If I don't respond to a question or criticism aimed directly at me it is most likely because the person who posted it harbors significant rational incongruences such as disbelief in truth. I refuse to waste time debating people whose ultimate response is that there is no universal truth, hence there is no right or wrong, hence there is no reason to debate at all. A person who contradictorily states that it is a universal truth that there is no universal truth, is not worth debating with.
Well, since you did not respond to my post, I can safely assume that your tag was meant for me.
First, that is a logical fallacy, someone believing or not believing in “truth” does not equal “universal truth”. Second, believing or not in “truth, or a separate entity “Universal truth” in no way automatically leads to one believing, or not believing in “right or wrong.” That again, is a logical fallacy. Third; how can one declare that there is no “universal truth” using the conceptualization of a universal truth to make that claim?
There are many ideas of what “truth” is. Some believe that “truth” is an unchangeable state. This would be similar to the factual statement, “while man has lived on this planet, there has been gravity and an atmosphere.” That seems factual, and “truth,” as man cannot live without a breathable atmosphere that is held to the planet by gravitational forces. That does not make the statement, “therefore, all planets have a breathable atmosphere for humans.” Which would be false. That is the same logical fallacy you repeat. That because one is true, then all are true.
A “universal truth” is a very different concept than a “truth.” There isn’t even an agreed concept of what a “universal truth” should be. Some say that it should be something not able to change. Some, like you, that it is something that is a “truth” in any instance, no matter where in the universe, or in any age. Let’s use the example of a rabbit having long ears. That would seem, on the face, to be a truth that could be universal, yet it is highly possible that 100 million years ago the rabbits then did not have long ears. Another would be the statement that any planet with life needs an oxygen/nitrogen atmosphere extremely similar to our planet. It could be possible for life to evolve somewhere with a very different atmosphere, and there are examples here on Earth to support that claim.
Because I believe that mankind needs a breathable atmosphere of oxygen and nitrogen on Earth is a truth, does that make me morally right? I can see no way that morals, or right or wrong, fall in to play. Does it make the original sentence a “universal truth?” Possibly. On the face it seems clearly to be a truth and the idea that mankind can survive without breathable atmosphere seems false. However, that is a very narrow statement, and only supported by my own limited knowledge, and what is known is this age of man. Perhaps, one day, man will evolve to breathe a very different mixture making the claim false.
Is there a “universal moral of right and wrong” which is more appropriately what you are asking? Is there a moral that would apply to all men at all ages of time, past, present, and future with no exceptions? Is there one moral that is so absolute that there is no tolerance of movement from it? Is murder wrong in each and every case with no exceptions? What of a mass murderer/ serial killer that has killed 100 people already that did not defend their lives because it would be murder to retaliate? Should he/she be left to continue to murder? Should the people go and find the murderer and stop him by killing him and therefore committing murder? And that is aside from the fact that there is a murderer that does not feel it is wrong to murder. Can murder be a “universal truth”?
What about lying? We all can agree that it is morally not right to lie, until you look at it. What of the man, whose wife asks “does this dress make me look fat?” Is it “wrong” for the man to say “you look beautiful to me” when a truth would be “yes, you look fat?” Which is actually “morally right” or “morally wrong”?
So, it seems that for there to be a “universal truth” of the morals of right or wrong then there has to be a complete agreement of wrongness and no transgression in any way. Can there be one moral that can have no exceptions, no possible exclusions? It may be a failure of my limited knowledge, but I can think of no “moral” that cannot possibly have an exception.
The poster often uses “rape” as a supposed “universal truth” by which he/she really means a “universal moral”. At first glance, it seems to be a truth, until you apply the parameter of “in all places in all ages.” Although there are other meanings to “rape” I will use the common one of the sexual taking of one person by another without the second person’s consent. Is that something that all people in this age feel is morally true? In some areas of the world women have no worth, and as such the men “take” without any moral implications. It is the societal way of existence. If they do not experience the moral right or wrongness is it still then “rape”? I am unsure. Those within those societies do not see it as a moral wrong, but those outside can see it as a moral wrong. Which is correct? I suppose one could say that they are blind to the morality of right and wrong. That brings the question of “is it still immoral, if those societies do not see it as morally wrong?”
Take that one step into the future. What if, in 200 years, society understands that eating meat is morally wrong and is agreed upon without exclusion? Does that then make us morally wrong for not knowing whatever it is that changes their moral codes?
But, for there to be a “universal truth” of the morality of right or wrong then “rape” as defined, would have to exist in all ages. In ages past, the rape of the conquered was a gift to the conquering. But, it is easy to look back at those times and say it was “wrong” even though it was not to them. However, one can go back to early man. In that age, there was no “rape” but the animal response of procreation, the survival of the species. There was no possible morality. That makes “rape” as a “universal truth” of right or wrong impossible.
Is there a universal truth of morality? All I can say is that it is a truth that a universal truth of morality is possible, but that so far none are adequately proved.
I cannot blame you, jl, for avoiding “truth”, as your logic skills are so severely flawed. So far, as many have shown, your arguments are filled with logical fallacies and illogic. Frankly, that you seem to persist with the same illogic every time seems to indicate that you immorally wish to deceive through proven falsehoods and the falsehood of deliberate logical fallacies. Curious, does that then mean that you are morally corrupt and that is a “universal truth,” or is that just a truth that you are morally corrupt?