Following up on the post about self-referential incoherence, a quick discussion on the benefits of truth claims is needed. One such benefit is condemnation. Condemnation is a truth claim that expresses strong disapproval and in some cases a sentence of punishment. It presupposes a standard of behavior or beliefs that is approvable, right, and true. However, without the acceptance of objective truth, condemnation of certain beliefs or acts is unintelligible and useless.
To demonstrate this point, here is a short list of things or people you can’t condemn when you believe,
“there is no such thing as truth.”
1.
Racists.
Sorry, racism
isn’t wrong in a world without objective truth claims.
2.
Nazis. Beaten
dead horse.
3.
Donald
Trump. Hate everything the Donald has ever said? Or think he is a sexist,
racist, patriarchal pig? Congratulations, you believe in some objective truths.
4.
Traditional
Gender Norms. An appeal to truth is necessary to affirm gender fluid theory
and denounce gender
assignment at birth.
5.
Communists.
Their crimes are curiously less advertised than the Nazis, but the commies take
home the gold in body count.
6.
Third
World Hunger.
7.
Rapists.
Yikes. I would hate to be the guy that argues that rape is not wrong because, “truth doesn’t exist.” That’s how you get your teeth punched in friend.
8.
Barack
Obama. On a list of things that need to be condemned, drone striking a hospital
should be on there.
9.
Pedophiles.
Love has no labels?
10.
Carbon
Emissions.
11.
Mid-video
advertisements on YouTube. If this one doesn’t convince you, I don’t know
what will.
This list does not prove that these people/things are worthy
of condemnation. Nor does it attempt to prove that moral truth claims exist. Rather, the list shows that
condemnation is useful, popular, and only possible when the condemner accepts the existence of
truth. Anything else is hypocrisy.
No comments:
Post a Comment