This is an afterthought of a TEDx video I caught this week on moral philosophy and its links with truth: "Perception is truth." Consider the following situations:
- I suppose that I have an urge to be a cannibal (similar to Armin Meiwes from Germany) and I choose to eat a fellow human... how it is different from eating any other animal? Man is an animal after all! Isn't it similar to people eating rats or snakes, items that would otherwise be considered taboo?
- If I claim that 7.5 billion humans are too many and even 2-3 billion less would not put our population even remotely near endangerment. Why is my opinion 'psychopathic'?
- As a theist, I tend to put forward various arguments opposing atheism... but how can I confirm that my 'belief' is true? The arguments are usually historic in nature and have very little scientific proof, of course, under the assumption that scientific proof is truth, which puts me in a dilemma on science and truth as well.
My question is, if each person defines his or her perception as the ultimate truth, and if every person has a different definition of truth, then how can one person judge another based on his or her definition?