There are two types of truth: That which is relative to the individual and that which is absolute for the group. All persons being equal, individuals should never impose relative truth by coercion or force. Instead, it should be shared through persuasion where the recipient of such truth retains the liberty to accept or reject this truth, thus suffering the penalties of rejecting it by consequence (if there be any penalties) rather than having penalties imposed by force. However, absolute truths that govern the group should be sought after and employed by force in their concrete manifestation through the Law. The penalties of non-observance of absolute truths would result either in tyranny or chaos through the empowerment of relative truths. What is absolute truth? Relative truth changes from person to person and it becomes an exercise in determining which relative truths are equally shared by the group and whether these shared values are indeed absolute. A person can test a truth as to its relativity or to its absoluteness by asking a simple question: Does this principle or truth increase the liberty of all individuals mutually? If it does, then it is an absolute truth. Therefore, absolute truth is defined as any principle that increases the liberty and freedom of all persons mutually while infringing upon the liberty and freedom of none. What are the penalties of rejecting absolute truth that is employed to assure the greatest liberty for all people mutually? It is the opposite: Ignorance and slavery Individuality as a blessing, begs the question, 'Doesn't an absolute truth destroy individuality by imposing conformity?' I argue that an individual does not exist if he is not free or if he is not relevant. It is argued that absolute truth (represented in the LAW) destroys individuality because it allegedly destroys freedom. But this is not true. The Law, when observed, preserves freedom and individuality. It is only when the Law is neglected that freedom and individuality are lost. Again, the definition of absolute truth is that which maximizes the liberty and freedom of all persons mutually while infringing on the liberty and freedom of none. Absolute Truth, then, destroys not freedom, but licentiousness and tyranny. Let us use an example: When laws are erected, they are so to govern human behavior. I think any person will agree that it is an absolute truth that persons who kill, rape, plunder, and steal should in one way or another be punished (while they may differ upon the punishment.) We enact laws to assign punishments to those who break these absolute truths because such license infringes upon the liberty of others. In this instance, observing these absolute truths makes individuals free while ignoring and breaking them makes individuals slaves. Those who remain free can continue their individuality and the exercising of their freedom. Individuality is not lost by discovering absolute truth, it is preserved and even increased. As for those who fail to observe these absolute truths, they are enslaved and their individuality lost because they seek to destroy the individuality of others. What do you mean by the LAW? By the Law, I mean the concrete manifestation of abstract principles, whether relative or absolute, through voluntary means. Absolute truth would mean that there is a 'right' and a 'wrong'. Aren't 'right' and 'wrong' subjective terms? As demonstrated above, if there is no 'right' or 'wrong' or if they are merely relative and subjective, then the person who rapes, murders, and steals is doing no wrong and the person who loves, cares, and is kind is doing nothing 'right'. If there is to be order, there must be law (i.e., right and wrong). Right and Wrong must exist if man is to increase his freedom and individuality. However, the urge to liberate oneself from the Law is to indulge to excess one's liberty. This would have the effect of restricting the liberty of others in order to disproportionately maximize your own. A murderer left to murder restricts the liberty and freedom of the victim in order to maximize his own freedom to shed blood. What if the Law represents not absolute truth but the relative truth of individuals or of a group? When judging Laws, we apply the test given above for absolute truths: Does this law increase or decrease the liberty and freedom of all individuals mutually? If it does not, then it is a law based not on the absolute, but on a faction's or individual's relative beliefs. When relative truths are encapsulated in the Law, it has the effect of either promoting licentiousness or promoting tyranny (one not necessarily being different than the other). If licentiousness is promoted in the Law, then chaos ensues and the individuality of persons is rendered irrelevant. If coercion is promoted in the Law, then tyranny ensues and the individuality of persons is squashed under conformity. Many today believe that liberty is license and that morality is unimportant or irrelevant. Licentiousness, or freedom without moral restraint, leads to chaos; and chaos to tyranny; and tyranny to the abolition of liberty. The Law, which is intended to be a concrete manifestation of moral principles or absolute truths, provides the necessary restraint to prevent chaos and tyranny. However, the Law itself may become tyrannical or licentious if used to encapsulate principles that are relative, either by requiring or allowing that which is immoral and unrighteous (wrong). Should the Law ever fail to provide the moral restraint necessary to safeguard liberty, the individual must provide that restraint in oneself if he desires to retain his freedom. Should the Law ever require that which is immoral or unrighteous (wrong), the people will most undoubtedly have allowed it because of their own immorality and unrighteousness. What is the difference between 'compelling righteousness' and 'punishing wickedness'? The difference between compelling righteousness and punishing wickedness is the preemption of conscience and ones ability to commit sin. Where the act is allowed in the latter and punished, thereby giving the benefit of the doubt that one might repent of his criminal plans or thoughts, that act is prohibited in the former by imposing punishment for mere crime of conscience rather than the act itself, or what has come to be popularly known as pre-crime, pre-emption, or thought crime. How would you summarize the effects of absolute and relative truths as represented in Law upon individuality, liberty, and freedom? When absolute truth prevails in the Law, individuality is preserved or destroyed according to the will of the individual to observe or transgress the Law respectively. No other has any say in the preservation or loss of individuality other than the individual. When relative truth prevails in the Law, individuality is destroyed, either in conformity of conscience under a tyranny or the insignificance of conscience in chaos. The purpose of Absolute Truth, therefore, is to prevent relative truth from prevailing against the individuality and liberty of the people, that they be made not robots or rendered irrelevant. It is only when the people, as individuals, transgress Absolute Truths, that they forsake willingingly their individuality and freedom.
This was quite confusing to read, because it seems you are using the word truth to mean what most people woud call law.
Why anarchy fails
AJ, I thought he was using truth to mean morality! Absolute truth just seems synonymous with objective morality and relative truth with subjective morality.
In which case the essay could be summarised as "We need an objective morality enacted in law in order to promote social cooperation" Is that accurate?
All persons being equal, individuals should never impose relative truth by coercion or force.
So you mean we ought or should not impose relative truth? Doesn't that seem like an absolute?
You're equivocating on truth in this entire essay. You're not talking about truth; you're talking about utility, or some kind of utilitarianism.
AJ,
JohnnyFive is correct. We need an objective morality enacted in law. I have defined "objective morality" as, none other than, the Non-Agression Principle. The Law, then, would eliminate the "necessity" of the State.
MrSchnapps,
I am talking about truth. I am not equivocating, but equating truth to the NAP. When the NAP is concretely manifested in the LAW, then, and only then, will absolute truth prevail.
Unfortunately, some believe that Law hinders individuality. I merely demonstrate that Law does not hinder individuality, rather promotes it, so long as the Law represents the non-agression principle. It is this lack of understand that so many are either unwillinging to give up the State or too willing to give up Law/Order. There are some that equate morality/Law/order with the State and in an attempt to ditch the State, they necessarily must ditch morality. My essay demonstrates that it is not necessary to ditch morality to ditch the State. Law/Order/Morality does not necessarily equate to STATISM.