"Ethical Truth vs. Moral Truth Revisited"

Truth claims!

• Is it possible that one can find safety and security without a validation of belief?
• How is it that one can know that their beliefs are in fact true?  
• What claims of validity can one offer as proof to themselves and to others?  
• Is there confirmation and thus confidence because of the logic in their truth claim?  

Certainly there are many who would validate one's pathway to truth.  For example those who hold a  Judeo-Christian ethical view of life believe with one another that there is such a thing as Divine revelation.

Then there are those who hold a  Modernist moral view of life who would agree that there is in fact this body of "stuff" that can be labeled as "truth."  They may disagree on what is in that collection of "stuff" and they may disagree how one arrives at what goes in that collection of "stuff" but they would agree that there is "stuff" called truth.

So then both the Judeo-Christian thinker and the Modernist thinker would agree that there is some sort of truth.  They may disagree as to pathway to, what qualifies as, the characteristics of, but not at the notion of there being  some "stuff" we call truth!

Then too the Modernist thinker would agree with his fellows about "truth" in at least one respect.  They both would postulate that truth is discovered through human effort.  That is discovered through one's rational process, scientific discovery, collective opinion,  cultural behavior norms etc.

Since such "truth" as may be discovered is relative not universal, subjective not objective, etc. there is the potential for conflict within the Modernist position.  In other words, one man's "fact" might be another man's "fallacy" or "fiction."  Even so they would agree on the validity of there being a pathways (different as they might be) to their particular set of "stuff" they call truth.

However,  the question of logic must be introduced into the discussion.  In other words, if a generality fails to be logical in content and process, then more than likely it leads to an invalid position.  Such logic would go on to say that if it can be proven that there is at least one exception, one erroneous element, or at least one inconsistency to the position held, then the table is set for two other questions.

They are these.  First, has not the basic generality been invalidated by one or more of the things just mentioned.  Second, since the door is now open to exceptions, error, and/or inconsistency, how many other problems might there be?

Are you with me so far?

Remember now the Modernist makes the claim that there are no universal truths and in fact all truth is man discovered and is relative even unique to time, culture, the individual, etc.

So here is the dilemma  Is not the proposition that there is no universal truth in and of itself a generality and thus a universal truth?  If one accepts such to be so, then the Modernist has just made a "logic" hole in his no universal truth claim.  (We might at this point ask of other problems with their "stuff" called truth?)

That then leads to another question.  How many other universal truths might be lurking about within his argument or perhaps out there just outside his consciousness?  Oh by the way, the proposition of there being no universal truth when argued by the Modernist shares characteristics with ethical truth, that is it is held to apply across time and culture etc.  It is held to apply no matter the situation or the individual.

Should not those who hold this position "fess up" and admit that in at least one instance they hold a universal objective truth!  If they do of course they open the door to there being other universal truth.

"Nice argument," one may say.  "Don't believe it but, nice argument."  Well, other posts will continue the discussion.  In the mean time maybe the following is worth thinking about.

Could it be that there not being universal objective truth leaves the individual cut loose form the very things that allow him confidence in the content and processes of this thought life which then has implications for his actions?.  Could it be that cutting the individual's moorings from universal objective truth has a debilitating effect upon the relationships that one has with himself and thus others?  Personally, I am convinced it is so!