-1

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?

closed as unclear what you're asking by Joseph Weissman Jan 9 '16 at 16:22

Please clarify your specific problem or add additional details to highlight exactly what you need. As it's currently written, it’s hard to tell exactly what you're asking. See the How to Ask page for help clarifying this question. If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.

  • This seems to resolve to something along the lines of why judge people -- is there any chance you might tell us a little more about what you're expecting someone here to explain to you? – Joseph Weissman Dec 3 '13 at 2:12
0

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?

The simple answer is that we don't - moral standards are shared. An easy analogy is with language - we could make up our own words - but it would be an exercise in futility & pointlessness. Similarly for moral systems conjured out of nothing.

moral systems are not simple things, but as complex, subtle and difficult as language; truth for both is immanent.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.