Our society is constantly trying to accept everyone's views of what is right, but there cannot be more than one truth to something can there?

As we all experience life/things/events differently, then it makes sense to me that there’s more than one truth to many things. My perception will be different from the next person and so on. It could be argued that ultimately it boils down to one truth. To that, I’d be inclined to think that that one truth is based on one person’s experience.

Truth is shaped by your personal worldview and your experiences. Who is to say what is absolute truth?

Thus, as long as someone arrives by their truth honestly, why not let it exist alongside your own.

I think a balance is important.

I think that, to an extent, people’s perceptions of truth are shaped by their experiences, culture, and religion. Thus, what is “right” for some, may not be universally right for others. This is totally fine. Diversity is the spice of life.

However, true, pure relativism is dangerous, because to function, society needs some things that are almost universally “right” or “wrong.” Like rape, for instance.

I believe that ‘truth’ can come from anywhere elses,each of it has its own portion of truth even though some will contradict with each others.

Of course there can.

Yes. The truth is that everyone has equal value in spite of not everyone’s life experiences being the same. Truth and view point are different things.

Not everything is a matter of absolutes. I might think abortion is acceptable, but you might think it isn’t something you would be comfortable with. There is no absolute truth of the matter, except that each person has a choice to make.

One person’s truth (or that of one teacher, or one religion, or one philosophy, or one anything) is his or her belief. But a belief does not make it truth or fact no matter how loudly and how often it is shouted. You, for example, may believe in heaven or hell because you were brought up by your parents and your religion that it’s a fact. I, however, may believe the truth is that there is nothing after life but people’s memories of us. Which of us knows the truth? Only one? Unlikely in the extreme. Neither? More likely. That’s my problem with religion. Each one (mine included) proclaims to know the truth about things which are unknowable. This doesn’t mean I’m not spiritual, even religious; it means I don’t accept everything a religion tells me to be true. (Except perhaps that God seems to be always broke.)

Truth is an abstract, malleable concept that allows for us not to bludgeon each other when we disagree. Thank god or whoever…sorry if I’m stepping on someone’s truth, here

It depends on the subject.

I think Conor Oberst put it very eloquently: “There is no truth, there is only you, and what you make the truth.”

Wonderful quote, @le_inferno. I never heard it. One, beautifully crafted sentence to say what my whole paragraph did.

@le_inferno : I second @Austinlad on that.

@JilltheTooth, you second that it’s a wonderful quote, or that Oberst can say in 14 what it took me 148?

;-)

I think that in the area you are talking about, it’s a mistake to say that there can be more than one truth. I think that it is more sensible to see it as there isn’t any truth.

What you are talking about are normative statements like the ten commandments. People should do this. They shouldn’t do that.

There is no absolute right and wrong here. There are just competing groups who have different ideas of right and wrong, and all claim they have God on their side. You see the truth this way or that way depending on what side you are on.

I think that the truth of the matter is that there is a competition about “truth.” The battle sways back and forth. If one side is ascendant, they will have a surprise waiting them if they think they will always be ascendant. Truth changes as power changes hands. Truth is dependent on political power, not reality. Truth is a human idea, and can only be determined by each individual as they see fit. They will not all agree. So some will always think others are wrong.

what true? you mean like one true God? the true meaning of life? the truth about mountain dew lowering sperm count?

Existence is too big to understand completely. So, there’s no true truth. And there’s very rarely even a single best truth. So, there’s room for many truths to work. That doesn’t mean most truths work, though. It just means that we should allow for as many truths as we can handle without threatening the stability of our relationship with reality, because the more diversity in our view the more effectively we can adapt when reality demands something new of us. We don’t do this very well, and it seems the massive amounts of “truths” in society have more to do with covering better truths up than supporting functional diversity. But, you know. Yay diversity.

Rarely is anything black or white. Our society tries to remain in the shades of gray but still trying to remain ethically and morally correct. However, truth is just a matter of perspective, and many people today can twist anything into the truth.

I’ve been taught that there’s always more than one way to Walmart. (We live in a small town.)

So, there is more than one way to the truth, but that truth is one. Thats what I think.

Sometimes people don’t have access to the best information, so their conclusions lack reality.

The concept that all things are equally true is unadulterated bullshit.

Just as in Math where x squared can be both one and minus one; just as in love where beauty is in the eyes of the beholder: so can there be two, nay, many truths – depending on the situation and circumstances.

@CaptainHarley, to say that there can be more than one truth to something is not the same as saying that all things are equally true.

Nor is it saying anything about factuality or logical deduction.

@Jeruba

I cannot abide those who contend that all versions of “reality” have equal value, which is why I said what I did. People who believe this are the human variant of ostrich, denying a shared reality and hopding they can create their own out of whole-cloth and dreams.

Very good. Now, do you believe that there is more than one way to one truth?

@CaptainHarley How do you decide which “version” of reality has the most value?

The truth is whatever the evidence supports. Everyone believes in evidence.

@lapilofu Not every issue can be decided on evidence, and very few people are able to assume a neutral position from which to examine the evidence.

@FireMadeFlesh Things that can’t be supported by evidence I don’t call truths and I don’t think most people do either. Most of the time I call them opinions or—more confusingly—beliefs. So in that sense, there is only one truth.

@lapilofu In that case the things that can be considered truths are severely limited. If you are talking in a metaphysical sense, the only truth is that I exist and am sentient. Ignoring that though, the only truths we have are the self-consistency of mathematics and documented history, and beyond that a finite number of solid scientific theories. I don’t think any of these are the subject of the question. People cannot have ‘views’ on these truths, because their status as a truth is based on the proportion of people who accept them as true.
The question, as I understand it, is asking (for example) if someone who believes a republic is the best form of government is as correct as someone who believes a constitutional monarchy is the best form. Arguments can be mounted to argue each case, each of them drawing on evidence that happens to support their idea, but since the proportion of people regarding either one as truth is not at a critical mass, we cannot discard the opposing point of view as untrue.

@FireMadeFlesh You make many great points, but the point which I am trying to make is that there is a danger to conflating truths and opinions. The purpose of a court trial, for instance, is to arrive at the truth so justice can—ostensibly—be carried out. Whether or not this is an effective system (it often isn’t) is certainly a matter of debate, but if there were not one truth of a situation, why would we bother to have a trial at all? Or do you believe we shouldn’t?

The question, as I understand it, is rather vague and therefore very much in danger of mixing up facts with opinions. I certainly believe that opinions vary from person to person, but if I am in a room with no windows, then it is true for everyone that there are no windows in that room. It cannot be true for some people that there are.

Just to clarify further—I do completely agree that society should tolerate a spectrum of worldviews (perhaps not all worldviews) and there are many things that cannot be empirically determined (most of morality, for instance). But I also think we need to acknowledge that some things are true and not subjective.

What comes to my mind is the answer 42. There’s more than one way to get the answer, but the answer’s still 42. It’s a matter of respecting how people get the answer. I hope that’s kind of what you were looking for. I’ll rephrase, if not. :)

@Dr_Dredd

1. Is it verifiable? Is it part of the shared reallity?
2. Is it repeatable? Does it hold true in all situations?
3. Does it allow for identical outcomes for identical actions?
4. Is it internally consistent?

@lapilofu The question certainly is vague. Your example of a truth is indisputable, in that it is an absolute truth (although to anyone with the right apparatus the room would be transparent in other frequencies of light). Objective truth is not as common as most people seem to think though. For example, a person may think it a no-brainer that the best way to travel around Hong Kong is by train, but to another person who doesn’t care about expense and travelling time, driving a Jaguar might be better.

I think we generally agree on this, but I think the number of objective truths is so limited it could relegate the strict sense of the term ‘truth’ to an archaic word. ‘Opinion’ does not do justice to the strength of a person’s belief in their version of truth, so I use ‘truth’ in a subjective sense as well as an objective sense.

@FireMadeFlesh Fair enough. We do seem to generally agree. :)

It depends on the semantics of the word truth. Are we talking about first order logic for example?