Objective Truths

I have often witnessed arguments between relativists who appear to deny even the existence of objective truth and absolutists who argue that not only is there an objective truth but that they know what it is. They almost always seem to talk past one another. I am both a relativist and an absolutist and able to reconcile the two positions easily. Then again, I am smarter than your average bear or your average American.

The important point brought out by postmodernists, IMHO, is that there is no particular reason to believe that humans are capable of discerning universally objective truths. Ultimately, any statement depends on one or more unprovable assumptions. This is particularly true wrt normative propositions, and this is where these kind of arguments usually get started. The relativist says that every religion is equally valid, and the absolutist says that there is one true religion. They both may be right, depending on context.

I follow a particular religion which I regard as correct and predicated on truth; however, I recognize that I cannot prove the truth or falsity of my religious views since they ultimately rest on a set of arbitrary assumptions taken by faith. Either you believe these or you don't. My Muslim neighbor believes that his religion is true, and this belief is ultimately predicated on metaphysical assumptions that differ from mine. In this sense, our religions are equally valid. As an anarchist or minimalist libertarian, I am obliged to respect the opinions of others on such matters by acquiescing in their right to hold those opinions and to act on them as long as my own rights are not infringed. I may choose not to associate with conspecifics who have views incompatible with my own, but I cannot consistently support any coercive measure that privileges my point of view over any other.

To me, one of the most compelling arguments for libertarianism is that it offers a system in which the maximum diversity of opinions and values may run their course and compete in the marketplace of ideas. Since we cannot know which of these ideas will be truthful or which subjective values everyone ought to have, we would be well served as a species in the long run to provide for as much heterogeneity as possible consistent with the non-aggression principle. This improves the chances that some of us will get something right and that our species will flourish.

I do not welcome the absolutist, however well intentioned, who seeks to impose his opinions and values on me and others via coercion. This includes those pc absolutists who employ relativist arguments to support a coercive agenda which values as absolutely correct the principles of egalitarianism and multi-culturalism with a religious fervor. I loathe the religious right that seeks to impose disabilities on some people because of their sexual orientation and to privilege others, and I loathe the pc left that would compel anyone with a scruple about homosexuality to associate with and honor homosexuals. I loathe the religious right that seeks to interpose the state in a woman's most intimate decisions about her health and fecundity, and I loathe the pc left that would oblige everyone to subsidize abortions and bastardy.

The debased civil discourse in this country is not a debate between absolutism and relativism; rather, it is a debate among absolutists competing for the privilege of controlling how you think and live. The right has been calling the left "relativists" because this appeals to the stupider people in their constituency. This is code for "we are pretending that we intend to impose your religious views on America".