Nature of Truth
It might seem odd that how someone thinks about truth would be something one could point to as delineating conservative thought from progressive thought, but, here we are. It’s not necessarily the existence of truth, it’s also what constitutes objective and subjective truth. There are three areas which distinguish a conservative from a progressive when it comes to the nature of truth. First, does truth exist and is it something we can know? Second, what is subjective truth? And third, what is objective truth?
Truth doesn’t exist
Occasionally, you will come across a friend who tells you, truth doesn’t exist or that truth is unknowable. This is a progressive view of truth. Rejecting absolute truth is called postmodernism which came about as an over reaction to the verificationism and scientism of the modern or enlightenment period. I won’t spend a lot of time on this one because the statements, “truth doesn’t exist,” and “truth is unknowable,” are self-refuting statements. Or as Christian apologist Greg Koukl says, it commits suicide, it kills itself. Let me explain. When someone says, “truth doesn’t exist,” or “truth is unknowable, “ they are making a claim that what they are saying is true. But if we apply what they are claiming to their statement, it’s false. It commits suicide.
Objective and Subjective Truth
More common to the progressive view of truth is confusing objective and subjective truth. Let’s begin at the beginning. Truth is something that corresponds to reality. Truth can be either objective (external) or subjective (internal). Closely related to truth are facts. Facts are objective, verifiable statements or information which are accurate descriptions of reality. Facts are independent of opinion, feelings, beliefs, and interpretation. Truth and facts can be scientific, historical, mathematical, and moral.
For example, when we explored the Nature of Authority one of the proofs offered for a higher external authority was the appearance of objective morality. Whether you call that external entity God or a supreme being. The chart below summarizes the difference between objective and subjective:
| Objective | Subjective |
| Universally True: all people, all time. | Individually true |
| Verifiable (true or false) | Variable |
| Independent from personal views | Dependent on personal views |
| External | Internal |
| Observable | Experiential |
| Obligatory | Optional |
Someone with a more progressive understanding of truth will at times attempt to make subjective truth objective, and objective truths subjective.
Confusing objective and subjective truth
One of the biggest tells for someone with a progressive view of truth is a tendency to try and make subjective truths objective truths. Nowhere is this more apparent than when discussing morality. Rather than going through a detailed review and analysis of all the different ethical and moral philosophies, we will look at the one aspect of any moral philosophy that makes or breaks it, grounding. Grounding is identifying and justifying the ultimate foundation or basis for moral truths, obligations, or values. Grounding asks the questions; “What makes moral claims true or binding?” “Why should we follow certain ethical principles?” And “What gives them authority?” Furthermore, grounding can either be external or internal (to mankind). As we’ve already established and it’s agreed, for something to be objective it must be external. The only ethical system that is definitively external is Divine Command Theory (DCT). DCT is the understanding that all moral and ethical duties and responsibilities come from a divine source and are obligatory. Laws require a lawmaker, and a lawmaker can only make laws within their jurisdiction. As the Creator of the universe, making moral laws is well within God’s right and jurisdiction.
All other ethical and moral systems are considered or most likely to be internal to humans and thus, subjective. What you will see progressive thinkers do in an attempt to make moral values objective, when they are in fact subjective, is to claim the size of the group, logic, flourishing, goodness, or practicality is what makes something good or bad. No matter the size of a group, it’s still a group of humans and therefore internal. If the goodness or badness of an act is based on logic and reasoning, it’s still done in a human mind and therefore internal. If human flourishing is the basis for morality, who is it deciding what constitutes flourishing? A human, internal again. Hitler, the Third Reich and German people believed the elimination of Jews, Gypsies, handicapped, and homosexuals would lead to human flourishing. If goodness is the standard, who decides what is good? Do you see the point? Ultimately, all other ethical systems are internal to humans and relative.
Morality is one area progressives confuse subjective truth as objective truth, and standpoint epistemology, which is part of Critical Theory (CT) is another common example. Standpoint epistemology is the understanding that truth can be established by someone’s location on the social intersectionality grid. Somehow, the more oppressed someone is, their oppression gives them better access to truth and knowledge. These stories from oppressed individuals are given objective status, while being fully subjective. How can black men who grew up in poverty like Larry Elder, Walter Williams, and Thomas Sowell arrive at opposite conclusions from similar black men like Jesse Jackson, and Al Sharpton? Because all experience is filtered through a human mind which is the definition of subjective. Not even the stories any of these men may tell can be considered truly objective because they can’t get out of their own heads to see the entirety of the circumstances.
Don’t Be Confused
Another maneuver progressives like to use when talking to conservatives about truth is changing the circumstances. Here’s what you need to remember so you don’t get confused. 1) In any set of given circumstances there is an objective good or bad, or in the case of a moral dilemma a better or worse choice. 2) The other thing you need to remember is less evil, is always a moral good.
Here’s an example. Telling a lie or not telling the truth is morally wrong. True. What your progressive friend might do in an attempt to show moral truth is subjective or relative is ask you if lying to save someone’s life is wrong. Of course the answer is yes, it’s okay to lie to save someone’s life, or feelings. What they’ve done is change the circumstances to create a dilemma. Let’s apply the two things we need to remember. Obviously, they’ve added more context to the situation thus changing the mortal imperative. But, if we keep in mind the moral hierarchy. Lying is much lower on the immorality scale than murder. If less evil is always a moral good, lying in that set of circumstances is always good. Lying isn’t subjective or relative, it’s circumstantial. Lying to save yourself from negative consequences is wrong, but lying to spare someone’s feelings may be okay. Just ask any married man who’s been asked the question, “Does this dress look okay?”
Here’s another, more complicated example. Progressives love to claim the founding fathers of America were racist because they owned slaves and didn’t outlaw slavery from the very beginning of the United States. In an absolute sense we all agree treating another human being as property is wrong. When we consider the times, culture, norms, and circumstances we can understand in a much deeper way how the founding fathers approached slavery. They knew from the beginning slavery was wrong, that’s why the phrase, “that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness…”. Including those words as the basis for the founding of our country gave us the footing to eventually end slavery in our country. Is slavery evil, yes. But codifying human value and dignity in our founding documents and having a long term plan to end that evil is a moral good. Consider these facts:
- The United States was the second country in the world to outlaw the importation of slaves from Africa only 31 years after its founding,
- The United States was the fifth country to outlaw slavery in 1865
- The only country to fight a civil war to end slavery. Over 600,000 people died to end slavery in the U.S.
None of this makes slavery subjective or relative, all this means is we must consider the circumstances and ultimate outcomes before declaring the objectivity or lack thereof of an action.
Let’s conclude the discussion of objective and subjective truth and facts with an illustration. Quite often you’ll hear a progressive thinker use the story of the blind men and the elephant to illustrate the validity of “Your truth.” In the tale, several blind men encounter an elephant for the first time and try to describe it by touching different parts of its body. One touches the trunk and says the elephant is like a snake. Another feels the leg and claims it’s like a tree. A third touches the side and insists it’s like a wall. Another grabs the tail and thinks it’s like a rope, and so on. Each man is convinced his description is correct and argues with the others, unaware that they’re all describing different aspects of the same animal. Although this is offered as an illustration of “your truth” they fail to realize the actual moral of the story is the existence of an objective, external observer can see the actual truth.
Understand:
- Characteristics of objective truth: Universal, verifiable, independent, external, observable, and obligatory.
- Characteristics of subjective truth: Individual, variable, dependent, internal, experiential, optional.
- Grounding is how you identify and justify the foundation for truth, ethics, obligations and values.
- Grounding can either be external or internal
- The statement, “truth doesn’t exist.” Is self-refuting, and commits suicide. When you apply the claim to itself, the claim is false.
- Different circumstances may dictate the objectivity of truth. That doesn’t mean the truth is subjective, it means it’s circumstantial.
- Less evil is always a moral good.
Articulate (questions for your progressive friends):
- Do you know the difference between objective and subjective truth?
- If truth doesn’t exist or is unknowable, then how do I know if that statement is true?
- How can I independently verify that?
- If we can trace the foundation of a moral truth back to a human mind, doesn’t that make it subjective?
- If morality is subjective, why am I obligated to follow it?
- Why should we give more credibility to one human’s experience over another’s?
- Is it a consensus or majority that makes something right or wrong?
Defend (by asking questions):
- Wouldn’t it be better to have objective truth as the basis for moral and ethical beliefs?
- Doesn’t using objective truth as the foundation for beliefs make more sense?
- Can you see how basing truth on popularity, power, or practicality leads to abuse?