Subjective v. Objective Truth

Subjective v. Absolute Truth

by John P. Middleton

Sept. 2013

“In his wonderful book "Simulacra & Simulation” Jean Baudrillard posits that reality is no longer relevant, and that our perception has become the new reality. 

The old Platonic paradigm stated that our perception was like a map that was drawn full size across the world, the edges of the map rotting and decaying above reality.  Mr. Baudrillard's theory is that this has changed to where now the map is whole and the edges of reality are slowly decaying.  Power, money, politics, even religion and science have become simulacra’s of the truth, idols that we worship rather than the real items.  Our current monetary system is based not on gold or precious metals, but on whether or not people believe it has value.  Our political system is a shell of its former self, with both parties becoming caricatures of what they once were.  Even music has succumbed to this, most popular music representing caricatures and stereotypes rather than real people or cultures.  We look back to a past that never really existed as the "good ole days" that we should return to. To paraphrase an old Zen koan, there is no truth, and it is all around us.”  ---David Atkins-2013

The question of whether “Truth” is Subjective or Objective has severe implications for the future of our species. 

In the most recent seven decades the idea of an “Absolute” truth, (“God’s” Truth, if you don’t mind the phrase, or Supernal Truth, if you do) has been under great attack.  It manifests itself in any number of ways that I will not enumerate, but phrases such “That’s my perception” or “That’s my reality” or That’s the way I see it”, while potentially, “wrong” are also “true”. 

The morality of mankind (choosing right from wrong), is based on the concept of our truth, subjective truth only.  But that does not make our perception, our subjective truth, objectively “Right” or “Real” or “True”.

After much deliberation and research I have taken the position that Objective Truth does exist. It is independent and has no agenda, “Natural Law” might be an example.  However, I must also affirm Subjective Truth exists and is the limitation of all human and sentient beings.

Consider Schroedinger’s Cat, which pays tribute to the paradox Schrödinger proposed in 1935 in the following theoretical experiment.

A cat is placed in a steel box along with a Geiger counter, a vial of poison, a hammer, and a radioactive substance. When the radioactive substance decays, the Geiger detects it and triggers the hammer to release the poison, which subsequently kills the cat. The radioactive decay is a random process, and there is no way to predict when it will happen. Physicists say the “cat” exists in a state known as a superposition—its atoms both decayed and not decayed at the same time.

Until the box is opened, an observer doesn't know whether the cat is alive or dead—because the cat's fate is intrinsically tied to whether or not the atom has decayed and the cat would, as Schrödinger put it, be "living and dead ... in equal parts" until it is observed. 

In other words, until the box was opened, the cat's state is completely unknown and therefore, the cat is considered to be both alive and dead at the same time until it is observed.

"If you put the cat in the box, and if there's no way of saying what the cat is doing, you have to treat it as if it's doing all of the possible things—being living and dead—at the same time," explains Eric Martell, an associate professor of physics and astronomy at Millikin University. "If you try to make predictions and you assume you know the status of the cat, you're [probably] going to be wrong. If, on the other hand, you assume it's in a combination of all of the possible states that it can be, you'll be correct."

Upon looking at the cat, an observer would immediately know if the cat was alive or dead and the "superposition" of the cat—the idea that it was in both states—would collapse into either the knowledge that "the cat is alive" or "the cat is dead," but no longer both.

What Schrödinger was illustrating with the cat paradox, Martell says, was "In any physical system, without observation, you cannot say what something is doing," says Martell. "You have to say it can be any of these things it can be doing—even if the probability is small.”

However, our observation is only required to discern the cat is EITHER dead or alive. There is no objective third state of dead-aliveness possible. A “real” state of dead-aliveness can never be observed because it has no objective existence. It is a mathematical or scientific distinction to discern further absolute truth.  The reality, the absolute truth, is that the cat is either dead or alive. Our inability to determine the state of the cat without observation does not change the “either-or” reality. There is no possible natural/objective state of dead-aliveness, despite its mathematical use.

Objective truth, therefore, must exist even if we cannot see it or are “forbidden” to see it from our human condition. 

If we are forced to define the difference between Objective or Subjective truth it would be something like the following;

Subjective:  characteristic of or belonging to reality as perceived rather than as independent of perception.

Objective:  of, relating to, or being an object, phenomenon, or condition independent of individual thought, independent of perception by all or even most observers: having reality independent of the mind.

I am reminded of the United States Constitution which states “we hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal”…..created in a land where women, slaves and others were considered non-worthy of equality or voting rights.  It was an attempt at objective truth in its conception, but subjective truth in its reality and use.

The “Axiom” of “First Principle” according to Aristotle, are self-evident points, demonstrating their existence without proof.   For example Rene Descartes famous, “I Think therefore I am”, proves you exist even if someone told you did not exist, you would still have to think about your existence, therefore proving the one who told you did not exist is wrong.

This proves two points in the search for Truth.

Existence (To be aware of yourself proves existence)

                 Reason  (To think about yourself proves reason)

We can logically conclude we exist and we can have reasoned thought about our existence.

The implications of this Objective-Subjective distinction in moral philosophy are enormous. What is “right” and what is “wrong” if we can’t absolutely determine it, but know it absolutely, objectively, exists? We know “right” objectively exists, don’t we? I would conclude “yes”, but can we ever “know” it!  Absolute Truth appears to belong to a power beyond humankind
.

The Law of Non-Contradiction: (LNC)(A is not non-A)   states that opposite truth claims cannot both be true. For example if an atheist believes God does not exist and a theist believes God does exist, it is impossible for both to be right.  (This does not question the “Form of God”, for example, Spinoza or classical theist, only the fact or non-fact of God’s existence).

Another example of how the Law of Non-Contradiction works, is If someone were to say, “there is no such thing as absolute truth, and the above quoted LNC is meaningless”, he has done two things. First, he has assumed that his view is true as opposed to false, and thus he uses the LNC (which of course, implies that the LNC has meaning, because his view is assumed to be meaningful). Second, he has violated the LNC by suggesting that there is no such thing as absolute truth while at the same time  and in the same sense insisting there is such a thing as absolute truth—The truth of his own view. By doing so, he automatically validates the Law of Non-contradiction.

The Law of Excluded Middle: (Either A or non-A) This asserts that it is either A or non-A but not both. God cannot exist and not exist. In other words, there is no middle ground, opposites cannot be the same, nothing can hide in the “cracks” between being and not being, not even Schroedinger’s cat or God or a ghost, despite our inability to see them.

The Law of Identity (and Language): (A is A) This law simply states that something is what we say it is: A is A. When someone says, “I loved the book” it is understood to mean a “Book”.  Without the law of identity, there would be chaos and language would be incoherent.

Using these basic laws of rational thought, we can examine the logic of certain truth claims, such as, when is Truth objective or subjective?  Can we find absolute truth? Probably not, due to our limited perception. But is truth ultimately objective….YES!!!!! Science and the scientific method affirm the existence of absolute truth. 


Since we cannot prove the existence of electricity (Absolute Truth) and it is, therefore, still scientific “theory” does not mean it cannot exist absolutely.  Therefore our experiments are to prove the “wrongness” of theories about electricity in order to be left with only the absolute truth which we cannot yet “know”. We suspect electricity exists and can use it even if we cannot prove its existence.

When we examine something like the Holocaust and question the “wrongness” and the “rightness” of the event, we are confronted with the basis for what makes humans wrong and what makes humans right. “Rightness” of behavior can never be objective because all human ethics and morality are situational. Only the outcome can determine “righteousness” and often not perfectly.

Is abortion wrong?

What if the mother is ten years old?

What if the mother is ten years old and the birth will kill the mother?

What if the mother is ten years old and the birth will kill the mother and the child will be born hopelessly deformed?

What if the mother is ten years old and the birth will kill the mother and the child will be born hopelessly deformed and society will have to pay for the child’s care forever?

What if the mother is ten years old and the birth will kill the mother and the child will be born hopelessly deformed and society will have to pay for the child’s care forever and the child’s father was a sociopath-with inherited genes for violence?

And so forth……. Abortion is wrong only in certain situations. We cannot say it is absolutely wrong because we have no ability to perceive absolute truth unless we have a burning bush speaking to us in our garage. There will always be situations when it may appear “right” to abort.

Another example of relative truth is “thou shalt not murder.”

                How about when I am a soldier in war?

                What about self defense?

                Capital punishment?

Therefore, the “objective” truth may be that murder is wrong, but, for humans, the situational ethic either adds or subtracts from that truth.  In certain situations murder appears more right than wrong to humans. But the outcome determines the value. The Amish, for example, take the position that all violence is absolutely wrong and live by that “absolute” code. Most of us do not see that clearly or that absolutely.  Are the Amish “right”?  Yes, for the Amish; but not for those of us who would defend ourselves against someone attacking our family and feel absolutely right in doing so. The objective truth is  less clear to us. The Amish have settled on what is "absolute" using their small database but a "societal" understanding of Truth.

Another example of absolute truth might be the color Red.  Red exists. We know it.  We see it, we measure its waves; we can view it in light terms the human eye cannot see. In wave form it exists absolutely as a specific wave among other waves. But I, if afflicted with certain genetic mutations, may be color blind to Red.  That does NOT abrogate its value or condition.  It means my view of absoluteness is flawed for some reason. For me, the condition Red is totally subjective. However, I should not deny its existence, as I can probably still see it, but only as some weird brown shade. Someone will attempt to correct my perception before I am three years old. The color exists but I cannot see it as it should be seen by MOST ALL of us! My perception is bound by subjective awareness, as would be the person who sees “red” as a heavy pink, or shade of copper.

The fact that we humans are only able to deal in subjective truth does not mean there is no objective truth (perhaps perfection) to strive for. In fact, the existence of absolute truth gives meaning to our lives.

Similar to the painter or the scientist who is not satisfied until his painting or experiment reveals a new, more perfect perspective, we are bound to struggle toward what seems to be unattainable goals.  That is the human condition.

I have often heard Christian minister’s claim “perfection in Christ” is an obtainable goal, an allegation to which I have always scoffed. My, perhaps erroneous, claim was that humans could never be “perfect”. I will cling to that statement knowing what I know about “old souls”, like Mother Theresa, who, despite her apparent near human perfection, revealed doubts, concerns, frustration and defeat in her letters.  Despite a lifetime of selfless service to others, she was not perfect or “absolute” in her own eyes under any circumstance.  

This inability for humans to attain Objective Truth or perfection, renders us the victim of situational ethics.  We can never say, “This is the only way”; nor “God wants this”; nor “only my condition or religion or belief structure, is acceptable to God or Mankind.”

The individual is, therefore, a flawed arbiter of truth or worth.

For moral philosophy, how do we as human beings then proceed to make moral decisions knowing there is an absolute value and truth but being unable to apply it in all situations or even specific situations?

Our morality cannot be based on societal standards, due to the vast differences in subjective truth in each specific society. What is “right” for the Nazi’s “society” was not “right” for the Jewish society.

We know, for example, that harming another human being violates some basic cosmic code of absolute truth. Our issue is “am I justified in doing it?”

For me, subjectively, and I believe objectively, the answer must be that we must apply both “Love” and “Do the least harm”. These are the only standards that can apply to moral righteousness. Any other standard fails in testing. Joseph Fletcher promulgated these concepts in his book “Situational Ethics”.

Similar to the Scientific method of inquiry, since we cannot know “absolute” truth, we must use the measuring stick that we generally believe gets us as close as possible to what “Absolute Truth” or “God” would like or what would be best in a comic sense. The preservation of my family from the aggressor, however, renders me in a position of applying love for my family, but clearly not love for the aggressor. This is our sad dilemma. This is our human limitation. Any standard other than Love and Do the least Harm falls short in its value and method of inquiry. But even “love and do the least harm” are not perfect tools. Ask anyone who survived Hiroshima.

The conclusion must then be that any position we hold that does not exhibit love or harms another must be avoided OR justified, and our result will be subjective.

“Love thy neighbor” was Jesus Christ’s greatest commandment. It is unlimited compassion in, perhaps, its finest expression yet echoed, or preceded, by others;

RABBI Hillel- ---What is hateful to yourself do not do to your fellow man.

Mohammed----One cannot be a believer until he wishes for others what he wishes for himself.

Confucious and Mozi his disciple---Others must be regarded like the self and this love must be all embracing and exclude nobody.

How are the religions of the world doing with that?  Not well.  But it is still, apparently to most of us, both subjective AND (what we believe to be) probable Objective truth.  One cannot often perceive of any situation where doing harm to another is desirable. But what if a GREATER GOOD IS SERVED? Would the assassination of Adolph Hitler in 1933 have served objective truth, or God or society?  I would answer, yes!

The concept of Greater Good, however, is a slippery slope. It asks the question of what happens when six of us are in the hospital waiting for a transplant.  One needs a kidney, one a lung, one a heart, etc. when in walks a healthy 25 year old for a checkup.  Do we slay him and harvest his organs in a quest for the greatest good for the greatest number? I would venture most of us would not. But my opinion is subjective.

While I believe the greatest good is a worthy goal in a quest for absolute truth, “situationally” it must apply to conditions that make subjective sense and are viewed by the results. Would the murder of Hitler be justifiable?  Possibly. But would the slaying of the 25 year old? Never!

My foregoing situational (perhaps flawed and maybe only shared by me) truth is that the assassination in the first case, Hitler, may have saved millions of lives whereas the second case only serves a few who do harm for only selfish purposes. Is it a perfect solution?  Is it pleasing to any higher authority or even society? I cannot know, but it is my solution under the circumstances given me and with hindsight as to what transpired. The Amish would certainly disagree. I must then live with that subjective truth in the hopes it gets us as close to perfection as possible. I have applied love and did the least harm in the best way I am capable despite the fact that harm, in the Hitler case was done. if Absolute Truth did not exist, our highest measure of truth is societal. As mentioned before, societal truth is deeply flawed and the secular humanist has a quandary.

It is the JUSTIFICATION of our actions, as in the case of the family aggressor where the most harm can be done. I am reminded of wars that perhaps could have been avoided by cooler heads or diplomacy. I would avow that war is ABSOLUTELY wrong but sometimes necessary subjectively.

 The murderer, standing outside the abortion clinic door, wielding his weapon and killing anyone who works there is an example of a case where the perpetrator feels subjectively that he or she is ABSOLUTELY doing the right thing (and often in the name of God). Most of us would say that subjectively AND objectively there are both better solutions to be tried and the perpetrator is delusional in thinking he acts on God’s behalf (unless there is the garaged burning bush available).

What do we do? Aristotle suggested until we see the results of our choices we cannot determine rightness or wrongness. The moral efficacy of an action can only be determined by the result, by the potentially ABSOLUTE result.

This is where objective and subjective truth converge for the human being.  What is the objective result of my subjective action? For the abortion clinic killer he/she may have saved some potential babies, but at what cost of misery, suffering and death? Objectively and subjectively the result is unacceptable.  The same paradigm applies to the religious suicide bomber.  His cause may have some validity but the unacceptable result of his actions invalidate the causes worth.

Absolute truth exists and is absolute. Subjective truth exists but is limited to this world, to the individual.

 What tool can we employ to have our subjective action result in the best objective result.

The only real tool we have is “Love and Do the Least Harm” which is what Christ and other holy men/women have suggested, but which we perceive subjectively.
 
 When we see the result of our choices we can re-evaluate and reposition our goals. While we can never agree in advance as to what is absolute or perfect truth, it is probable that any action that violates those two concepts Love and Do the Least Harm are, at least partially, flawed.  It is a result of subjective action that harms someone. The degree of harm, the closeness to Absolute Truth, God’s Truth, can only be determined by the outcome which, while subjective, should become much more (objectively?) obvious. In other words, in viewing the result, accord, among other people may be more possible. If the majority of the world, not my society, sees an action as I do, it is probably valid. If they do not, it is pretty clearly invalid.

If only subjective truth exists then I, individually, am the decider of truth, worth and behavior’s goodness.  This is unacceptable. We must be accountable to some higher goal or purpose than what I think.

What do YOU think?