I posted the following on my Facebook today, relative to the argument we constantly see that both sides in any dispute have validity.
“Let us format the basic proposition thus: given two propositions, both should be considered as necessarily equal in quality and value. This is the argument, and I have seen it often.
Let us consider the converse: given two propositions, both should not necessarily be considered as equal in quality and value.”
Both are propositions, making opposite statements. Both cannot be universally true. If we treat the first proposition as true, it is contradicted by the second. If we treat the second one as true, it is NOT contradicted by the first.
And in point of fact, there are knowable rules which govern the world–societies, economies, political systems, the physical world–and that statement which best coincides with those rules is most correct.
Truth is that which enables us to predict the outcome of our actions, and it applies in the moral sphere as well. The “truth” of leftist economics is that they don’t care about poor people, justice, or human rights, since their policies create poverty, injustice and pervasive violations of human rights.”
That was this morning, then I got to thinking about it. Consider the foundational claim of moral relativism: that no universal moral truths exist. We can’t, for example, condemn the Arabs for their abuse of women.
Let us invert that claim: universal truths DO exist (I am being loose with “truth” here, by which I myself intend to connote an idea that consistently generates what it is trying to generate. If you want peace, then a “true” idea is one that generates peace).
Therefore: No universal moral truths exist is juxtaposed to Universal moral truths do exist. The claim that no universal moral truths exist is, itself, a moral claim. Therefore if it is valid, it contradicts itself. Only the latter formation is logically coherent. This matches, of course, common sense understandings we have, like equal justice before the law, the Golden Rule, and the like.
I have done that basic operation before, but not quite that way. Thinking, and following pathways, is a type of motion. You are travelling trails, and gradually mapping the forest. You have gone this way before, but not taken this spur; I wonder where it goes.
Most truth, in my view, is latent. It is a sort of hidden crystalline structure that, when light is shined upon it, reacts as a whole. It is not a thing. You cannot possess it. You can merely interact with it, harmoniously, or dysfunctionally.