The Absolute Truth

                            

The trouble with absolutes is that they're absolute. There are no exceptions. And it's hard not to temper your beliefs with reality and changed circumstances.  Despite that though, I'm an absolutist.

That's a difficult concept. And it's difficult for a variety of unrelated reasons. Most are based on the idea – one widely held – that there are no absolutes. Some people believe there's no such thing as an absolute. All values are relative: all are based on the preferences of different cultures.ⁱ And truth is whatever a particular society considers it to be.ⁱⁱ What some consider moral others would view as immoral; and there may be a lack of concurrence on truth, with many arguing that there are relative truths and degrees of truth. So different groups should have different standards for right and wrong. And, indeed, they do.

But they all accept the view that there is a “Right” and a “Wrong.” The taboos of incest and homosexuality may be common, however conceding that such ideas are not universal, everyone believes that murder is wrong. Even if you accept the concept of absolutes though, agreement with others breaks down in the areas of definition and interpretation. And right and wrong depend on those foundations – foundations which vary according to time and place.ⁱⁱⁱ That's where cultural differences arise.

In addition, there are political differences which regulate our views. If murder is wrong, is capital punishment permissible? What about abortion? And self-defense? Among other areas, there is an overlap of philosophy, science, and culture in relation to such questions. (Similarly there are arguments regarding many other issues, such as one we view as sacred –“freedom of speech.” Liberal groups, like the ACLU, see this as an absolute “right”^iv while others cannot consider it without evaluating the context. The “Patriot Act,” for example, is, in their view, an appropriate response to danger.)

Yet we all accept the idea that there are such things as right and wrong. So that view must come from somewhere. But where?

For many, the Bible provides the “final word” on the subject.^v There are problems with this explanation, though. Many societies are outside of the community that follows biblical teaching, with holy books and concepts of their own, and many individuals consider all religion to be mistaken. They may still believe in right and wrong, though. More important, however, even if the Bible contains truths and absolutes written by G-d, it was proofread and interpreted by humans.^vi So if, at the time of Babel, societies were separated by language, it is reasonable to expect that their understandings of what we consider basic premises would also be different.

Some people, including biblical personalities and interpreters, focus on an individual's intent as a tool to determine whether what he has said or done was right. This is exemplified in a talmudic story about a debate between the houses of Hillel and Shammai. While in that debate both argued sincerely and strongly for a particular position, in the end a voice from heaven announced that “The law is according to the House of Hillel,” but “These and these [the arguments of both] are the words of the living G-d.”^vii There may have been an absolute, but those who were wrong weren't necessarily “wrong.” Because of their intent, even though they disagreed, because they had argued “for the sake of heaven”^viii both were right.

But the idea that good intent justifies all thoughts and acts leads to the conclusion that what most people would view as evil is “right,” if their perpetrators are convinced of their own virtue. And that cannot be the case. Too many arguments, injustices, and killings take place between parties convinced of the morality of their cause.

The idea of evolution suggests a different, and, perhaps, better answer. Many of the actions of members of the animal kingdom are based on instinct; they are taken without conscious consideration but are helpful to the individual or the species. Whether dealing with the protection of offspring, the following of migration paths, avoiding danger, finding sustenance, or something else, these actions are taken rapidly and, apparently, without thought. Somehow or other they must be coded into our genes – for we humans have them too. Perhaps we call it “intuition” or a “hunch,” but it is difficult to support on rational grounds even though we may be convinced that it is right. Most believers in the truth of the Bible, followers of other religious traditions, and atheists agree, for example, that there is a responsibility to help those in need. There may be disagreement on the means by which such a result might be achieved, but there is agreement on the goal.

And more and more evidence is being adduced that our acts on behalf of others are genetically determined. They're in our DNA. We're controlled by an “altruism gene.”^ix And that raises additional questions. If there is such a gene, are there alleles and mutations? When someone says “the Devil made me do it,” or G-d ordained it, is he correct? That, of course, depends on your views of evolution and religion. But, once again, most of us believe that we have a responsibility to help those less fortunate. It's absolute – even if we disagree on the details.

Yes. There are absolutes. But, as I said, that's a difficult concept. And the bigger problem for me is that although I believe in absolutes, I don't know what they are. No one does. For the time being we're stuck with the need to compromise our relative values to achieve some kind of peace and cooperation. Perhaps this (and further evolution) will bring us closer to the “Truth.”

Next episode: “The Amoeba And The Oak Tree” – How do you rate them?

i     For many there is the view that we all have “natural rights” and that these cannot be taken away. In the American experience we find these as the “unalienable rights” mentioned in the Declaration of Independence. But they do not come from Thomas Jefferson or John Locke. What are they and where do they come from? They're rights we're all supposed to have. How do these “rights” relate to religion or are they human creations? Do we all agree on them? Are they absolute? And who (or Who) enforces those rights, and how?

ii    See “1984” by George Orwell.

iii    Noah was said to be “righteous in his time.” Whether that means that the standards of his time were different from those of another period can be debated, but the fact that the praise is ambiguous indicated some change in criteria from time to time.

iv    It was suggested earlier (see note i above) that “rights” come from somewhere, so it is reasonable to consider whether this is a divine right or one created by humans.

v     As well as many other issues.

vi    It also contains copying errors and differences in versions, especially in the Talmud. In fact there are conscious changes and word additions based on the premise that a particular statement is true irrespective of other text that might bring it into question.

vii    Babylonian Talmud, Eruvin, 13b.

viii    Babylonian Talmud, Avot, 5:17.

ix    See http://io9.com/5859786/is-this-the-altruism-gene. There are many similar articles and blogs, all pointing to some kind of genetic predisposition to help others. Although it seems reasonable from an evolutionary standpoint that the purpose of such a gene would be the benefit of the species, humans who are altruistic may devote themselves to other species as well as other people.