking about differences of opinion but on whether we abide by fundamental principles and respect human inalienable rights in a free society. In the WEB site of "All about philosophy" they offer a very interesting argument that we may use as a precise culmination of these ideas:

"But where does that freedom come from? The view of many who do not adhere to Creation is that morality is a creation of humanity, designed to meet the need of stable societies. All kinds of life are in a process of deciding between life and death, choosing what to do with power and/or authority. This ultimately leads to a system of virtues and values. The question is: what happens when our choices conflict with each other? What if something I believe I need in order for my life to continue results in death for you? If we do not have an absolute standard of truth, chaos and conflict will result as we are all left to our own devices and desires."

Knowledge is relative but basic ethical principles are not. Our view of reality depends on knowledge but the fabric of society depends on ethics. However, reality is not relative, only our knowledge is. Therefore, any argument of relativity in ethics is based in ignorance of the true meaning of basic principles.

While relativistic arguments often begin with plausible, even altruistic premises – e.g., that we are culturally and historically situated creatures, that justification cannot go on forever, that we cannot talk without using language or think without using concepts – in general they end up with implausible, even inconsistent, conclusions. Truth is the Achilles' heel of relativism. According to the normative thesis of strong truth-value relativism, one and the same thing can be true relative to one framework and false relative to another, accepting it as true for some groups and false for others.
But since the time of Plato we have arguments against relativism. He said that either the claim that truth is relative is true absolutely (i.e., true in a non-relative sense) or else it is only true relative to some framework. If relative truth is true absolutely, then at least one truth is not merely true relative to a framework, so this version of the claim is inconsistent. On the other hand, if the relativist's claim that truth is relative were only true relative to his framework, then it can be false in other, perhaps equally good framework. Therefore, why should we accept the relativist's rather idiosyncratic and parochial framework?

Truth is singular for each particular fact. Half truths result from ignorance. “My” truth or “your” truth is a simple euphemism for lying and/or accommodating our own wants. Truth is never relative. Truth is absolute.