We can feel comforted by the existence of truths which are not merely subjective because the alternative that there are none is quite uncomfortable. Were there no truths, and nothing other than subjective perceptions, we should find ourselves with at least these two very uncomfortable thoughts:

 * If when we are harmed by someone else, there were no facts of the matter about what happened, there could be no hope that judges and juries could approach an accurate understanding of what happened. Our understandings of situations are always limited by our perspectives and our limited information, but we can often acquire some further understanding of the ways in which and degrees to which our knowledge is limited. If there are no facts, then it is not coherent to say we are epistemically limited in this way. Rather, each of our subjective impressions is as good as any other. So if a crazy person says I stole his money, that claim is on equal epistemic footing as my claim that I clearly did not. Without the ability to describe claims as better-grounded or worse-grounded, our ability to resolve such a situation justly is fundamentally undermined.

 * Without the sense that we can trust that aspects of the world are stable to some degree, and can be known to some degree in more objective ways, it would be quite scary doing ordinary activities like walking and driving. It would be paralyzing to think that I can't know at all whether the sidewalk on which I'm about to step is going to be solid or liquid or gel or plasma. If it's a merely subjective matter, I have no ways of assessing that I'm probably right that the sidewalk is solid. Similarly, it would be uncomfortable not to be able to trust that there are facts that the engineers of cars and bridges and tunnels have more access to than does a child or a person using LSD. That is, it's frightening to imagine that neither I nor they have beliefs that approach any facts.