Right now I am taking a basic philosophy class through University of Maryland online. I really love philosophy I do, but this class is not the kind of philosophy I was thinking about. In this class we talk about stuff like does feminism provide a positive direction for society, is prostitution immoral, should pornography be allowed. These are just examples of the topics usually covered in the class. I know you are thinking "these are great topics to take a stand on what could be the problem". For me the problem begins when the other students in the class say "I have the right to watch whatever I want I am an American, no one can tell me different" this they say to pornography. (never considering there responsibility as adults and parents to raise healthy children) Then with prostitution the answer is "Prostitution is horrible, the human body is something special not meant to be sold. When I have sex with my significant other it is something very special and private". What normally follows every post are these words....."But this is just my opinion, not saying I am right, after all who am I to judge what is right and wrong for another person". The problem is that very few of my class mates have a sure stance on anything. How can I determine what is truth using the preliminary requirements used to determine whether or not a statement is meaningful such as (1) logical consistency (2) empirical adequacy and (3) experiential relevance when we have no common point of reference. The fact is I cannot..... They claim the intrinsic right to view pornography on one hand than on the other claim how sacred the act of sex is between two adults and how wrong it is for someone to sell there body for money are completely contradictory. When I approach this issue using the set requirements for any philosophical view such as the Law of non-contradiction. I am told that I should not pass judgment on others who am I to say what is right for another person. Thus affirming the Law of noncontradiction. The fact is that each of us, implicitly or explicitly, lives by certain precommitted principles that are considered to be the nonnegotiables of life. We do not just arbitrarily believe everything we hear, but consciously or unconsciously, test propositions to determine their truth of falsehood. Once a proposition has been tested and proven to be true, we may choose to ignore the ramifications that follow, but we can no longer question it's veracity. Unless of course all truth is subject to the opinion of the individual, although we may not agree we are certainly in no position to say they are wrong! Augh! We have denied all absolutes and eradicated all points of reference with which to test truth. We have enterered into terra incognita on matters of the greatest importance even for survival.
I am really at a loss here as to what to say... How can I defend a position where there is nothing to defend besides my own opinion? Which is no better or no worse than Charles Manson's. Yes I said Charles Manson and I use him as an extreme measure....But those of you who hold to subjectivism go ahead and apply your system of noncommitment of truth and you will see you have no grounds from which to judge a man like Charles Manson. Sure you can say the law's of the land but then we must question how each individual interprets those laws. Can we condemn them for a wrong evaluation of the law? If I am wrong in my conclusions please rebuke me, but do so using some system of logical argumentation. I think anymore subjectivism and I will be sick. I want to go off on the exclusive claims inherent in all belief systems even those like Hinduism which are "all embracing" but I will leave that for another day. Oh! By the way I had a good day today just exasperated at the use of absolute claims in order to deny absolutes. Just some thoughts be Blessed...........Keep the Son in your eyes! James