Skip navigation

Most people have heard this phrase before, “it’s all relative.”  Consider these few examples.  What’s suffering to one person may not be suffering to another person; in other words, suffering is relative.  What’s materialistic to one person, may not be materialistic to another person; in other words, materialism is relative.  What’s a human person to you is not a human person to me; in other words, one’s membership in the human family is relative (Peter Singer, a leading bioethicist at Princeton, would be an interesting case study here).  What’s poor to one person may not be poor to another person; in other words, poverty is relative.  One can cite many examples.  However, we run into difficulties when we say, what’s truth to one person may not be truth to another person.  Think about the worst case scenario: if every person embraced and practiced their own version of truth, what kind of world would this be?  In this world, someone may say, what’s rape for you is not rape for me or what’s domestic abuse for you is not domestic abuse for me.  In this world, someone may say, what’s lying or cheating for you is not lying or cheating for me.  Is this what we want: a world in which a basis for truth or right and wrong is relative? 

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: